House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2009 - 10
Publications on the internet
Public Bill Committee Debates



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: Mrs. Janet Dean
Burns, Mr. Simon (West Chelmsford) (Con)
Carswell, Mr. Douglas (Harwich) (Con)
Engel, Natascha (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Field, Mr. Mark (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Godsiff, Mr. Roger (Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath) (Lab)
Green, Damian (Ashford) (Con)
Grogan, Mr. John (Selby) (Lab)
Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD)
Hillier, Meg (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
Huhne, Chris (Eastleigh) (LD)
Hutton, Mr. John (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
McCabe, Steve (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
Purchase, Mr. Ken (Wolverhampton, North-East) (Lab/Co-op)
Shepherd, Mr. Richard (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Singh, Mr. Marsha (Bradford, West) (Lab)
Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Mr M. Etherton, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee

Third Delegated Legislation Committee

Tuesday 8 December 2009

[Mrs Janet Dean in the Chair]

Draft Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2009

10.30 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Meg Hillier): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2009.
It is a pleasure, Mrs. Dean, to serve under your chairmanship. The Government remain committed to securing the UK’s borders, improving immigration control and reducing identity abuse. To achieve that, we introduced biometric registration powers in the UK Borders Act 2007, which allowed the Secretary of State to issue secure, reliable biometric documents to foreign nationals who are subject to immigration controls. I have a copy of one here, if hon. Members wish to see it after the Committee.
We issued the first identity cards to foreign nationals at the end of November last year, so we have been doing this for more than a year and have now issued 120,000 cards. The regulations are designed to extend the category of foreign nationals who are required to apply for an ID card when they apply to renew their status in this country. The regulations amend the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008, which came into force on 25 November 2008.
The latest regulations apply to foreign nationals wishing to extend their stay under tier 2 of our new points-based system. That covers people coming in to fill vacancies that have been advertised to resident workers but where no residents were available to fill the vacancy, which includes those coming to fill shortage occupations. I can go into detail if hon. Members wish to ask me how we recommend that people advertise those vacancies—it has recently changed.
The regulations cover employees of multi-national companies who are being transferred by an overseas employer to a skilled job in a UK-based branch of the organisation and elite sports persons and coaches whose employment makes a significant contribution to the development of their sport at the highest level, such as Premier League footballers. They also cover those coming to fill vacancies as ministers of religion, missionaries or members of a religious order.
The regulations also reflect the recent change in the immigration category of sole representative to a representative of an overseas business, which is intended to encourage inward investment by providing a means for overseas companies to transfer an employee to the UK to establish a UK branch or wholly-owned subsidiary.
The regulations extend the definition of the “dependants” to include unmarried and same-sex partners. They also enable dependants of holders of ID cards for foreign nationals to apply for a card when applying for leave as a dependant, irrespective of whether they apply at the same time. Therefore, they can have one family application. Those tier 2 extensions supplement previous extensions that the Committee has discussed.
I shall go through the technical points of what each regulation does. Regulations 1 and 2 set out the name of the regulation, how they will be commenced and that they amend the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008 definitions. Regulation 3 amends regulation 2 of the 2008 regulations to extend the definition of “dependant”, as I have outlined, to include unmarried and same-sex partners, and regulation 5 extends those applying for leave under one of the categories specified in regulation 4, so in circumstances in which the application for leave is made after that of the primary applicant. Regulation 6 reflects changes made, as I outlined, in respect of sole representatives of businesses. It also updates the immigration categories required to apply for an ID card to include tier 2 of the points-based system, which is the main focus.
I trust that hon. Members will join me in supporting these simple measures to extend this important part of our immigration control system. It is an essential part of our strategy to combat irregular migration and the associated abuses arising from such activities.
10.33 am
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): Mrs. Dean, it is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the Minister for the limpid clarity with which she explained the new regulations and their extension to new groups of people. I shall make a few remarks about the context of the new regulations and then ask the Minister some questions.
As the Committee knows, because we have discussed various versions of the regulations in recent months, we, on these Benches, do not object to biometric visa or to ID documents for foreign nationals. We are extremely clear that the information should not be kept on anything that resembles the national identity register that the Government wish to set up. It should be kept on the appropriate Home Office database, either on asylum registration cards or immigration case work—presumably, in the tier 2 database in this case, as we are talking by and large about people in that tier.
The attempt to call the scheme “ID cards for foreigners” is a gimmick with a price. The Minister will be aware that we believe that the so-called ID cards will not stop illegal immigration or have any significant effect on the vital fight against terrorism. They will also cost money to the individuals concerned and to the taxpayer, at a time when even the current Chancellor is admitting that the public finances need reining in. Spending extra public money in such a way does not seem to be a huge priority.
The Minister will also be aware that the roll-out of the scheme, which the regulations continue, is well behind schedule. Therefore, it has so far been impossible to point to any particular successes of the scheme. In particular, it will be interesting to know how many card readers are now available. Without the capacity to read the cards, they are practically useless in any security aspect, which Ministers tend to say is the reason for the introducing them.
