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 UKs 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
vacanciesit 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
workpresumably, 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
togetherin Dining Room A, I should stressdiscussing
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
Governmentwhether they be conservative with a big
C or a small cI 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
applicants facial image and two fingerprints, and that will
apply in time to British passports. Other information such as the
holders 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 todays 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.
I
will not get drawn down an avenue that is not relevant to the
instrument that we are discussing, but there are other issues around
illegality that it, on its
own, does not solve. I want to pick up on the point of the hon. Member
for Ashford. On its own, the scheme does not completely solve every
issue, but it is worth highlighting that already we have had some
successes with those who have been caught in the country
illegally.
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 itin
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 partys 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
irrevocablesomeone 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 checkingone easily recognisable
document, rather than a suite of different nationalities
passports. However, the card replaces a suite of documents that
employers currently acceptsometimes 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 notas she knows, as well as
anyoneconvinced 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 Governments 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 securitywe 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 Januarythe 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
yearsfar 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]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Biometric
Registration) (Amendment) Regulations
2009.
10.54
am
Committee
rose.