5 Uniform format for residence permits
for third-country nationals
| (27408)
7298/06
COM(06) 110
| Amended draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) 1030/2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals
|
| Legal base | Article 63(3)(a) EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 5 July 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xxx (2005-06), para 5 (24 May 2006)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared, pending evidence session with Minister
|
Previous scrutiny
5.1 In 2002, the Government opted into the Council Regulation
which lays down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country
nationals.[14]
5.2 In 2003, the Commission presented the draft of
an amending Regulation to integrate biometric identifiers into
the residence permits. The Government told the previous Committee
that it strongly supported the inclusion of biometrics and that
it had decided to opt into the amending Regulation. Our predecessors
cleared the proposal from scrutiny.[15]
5.3 The draft Regulation provided for biometric identifiers
to be incorporated into both residence permits and residence stickers.
After the previous Committee cleared the document, an expert committee
advised the Commission that, at present, it is not technically
feasible to integrate biometric identifiers into stickers.
5.4 In the light of this advice, the Commission
presented a modified draft of the Regulation. When we considered
it in April, we asked the Government, among other things, whether
the cost to the UK of implementing the modified draft would be
similar to the estimates the Government had given the previous
Committee of the cost of implementing the first draft of the Regulation.[16]
5.5 In his reply of 16 May, the then Minister for
Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality at the Home Office (Mr
Tony McNulty) told us
"We originally estimated that implementing
the Regulation would entail start-up and running costs of £24
million and £15 million respectively. Our thinking has advanced
since then. While I am happy to give you some detail on this,
you should be aware that our cost estimates are still subject
to departmental approval (which is why I did not include them
in my original EM). Under current planning assumptions we believe
that the start-up costs for biometric residence permits are likely
to be in the region of £60 million. This significantly higher
figure reflects a) an increase in our programme management costs
in line with a programme of this complexity and b) our desire
to ensure the issuing process is secure. We are developing additional
security measures, particularly related to identity management
and ensuring the integrity of the immigration process. Our estimate
of running costs has also increased to £56 million. This
is because a) it is a ten-year average figure, taking inflation
into account, b) it incorporates a larger contingency element,
in line with Treasury best practice, and c) in the light of a
better understanding of the technical specification we have revised
upwards our estimate of unit costs. The objective will be to recover
these running costs through charges levied on those who apply
for the service."[17]
5.6 When we resumed consideration of the modified
draft of the Regulation on 24 May, we decided to ask the Minister
for further information and, in particular:
- Why the Government thought
that the increase in cost would be outweighed by the benefits
of incorporating biometrics into UK residence permits?
- What are the expected benefits and how will the
Government evaluate whether they have been achieved?
The Minister's letter of 5 July 2006
5.7 The Minister of State at the Home Office (Mr
Liam Byrne) tells us that:
"Based on our current thinking, a [biometric
residence permit] BRP solution that implements only the minimum
required to meet the EU Regulation ("BRP Minimum" option)
is estimated to have start-up costs of approximately £36
million. The preferred solution for BRP that includes additional
features, over and above that required to meet the EU Regulation
('BRP Incremental" option), has estimated set-up costs of
approximately £60 million (i.e. a £24 million increase
over the BRP Minimum option).
"We have identified benefits for both the BRP
Minimum and BRP Incremental options. The attached table, annexed
to this letter illustrates clearly that the BRP Incremental solution
will deliver more benefit than can be delivered [sic]
"Benefit 1 — Contribution to the wider
National Identity Scheme: The BRP project
forms an integral part of the UK's wider National Identity Scheme,
comprised also of IND's UKvisas Biometrics, e-Borders and Immigration
Asylum Fingerprint System+ (IAFS+) projects, and Identity and
Passport Service (IPS). Together, these initiatives will ensure
that all UK residents (and anyone requiring a visa) will have
some form of recorded biometrics linked to their identity, providing
significant benefits in terms of reduced identity fraud, immigration
offences and threats to public safety. The additional benefits
stem mainly from the increased assurance that biometrics are uniquely
associated with an identity, through capabilities that are unique
to the BRP Incremental option.
"Benefit 2 — Improvement to immigration
control: Whilst the EU proposal for a
uniform format biometric residence permit will help simplify immigration
control within the wider UK society, including for employers and
public offices; the EU Regulation does not stipulate any controls
related to ensuring that recorded biometrics are unique. There
is also no obligation to ensure that checks are carried out to
ensure that biometrics are attached to the correct identity. As
such, issues regarding counterfeiting and falsification are only
addressed through the introduction of a product that is physically
more difficult to counterfeit. The BRP Incremental option has
been designed to include additional features that will help to
control fraud and abuse, thereby improving immigration control.
