|
Mr. Curry: I want to ask a simple question. London houses the second largest French population in Europe. A large number of citizens of European Union countries, including my wife, hold identity cards issued by their own Governments. Will there be a mutual recognition of identity cards? Will my wife, or other French citizens, be required to register in the United Kingdom, given that they are resident here and have the right to live in the UK and can visit without stating for how long they intend to remain? There must be a lot of people who find themselves in that position who could end up with two identity cards that are not entirely compatible and receiving demands for information to fill in one that has to be given officially in another country. I should like to know about that technical matter.
Mr. Browne: Again, we have had a short but interesting and important debate, which I shall seek to answer. I cannot answer the specific questions on numbers asked by the hon. Member for Woking, but I can give him some numbers, although they do not specifically respond to his question. I shall endeavour to get that information to him.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment No. 12 would entitle any foreign national with leave to remain in the UK for more than a month to an identity card. However, as hon. and right hon. Members know, under European legislation we are not able to require European economic area nationals and their family members to register before they have been resident for three months. That European legislation applies, and all the countries in the European Union subscribe to it.
As I understand it, British citizens who are resident in France must comply with the requirements of French law, whatever those are; I am not sure about the detail of that. I am sure that there are European countries where residential registration is required after three months, and I will try to find out in order to share that with the Committee. We are not seeking to do anything on EEA nationals that we are not empowered to do by European legislation and what other Governments do, albeit not universally. I do not consider that a period of a month would be helpful, either to an individual or in controlling immigration, even if it were legally possible—and it is not legally possible for all people who are resident in this country, for the reasons that I have stated.
Column Number: 89
I will provide the Committee with some numbers with which to set the context. In 2003, 91 million people arrived at UK ports, of whom 64 million were British, 15 million were European economic area nationals and 12 million were foreign nationals subject to immigration control. Many of those would have been short-term visitors, tourists or business people. I see no point in providing in the Bill that a foreign national coming here for, say, a six-week holiday or business trip should register and obtain an ID card. Indeed, I see no reason to give such a person an entitlement to have one. If anything were calculated to discourage people from coming to this country to do business, it would be the requirement to register.
The Bill allows us to prescribe a period after which foreign nationals would have an entitlement to register and be issued with an ID card. In the consultation document published with the draft Bill, we made it clear that our intention was to make that period three months, for the reasons, among others, that I have set out relating to European legislation. After that, we would require a foreign national to obtain a card. However, I believe that we need to retain a power to prescribe the period, so that, should it prove necessary to extend or reduce it, we could do so.
There are good reasons for the three-month period. At present, the UK admits short-term visitors for up to six months, as has been pointed out, but internationally it is more common for people to be admitted for three months for a short visit. In the USA, for example, visitors are admitted for 90 days, whereas in Europe three months is the norm for a short visit. I think that we shall consider moving towards that shortly.
In practical terms there is little point in requiring people who are here for so short a period as 31 days to register and obtain an ID card and to meet the costs of doing so. However, we need to draw a line somewhere, and it seems more logical to expect that anyone who is here for more than three months is resident on a longer-term basis—as a student, for example—where the need to register and obtain an ID card would seem much more sensible.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 further widen the entitlement to register by removing the ability to stop those residing in the UK without any entitlement to remain from being entitled to be entered on to the register. That would seriously restrict the scheme's ability to perform its public-interest statutory purposes of enforcing immigration controls and the prohibitions on unauthorised working and employment. If the amendments were accepted, an individual who simply met the time requirements of having been resident in the UK for what we intend to be three months would be entitled to register, even if he had no legal right to remain in the UK. That would include those who have no right to reside here but are seeking asylum, those who have entered legitimately but have overstayed, and those who have entered illegally and have remained. Therefore, we would be opening up the register to a number of people who would otherwise have no status to be on it.
Column Number: 90
Asylum seekers are already issued with an application registration card—an ARC card—which includes biometric information in the form of a fingerprint. We might not wish to register them until their application was resolved and they were allowed to stay in the UK. In the case of over-stayers and illegal entrants, an entry on the register accompanied by a national identity registration number would be seen as legitimising their status and is likely to confuse those seeking to establish their entitlements, including employers and public service providers. Even without the amendments, such groups could be registered under clause 2(4), if it were found useful to have a central record of those whom we knew to be here unlawfully and to record their lack of entitlements. However, that would be at the Secretary of State's discretion, as has been pointed out, instead of there being a right to register.
Clause 2(4) is intended to provide the flexibility needed to allow a person's details to be recorded where it would be useful to have those details even though they are not entitled to be registered. Amendment No. 70 would remove that flexibility, but I believe that there are good reasons to keep it. One example of the way in which the provision could be used is to record failed applicants or those about to be deported. That would ensure that any further attempts to register would be flagged up, particularly if we register those who have been deported and they turn up later trying to register.
Another example could be of a person applying for and being issued with a biometric visa in anticipation of coming to the UK. In that case it might be useful to have the information recorded in the register, so that if the person exercised their right to stay longer than three months, the process of getting a residence permit or ID card would be made easier. There are also cases where it would be useful, for national security reasons, to have information recorded on the register about an individual who would not be entitled to register or who had not yet applied for a card.
It is important that we maximise the use of the register to obtain the most benefits. Therefore, I invite the hon. Member for Woking to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Allan: I should like clarification about the asylum seeker system. As I understand it, the Minister has said that the intention is to maintain the two systems. Asylum seekers will stay in the asylum seeker system and will not go on to the national identity register unless and until the Government decide under clause 2(4) to include a category of them. The intention is not to have all asylum seekers on the national identity register.
Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. That would be contrary to the Government's intention. The Government do not intend to put asylum seekers, who are in a precarious and inconclusive position, into what would appear to be a permanent relationship with this country. That would be confusing for them and for others, and there is already a system for asylum seekers.
Column Number: 91
Mr. Malins: Has the Minister covered my point about visitors' visas that are issued for six months? If somebody is going to stay for three weeks but the entitlement is six months, one will never know whether they are here for three weeks or five and a quarter months unless embarkation controls are reintroduced. What is the practicality of the period of three months?
Mr. Browne: I endeavoured to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point, but I may have dealt with it in passing and in not enough detail. The norm in Europe is to grant visitors visas for three months. The United Kingdom is an exception, and has been historically. We are looking in the context of European legislation at falling into line with the rest of Europe. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of our e-borders project, which in the fullness of time will give us the embarkation information that he and I believe will provide significant security on our borders, and information on people's movements. The register will not stand alone, and we are moving in a direction with our knowledge of people's movements that I think he would find appropriate.
Mr. Malins: We have had a characteristically helpful if not comprehensive response from the Minister, but given that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Allan: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in clause 2, page 3, line 2, leave out 'or'.
| 
