Meg
Hillier: A number of interesting questions have been
raised by hon. Members. I am delighted to have the support of the hon.
Member for Ashford for the scheme and that he has put on the record his
support for our desire to control immigration. I call his
“middle way” a long way towards Government policy.
Securing the integrity of our borders by collecting the fingerprints of
foreign nationals through visas and, from November, through ID cards is
an important step
forward. I
had intended to mention the distribution of documents, and I will look
into that matter. Clearly, the documents left the Home Office and
something may have happened along the line, which meant that they did
not get to people properly. We need to ensure seamless distribution
from the Home Office to the House, and from House authorities to
Members. I
want to correct one point that the hon. Member for Ashford raised about
all the information collected for identity cards being put on one
database. I remind him that we are talking about three databases: one
for fingerprints, one for the biographical
data— Mr.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): And one
disc.
Meg
Hillier: No discs. Any information ever downloaded on to a
disc will be minimal and will relate to particular concerns raised in
relation to proof by the police and other agencies in respect of a
small number of individuals. There will not be routine large downloads
of personal data. It is important to stress that security measure at
the
beginning. The
hon. Member for Ashford raised the issue of other foreign nationals
being subject to controls. We will be rolling out cards to other
categories of people from April 2009, and over three years all new
entrants staying for more than six months, other than EU nationals,
will get an identity card. When someone renews their stay, they will
also get an identity card and the costs will be included in their
normal visa
application.
Damian
Green: To clarify further, that will not apply to EU
citizens. What percentage of foreign nationals in the country will it
apply to? The Government continue to talk about “all foreign
nationals”. If the measure does not apply to EU nationals, what
percentage does it apply
to?
Meg
Hillier: Here and now, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman
that percentage. I can say, however, that EEA nationals will qualify
for residents’ cards in due course. With British citizens who
have the option of having a card and foreign nationals coming from
outside Europe who have to have one, we will see a high number of
people with identity cards. Looking at the comparator for British
passport holders, 80 per cent. of British citizens have a British
passport. Even without a scramble of people keen to have a card in
2011, we expect 80 per cent. penetration among British citizens when
the cards are rolled out to the general population.
At
that point, EEA nationals will also want to have a card because it will
be a useful way to access certain services and improve their rights. We
will start issuing those identity cards to EEA nationals, as well as
British citizens, in the second half of 2009, starting with people
working airside in airports. I have just been at a meeting discussing
exactly how we are going to ensure that we do that as effectively as
possible.
On
universities, in the first instance they will use visual checks for the
cards. The automated check will come down the line, when universities
need it. As it is, they check passports visually, and they will do the
same with the cards, checking with a hotline that a card has been
issued validly. In time, they will be able to put the card in a machine
and read it against the register to check that it is a real card. That
will automate the check, saving time and money for universities and
employers. We
are also looking to enhance guidance through our website and helplines
to guide sponsors and employers, and we have regular contact, through
UKBA officials, with universities and umbrella groups to ensure that
information is disseminated. I am always happy to take suggestions from
and to converse with hon. Members who pick up suggestions in their
constituencies or who have any concerns in order to ensure that we are
reaching the right people. There is much dialogue with universities and
that will
continue. I
am pleased that the hon. Member for Ashford welcomes the safeguards
included in the code of practice, and I hope that I have reassured him
about how the code will be well and widely understood through normal
dissemination. As to the cost issue, there will be a balance for those
organisations determined to play by the rules. They may decide that
they want to keep people on to do manual checks or that it is more
cost-effective to invest in technology—which we hope will, in
time, be relatively cheap, as it rolls out and as more people have
it—to do the check automatically. They will need to make that
cost-benefit analysis for themselves. Many employers spend a lot of
money on manual checks and they may decide that it is better in the
long run to invest in technology. I should stress that the code went
through a proper public consultation process and, as a result, we
adjusted it. We are listening to
people. The
process notices going out within 32 days and the staffing issues that
the hon. Gentleman raised are comparable with similar penalty schemes
operated by the UKBA. We will be looking at the staff resources
required. We are in the pilot stage. From that alone, we are gaining
useful information, and we will be able to extrapolate from that to
ensure that by next April, when we have a wider roll-out, we are well
placed to meet the requirements that we have set
ourselves. The
figure of £29 million in savings over 10 years is an initial
estimate based on economic evidence. We will look to increase that
figure as the evidence base grows, and to introduce it to other groups.
