All 1 Diana Johnson contributions to the Fisheries Bill 2017-19

Read Bill Ministerial Extracts

Thu 25th Oct 2018
Immigration: DNA Tests
Commons Chamber

1st reading: House of Commons

Immigration: DNA Tests Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office

Immigration: DNA Tests

Diana Johnson Excerpts
1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 25th October 2018

(5 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Fisheries Bill 2017-19 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sajid Javid Portrait Sajid Javid
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am happy to confirm that for my hon. Friend. It is worth highlighting that applicants who voluntarily provide DNA often do so because they are in conflict zones, because they are from countries where records have been destroyed or have become unreliable, or because they have become refugees and can no longer access their records. In such a case, someone may voluntarily offer DNA, which can provide a quick way of determining the facts and helping that person.

Diana Johnson Portrait Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

In his statement, the Home Secretary said that the matter was brought to Ministers’ attention at the end of June. I very much welcome the statement, but I wonder whether Ministers asked questions of officials at any point to reassure themselves that DNA samples and evidence were being used appropriately.

Sajid Javid Portrait Sajid Javid
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I understand it, the matter was originally brought to Ministers’ attention by a question from the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. I believe he had concerns as a result of a constituency case and he tabled a written question, to which the Minister for Immigration responded, about Government policy. As I have said today, it has never been Government policy to request DNA mandatorily. The question prompted further investigation, and within days of the matter being brought to the Minister’s attention an internal review was launched. We now have the outcome of that first review, but, as I have said, it is not the conclusion of this. We need more answers.