"Benefit 3 — Compliance with EU legislation:
The UK's opt-in to the 2003 version of this proposal remains valid,
and we are therefore bound to participate in, and implement this
new proposal. Whilst compliance with this Regulation would be
achieved through the BRP Minimum option, we consider, as noted
above, that there are significant benefits in going beyond the
requirements of the draft Regulation.
"Benefits Realisation
"Whilst the BRP project is still at a relatively
early stage in this process and the benefits are still subject
to departmental approval, we can inform the Committee of our current
work on benefit realisation.
"The BRP project has been working closely with
the Home Office Group Investment Board to agree an approach for
benefits identification, quantification and realisation. The project
will follow the standard Office of Government Commerce (OGC) guidelines
for ensuring the realisation of these benefits, including obtaining
agreement from benefit owners and appointing a benefits realisation
manager.
"We are also employing a co-ordinated approach
to benefits management with the IAFS+ and UKvisas Biometrics projects.
The aims of this coordinated approach are to:
Give business partners a clear understanding
of the strategic business benefits that IND's three major biometric
projects (BRP, UKvisas Biometrics Programme and IAFS+) aim to
deliver
Form a realistic picture of how each business
area can contribute to the successful delivery of the projects,
ensuring that IND strives to maximise the realisation of potential
benefits.
"The approach will include:
Briefing business partners on the strategic
objectives of IND's three major biometric projects
Outlining the potential benefits identified
during development of the business cases and providing an overview
of the methodology used to baseline and quantify these
Validating assumptions and business benefits
with representatives from the impacted business areas
Ensuring that the benefit realisation strategy
will be included in future operational business plans
Establishing a network of business benefit managers
to monitor the progress of actual benefit realisation."
5.8 The Minister concludes by emphasising that the
cost estimates "remain subject to departmental approval".
He also says that the information in his letter is subject to
the outcome of his review of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.
5.9 The table attached to the Minister's letter is
reproduced below:
Area
|
Benefit
|
BRP Minimum
|
BRP Incremental
|
| Contribute to the wider National Identity Scheme
| Align with the wider National Identity Scheme to ensure no gaps in the system
| | |
| Support other organisations/projects in the wider National Identity Scheme by increasing the volume of assured biometrics data held by UK which can be checked against
| | |
| De-risk ID Cards for Third County Nationals (TCNs) by trialling similar technology and processes
| | |
| Increase attractiveness of UK for legal migrants by establishing a secure identity with clear entitlements — BRP a contributor
| | |
| Improved immigration control
| Reduce the market for counterfeit documents by increasing document security
| |
|
| Improve immigration control by identifying multiple applications made under a single identity — BRP a contributor
| | |
| Reduce support and processing costs by increasing the detection of asylum and immigration offences — BRP a contributor
| | |
| Increase number of illegal applicants identified against which enforcement action to be taken
| | |
| Increase cost effectiveness for residence permit appeals by decreasing processing time, enabled by enhanced, evidence based initial decisions — BRP a contributor
| | |
| Increase cost effectiveness for removals by detaining people at interview and/or biometric recording stages
| | |
| Increase operational efficiency through joined-up processes and technology improvements
| | |
| Comply with EU legislation
| To comply with EU legislation
| |
|
Conclusion
5.10 The Minister's letter and the table attached to it state
what the Government believes to be the benefits of the biometric
residence permit if either the "minimum" or "incremental"
option were adopted. But neither the letter not the table gives
any indication of the scale of the benefits. For example, they
do not explain by how much the market for counterfeit documents
would be reduced, how and by how much identity fraud would be
reduced or how many more "illegal applicants" would
be identified.
5.11 We do not understand the Minister's explanation
of "Benefits Realisation". Who are the "business
partners" and how will these arrangements enable the Government
to assess whether benefits are achieved?
5.12 The Minister's letter
says that the estimates of cost are subject to "departmental
approval". We do not understand what this means.
5.13 The implementation of the proposed Regulation,
through either the "minimum" or "incremental"
option would cost a great deal of public money, perhaps even more
that the Government's current estimates. At present, the likely
benefits appear intangible and we have seen nothing to show that
they would exceed the estimated start-up and annual running costs.
We doubt that we shall be able to obtain a satisfactory answers
to our questions through further correspondence. Accordingly,
we ask the Minister to appear before us to give oral evidence
on the costs and benefits of the proposals. Meanwhile, the document
will remain under scrutiny.
14 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1030/2002: OJ No. L
157, 15.6.2002, p.1. Back
15
(24918) 13044/03: See HC 42-xi (2003-04), para 22 (25 February
2004). Back
16
See HC 34-xxvi (2005-06), para 13 (26 April 2006). Back
17
See headnote. Back
| 