That brings me on to another point about cost, which was raised by the
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. He asked about the
reliability of
technology.
Tom
Brake: The point I was making was that over the first
10-year period the net benefit is identified as minus £10.5
million. At what point will it become positive? I also asked the
Minister whether she can elaborate on
the reliability or otherwise of the identified
benefits and the calculations made to arrive at a figure
of £29.8 million through reduction in benefit fraud,
crime and fraudulent appeal.
Meg
Hillier: I have explained the £29 million figure.
We hope that the other figure will go into the positive. I say to the
hon. Gentleman that I do not want to commit to a time frame at the
moment, but the aim is clearly in that
direction. The
hon. Gentleman raised the issue of administrative mistakes and how to
rectify them. That is something we are still working through. It is
important that we ensure that any error at any point is picked up
quickly. We have many processes in place for that in respect of
passports, visas and Criminal Records Bureau checks, all of which I am
responsible for. There is practice around the Home Office agencies. We
have well-trodden paths and we need to ensure that the process is as
simple and easy as possible for identity cards as
well. With
regard to people who may have a problem and why that is acknowledged,
it is important that the code includes a belt-and-braces approach. If
the law did not embrace every possible situation and a situation arose,
we would not be well placed to deal with it. The issue will apply to
very few people and we have already closed loopholes—for
instance, the case of “The Day of the Jackal”, whereby
people used passports of people who had died and then tried to claim
their identities. If someone has lived under an assumed identity in
such a way for a long time, it may be difficult to disprove, although
someone real may turn up with that identity. We are talking about a
small number of people, but it is important that we have procedures in
the code as a belt-and-braces
approach. The
hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of the roll-out and the category
option, and rightly said that a small number of countries will be more
affected because of their propensity to provide foreign students to the
UK. He mentioned China and Pakistan in particular. My hon. Friend the
Minister for Borders and Immigration has been out to China and to
Pakistan in recent months, and I am pretty sure that my right hon.
Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing
has likewise been
there. We
are talking to those countries about those issues as part of the
general discussion on our approach to immigration and visas. It is
important that we say, “If you come to the UK to study, you are
very welcome, but it has to be the person who has acquired the place at
university who comes, not someone else.” I have no problem in
defending our approach to ensuring that we have strong borders, and I
am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree on that
matter.
Tom
Brake: The Minister may be about to respond to this, but
have there been discussions about those changes with organisations such
as the UK Council for International Student Affairs, which represents
students who get into particular difficulties with immigration
issues?
Meg
Hillier: I can write to the hon. Gentleman with details of
that contact. He also raised the issue of the reliability of
technology, and asked whether I could provide rough and ready
information. As a Minister, I hesitate to do anything in a rough and
ready fashion. I have to deal with facts and reality. The Liberal
Democrats
may have a different approach to policy-making, but I do not want to get
into rough and ready figures in any
sense. This
morning, I went to Croydon and I invite other hon. Members to visit, if
they so wish, to see the technology in action. It has deliberately been
kept simple and is similar to what we use to fingerprint people for
visas. It is not massively complicated, partly because it is important
to get it right and to get the systems up and running. In time, we will
have the opportunity to upgrade, including perhaps looking at
alternative
biometrics. My
final point—I am sorry, I forgot to mention this—is on
the reasonable explanation and why a fine might not be levied. An
unforeseen circumstance might include things that we consider in other
parts of government—for example, someone suddenly going into
hospital or being bereaved and having to travel out of the country.
Those would be reasons not to
proceed.
Tom
Brake: Will the Minister clarify, therefore, whether there
will be no automatic trigger for a fine if such a reasonable
explanation is given? For instance, if medical reasons are involved,
people may not have to pay the fine.
Meg
Hillier: Absolutely. There is a degree of discretion in
this. We want people to comply. The penalties regime is not a
money-making exercise; it is about ensuring that people play by the
rules. Clearly, if people flagrantly flout the rules we will take
action and fine them, but if there is a reasonable explanation we will
take a reasonable
approach. We
have had a good debate and I am delighted that there seems to be
general support for the introduction of the first stage of identity
cards in the UK, albeit through this card for foreign
nationals. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Biometric
Registration) (Civil Penalty Code of Practice) Order
2008. Draft
Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations
2008Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Biometric
Registration) Regulations 2008.—[Meg
Hillier.] Committee
rose at two minutes past Five
o’clock.
| 