Will the Minister clarify, particularly for those who are not as steeped in the matter as she and I are, how many documents will a foreign national working in this country now need to possess? How many of them will have biometrics attached? Clearly, no one can, or should be able to, come to this country without a passport, or, if they come to work, without a visa. How many different documents is someone required to have? Also, how many documents are people required to carry with them? I suspect that the answer is none, which is why I am sceptical about any claim that the measure is of use in fighting crime and particularly terrorism. Will the Minister also address the issue of cost? When the system is fully rolled out, how much will it cost the individual and the taxpayer per card issued?
My final thought, which the Minister has heard before, is that I wish for the Government to stop introducing different types of visas for foreign nationals living and working in this country, and to stop trying to describe the visas as part of the wider ID card scheme, in an attempt to smuggle in the idea of a national scheme under the guise of new forms of visas for foreigners. Frankly, everyone has noticed that trick by now, and recognising it to be one. No one is buying it, as we have discovered in Manchester, where people are not buying into the voluntary ID cards that are now available. I hope that the Minister will address my questions later.
10.38 am
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Dean. It seems only a few minutes ago that we were having breakfast together—in Dining Room A, I should stress—discussing European regulation with people from an industry.
Neither my party nor I support the national identity card scheme, and we also do not support the use of it for foreign nationals. The hon. Member for Ashford said that he supported the regulations, but quite rightly opposed the rationale behind them. I am a little unsure about whether he and his colleagues will join me in voting “no” in the question that will be put shortly.
No rationale or evidence has been provided by the Government as to why the scheme we are discussing will be useful on its own terms, and that concerns me. Even if one ignores the wider policy aspects to it, there does not seem to be a significant problem either with terrorism, illegal working or immigration issues, regarding ministers of religion, Premier League footballers and employees of multinationals. Unless the Minister can identify a scandal involving footballers and illegal immigration or terrorism, it is unclear why that particular group should be singled out for a biometric identity card.
The Government have always made clear that they would start their national identity register and ID card scheme with foreign nationals. A test of whether we are committed to opposing ID cards in all their forms is if we take an absolute position. Without evidence of benefit in that respect, it seems essential politically and practically to say no to such a scheme. It is clear that foreign nationals were singled out originally by the Government as a thin end of the wedge whereby ID cards could be introduced, and they have persisted with that despite a lack of evidence that they are unable to tackle the accepted problems of illegal immigration and illegal working through means other than having people who are already here with legal documentation registering for a further document.
For the reasons of clarity, consistency and outright opposition to spending money on schemes that have no apparent benefit and that are mere ciphers for a wider scheme that may well be introduced by a future Government—whether they be conservative with a big “C” or a small “c”—I and my colleagues oppose the proposals, and I shall oppose the motion.
10.42 am
Meg Hillier: I was interested in the comments of hon. Gentlemen. It is worth stressing the success of the scheme so far. I was puzzled by the hon. Member for Ashford saying that it is behind schedule. We have already issued cards successfully. We now have 120,000 out there and expect to be up to about 150,000 by next summer. They are convenient. They are credit-card sized documents. I reiterate my offer to members of the Committee to look at a sample. I have the British one, too. They have a tamper-proof embedded chip that holds the applicant’s facial image and two fingerprints, and that will apply in time to British passports. Other information such as the holder’s name, immigration status, nationality, date and place of birth, and gender appear on both the face of the card and embedded chip.
Hon. Members who talk to those in their constituencies who take their role as employers very seriously will know the number of people often employed in the personnel departments and human resources departments to check the documentation of foreign workers. Businesses often employ many people who have to become expert at checking such documents. Having a card for foreign nationals that is clear Government proof of identity and is secure, which includes on its face their right-to-work status and details of whether it is limited, say, to 20 hours for students will make it a lot easier for businesses to employ people legally and, in doing so, protect foreign and British workers from exploitation by rogue employers.
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): I am extremely interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Presumably, if the scheme has been in place, it would have notably assisted the Attorney-General.
Meg Hillier: Those of us who have been members of such Committees for a while know that the scheme has been rolled out over time, so today’s regulations cover tier 2. We have already rolled out identity cards for foreign nationals for students applying under tier 4 on a points basis; for spouses and partners applying in the country of the persons who are present and settled here; postgraduate doctors and dentists; academic visitors; visitors for private medical treatment and others. The scheme has been applying to those who change their category in-country. As we are rolling it out gradually, it is not yet applying to all categories. By 2014, our aim is that about 90 per cent. of foreign nationals will have a card. The scheme will be applying to people over time, but anyone with current status does not need to have a card until they apply to renew their status.
We have had 15 successful prosecutions of people who have made applications for leave to remain in different identities and a further 14 who are awaiting prosecution. Of those successful prosecutions, one individual appeared at one of our enrolment office to enrol his biometrics following his application for leave to remain as a spouse of a British citizen. He had a different date of birth, but the biometric fingerprint match revealed his earlier records and that he had previously been deported. He was arrested on suspicion of seeking leave to remain by deception and, during interview, admitted it—in fact, six offences in total. On that basis he was successfully prosecuted and sentenced to 18 months in prison. That is just one example of how people are caught. Hopefully that message gets out and deters people.
I want to move on to the general points made by the hon. Member for Ashford. I welcome his and his party’s support for foreign national identity cards, but I am a little puzzled by his desire not to see the information held on the national identity register. It does not matter if the information is on a database, but not that database. The Opposition position seems to be slightly illogical and they need to be clearer about exactly which database they wish to support and what difference they see.
The idea that the scheme is expensive is a fallacy, because it is self-funding from fees, just as visas always have been. As I have already said, it is not behind schedule. In fact, it is going very well. We are beginning to get reading machines out there; we have a number at border controls and they will be taken up by private businesses such as universities in time.
Damian Green: I am grateful that the Minister is addressing the issue. She said that there are “a number” of machines out there. Would she care to tell us what number?
Meg Hillier: At the moment I understand that 12 reading machines are in active use at border controls, but they will be rolled out more widely. My point is that at the point of application, when someone gives their fingerprints, from then on it is irrevocable—someone can enter the country only once on that identity. If they have ever tried to enter illegally before or been deported, they are immediately picked up, as well as being on the watch list for criminals.
On the number of documents that an individual would need to have with their biometric document form, I cannot comment on individual countries’ passports, but obviously a number of countries are modernising their passports to include biometrics. That goes back to my point about the ease of checking—one easily recognisable document, rather than a suite of different nationalities’ passports. However, the card replaces a suite of documents that employers currently accept—sometimes more than 40. The ID card replaces all of them and is much more secure.
I should reiterate, for the record, in case anyone is under any misconception, there is no requirement under the law to carry the card or passport, unless travelling with it as a document. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Ashford about carrying the card. He indicated that not carrying the card makes it not as useful as it would be, because it cannot therefore be used for spot checks. I am not clear if that means his party is advocating that cards have to be carried to make it a more useful document. That is something on which I look for clarification.
Damian Green: To avoid the risk of the Minister repeating that canard in future, we are not—as she knows, as well as anyone—convinced of the merits, to put it no higher, of an identity card scheme. Therefore, a fortiori, we do not believe that people should be forced to carry the cards around with them. My point was merely that she and other Ministers constantly talk about the security benefits while not following the logic of their own position. I believe that the Government’s position is completely incoherent.
Meg Hillier: We could argue about which of us is the most incoherent. I do not think that we are at all incoherent in Government. Carrying the card is not the main security—we are not a police state in which people are stopped and asked for their identity. Both this legislation and the laws on domestic identity cards explicitly rule that out.
I should clarify about the 12 readers. They will be deployed across major ports from January—the major ports in particular, because they are the ones where we have the most difficulty. If any hon. Members are interested in our document identity centres, they are very welcome to visit them.
I rather resent the implication that we are trying to smuggle in ID cards. I have been the Minister now for nearly two and a half years—far from any quiet smuggling, I have been talking about them up and down the country endlessly, as have my predecessors as Ministers. They have hardly been a secret. It is important that we recognise that there are different but related benefits to having ID cards for foreign nationals and British citizens.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon raised some interesting points. Although he professes opposition, I think it is worth mentioning on the record that his party has never voted against any such regulations. I am interested in his view that premier league footballers should be excluded because they are famous or because they are sportsmen. I am not sure what other categories Liberal Democrats think should be excluded, but it seems to me more equal to treat everybody in the same way.
Dr. Harris: All categories should be excluded. We oppose this measure for all categories.
Meg Hillier: Now it is all categories. Then that is a fundamental area of disagreement.
Mr. Burns: Does the Minister share my bewilderment with the last intervention? During her maternity leave, we dealt with a number of statutory instruments on this aspect of Government policy and on every occasion the Liberal Democrat spokesman abstained on the votes. They shared the views of the official Opposition and, presumably up to a point, the Government.
Meg Hillier: We actually have a moment of harmony between the Government and the official Opposition on this matter. I have been in this role for two and a half years and Liberal Democrat spokesmen have never voted against such measures. We should ask whether that party is in favour of immigration control. We have heard that it does not believe that electronic visas should apply to anybody. That tells us all that we need to know. The measure backs up the points-based immigration system, which presumably the Liberal Democrats also disagree with. This is effectively an electronic visa system. To follow their logic, we should abolish all the visas that we have been issuing.
The regulations are part of the general roll-out and no groups are being targeted, as I said. It is important to remember that the regulations are part of a wider picture of immigration control. They back up the points-based system and will be a useful tool. I could give many examples of people who have been caught and stopped from entering the country because biometric data have been taken, but time is short. Of those who have had their fingerprints taken abroad for visas and those who have got foreign national ID cards, 14 have been prosecuted on the basis of false applications after their fingerprints have been checked against previous applications. That demonstrates the benefit of the regulations, which simply roll that out. I look forward to the support of hon. Members.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 1.
Division No. 1]
AYES
Engel, Natascha
Godsiff, Mr. Roger
Grogan, Mr. John
Hillier, Meg
Hutton, rh Mr. John
McCabe, Steve
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Smith, Geraldine
NOES
Harris, Dr. Evan
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2009.
10.54 am
Committee rose.
 
Contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 9 December 2009