Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Neil Gerrard (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 9 May 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on UK Borders Bill.


UK Borders Bill

I want to comment briefly on the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), which is about people obtaining information. There are good reasons why we have data protection legislation and why third parties are not normally given access to information under that legislation. In general, it is right that the legislation applies. I am familiar with the type of problem to which my hon. Friend referred and have seen a significant number of such cases, although they do not always involve criminal offences. A common situation might be that a marriage has broken up less than two years before an application for indefinite leave to remain was granted and a constituent claims that the person they left was violent and subjected them to harassment. Often, no criminal offence is committed in such cases so it can be difficult to decide whether information should be released, because when someone approaches us in such circumstances we inevitably hear only one side of the story. We might have an opinion on how valid that side of the story is, but we are only hearing one side of the story. I have handled cases that involve situations similar to those described by my hon. Friend. Recently, a constituent I was dealing with had separated from her husband who had been violent. He had then been convicted of a sexual offence elsewhere in the country. He had also been subjecting her family to considerable harassment after the marriage broke down. In my opinion, we should have got rid of him as quickly as possible. However, we ran into the problem of not being able to get information about what was happening to him and whether he was going to be deported. As my hon. Friend said, we will not necessarily always get the result that the constituent wants—the other person being removed. However, whether or not they are removed it is common sense that the victim ought at least to have information on that. Has the person been subject to a deportation order? Has that order been signed? Has it been put into effect? If that has happened, it will give the victim some peace of mind. If for some reason it has not been possible to deport the convicted person, at least the victim will know that and can, if necessary, take whatever precautions they think are reasonable to try to avoid coming into contact again with the criminal.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
460 c201-2 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Biometrics Asylum Detainees Crimes against the person Deportation Age Community relations Clothing Fingerprints Evidence European Convention on Human Rights Immigration controls Immigration Human trafficking Documents Home Office Immigration officers Offenders Marriage Police Prosecutions Prisoners Nationality Scotland Young people Refugees Victims Right of search Temporary accommodation Border and Immigration Agency
Legislation
UK Borders Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk