Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Civil Penalty Code of Practice) Order 2008

I know that the Conservative Party has a different approach to this matter because it supports the identity cards that we are now discussing and is opposed to the use of the national identity card. That seems to me wholly incongruous and inconsistent, as I shall seek to explain. These orders bring into force identity cards for all foreign nationals, making them a precursor to the comprehensive national identity card scheme, which the Government plan later for everyone legally resident in the UK and which is now being rolled out in accordance with the National Identity Scheme Delivery Plan, published in March. In fact, the BIDs will be designated as ID cards under Section 4 of the Identity Cards Act 2006, as foreshadowed in the Explanatory Memorandum. No doubt the Government calculated that very few people would object to this proposal, as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not draw attention to it and the consultation on the code of practice attracted very few responses—just a dozen, I think. The pilot regulations, which these regulations supersede, also aroused very little debate, and no one is likely to quarrel with the objective of making it more difficult for unlawful migrants to enter or remain in the UK. So far as I am aware, even the NO2ID campaign, the leading opponents of identity cards, has had nothing to say about their application to people with limited leave to remain, yet would it not seem discriminatory to argue that biometric ID cards are all well and good for migrants but not for the native population? When this scheme is in full operation, there is a danger, as Liberty pointed out when we dealt with the parent Act, that it will be predominantly BME people who are required to produce the BID to satisfy immigration officers that they are legitimately residing in the UK. Already, in the periodic drives to pick up suspected illegal entrants, far greater numbers are questioned than are subsequently arrested and deported. The cards might encourage the UKBA to undertake more fishing expeditions in which they inevitably pick up a majority of lawful BME residents, undermining the confidence of those people in our claim to be a racially equal society. The survey conducted as part of the impact assessment showed a perception that the cards would lead to the targeting of people from the subcontinent and Africa and states, "““potentially causing an adverse impact on community relations””. " On the other hand, it could be that as institutions of higher education and employers are required to check the validity of a student’s or worker’s leave to remain, the UKBA would have less reason to examine the migrants directly, but would rely on the sponsors, who, as the Minister explained, face civil penalties if they fail to make the prescribed checks. We note that the intention is to introduce the cards for foreign nationals incrementally, starting with students, their spouses and their dependants, amounting to some 163,000 decisions a year in this order. As we understand it, within three years, all who apply successfully for an extension of leave to remain will receive a card, and the Minister will perhaps be able to let us have that number too. Could he also tell us what the procedure will be if no decision on an application for extension of leave to remain has been made by the date on which a person's existing leave expires, and how many people that would have applied to if the scheme had been in operation in 2007? While the application is under consideration, and the identity card shows that a person’s existing leave to remain has expired, as it would by reference to the information it gives under Regulation 15(1)(h) of the biometric registration regulations, the holder would be in danger of being picked up as an overstayer whenever he produced it to a UKBA official. That is only one of the traps for the unwary migrant in these proposals. Under Section 16 of the UK Borders Act 2007, the Secretary of State has power to order any person, with limited leave to remain, to reside at a given address. If that person moves and for any reason fails to notify the Secretary of State, as he is required to do under Regulation 18(d), the Secretary of State may cancel his leave to remain, and he may be removed or, if the Secretary of State is in a good mood, he might simply face a civil penalty. Will foreign nationals now be legally obliged to inform the Secretary of State every time they change circumstances, as the Minister implied in his introduction, even if they would still be qualified to enter or remain under the paragraph of the rules under which they were given leave to enter or remain? For instance, would the students who are to be covered under this order have to notify the Secretary of State every time they change from one faculty to another or from one college to another? The Minister said that we need to define very closely the changes in circumstances that need to be notified to the Secretary of State. I examined the Explanatory Memorandum closely, and I was none the wiser on the questions I have just put to the Minister. When the BIDs are extended to workers admitted under the points-based system, what are the implications for employers who unwittingly take on or continue to employ a foreign worker with limited leave to remain who has failed to notify the UKBA of a change in his circumstances? How will the UKBA inform migrants, universities, employers and others who may have new duties of what they have to do and what information they have to provide? Let me give one example of the sort of difficulty that may arise. If it had not been for the recent case of GO and others v the Secretary of State, in which the Court of Appeal ruled that a student could change from one course to another without invalidating her leave to remain, switching courses might have amounted to a change in circumstances falling within Regulation 18(d) requiring the student to notify the Secretary of State. May I assume that as a result of that case, the student who changes his course does not have an obligation to notify the Secretary of State of that fact? Under Regulation 7, children under the age of 18 are to provide fingerprints and facial photographs. With no lower limit on the age given in the order, the only condition is that a responsible adult, such as the parent or guardian, must be present when the biometric information is being obtained. In the Explanatory Memorandum on the code of practice, there are three paragraphs referring to compliance with EU regulations on a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals, to be phased in over two to three years from the agreement of technical standards. The impact assessment states that one of the benefits is that the cards are interoperable with those in place across the whole of the European Union. Surely this has to mean that the technical standards have already been agreed, so that they can be applied to the documents covered by this order. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an assurance on that point. We have opted in to agreements on residence permits in the EU, but not on visas, where the European Parliament adopted a report on 10 July dealing with the collection of biometric data from applicants for Schengen visas. Although we are not in the Schengen system, the rules for collection and storage of biometric information for visas obviously should be aligned with those for residence permits, even if they are dealt with under different provisions of European legislation. My noble friend Lady Ludford is the European Parliament rapporteur on the biometric visa system, and she tells me that they have been unable to reach agreement with the Council on the fingerprinting and photographing of children under the age of 16. The Council wants biometric data to be taken from children over five, while the European Parliament is saying that 12 should be the minimum age. Meanwhile, as was mentioned by the Minister, the Council has already provided, in regulation 380/2008, that for residence permits, children are to be fingerprinted from at least six onwards and even younger at the discretion of member states. In our case, the impact assessment seems to imply, on page 13, that up to the age of six, children's biometrics will be confined to a digitalised photograph, although the order itself allows both photographs and fingerprints to be taken from babies. Would the Minister please clarify the Government's intentions on age? Whatever age is chosen as the minimum, do they envisage that, for children, the biometrics will last throughout their lives or will they have to renew them periodically, and if so how often? Is the renewal of children’s biometrics built into the estimated £187.6 million present value costs of the scheme over the first 10 years given on page 14 of the impact assessment? My noble friend Mr Tom Brake got no answer in another place to his question about the calculated savings from the whole scheme of £29.8 million over 10 years because the Minister, Meg Hillier, said that she had already explained that figure, when all that she had actually said was that it was ““based on economic evidence””. It would be useful if the Minister could give us a bit more information about how this saving was calculated than the Commons managed to extract from Ms Hillier when they discussed this matter. If the Minister wishes to place the information in the Library of the House rather than going into it in detail this afternoon, that will be perfectly acceptable. In the impact assessment, we are told about the enrolment pilot, to which the Minister also referred, being conducted on spouses, civil partners and students applying for extensions of their leave to remain to pressure-test the enrolment processes and technology. We noted that the time needed to take fingerprints was less than expected, and we would like to know whether it enables the UKBA to verify or to amend the paper calculation of the operational costs. What was the practice on recording the applicants' children's biometrics in the pilot, and although only a vignette was issued to the applicants, and not the card now provided for in these regulations, will the people who have been through the pilot—the Minister mentioned 7,500 people—now receive cards using the biometrics already obtained? Although we are not in Schengen, is it the Government’s intention to comply with European decisions on the biometric visa system? If so, or if our own visa system is to impose similar requirements, will everybody entering the UK legitimately from outside the EEA area have had their biometrics taken already? Will there be arrangements to transfer the electronic images of fingerprints and facial images taken for the purposes of granting the visa in the country of origin to the UKBA so that they can be incorporated in the BID so that new biometrics do not have to be taken once the migrant reaches the United Kingdom? Finally, in Committee on the then UK Borders Bill, we suggested that an independent monitor be appointed to oversee the rollout and particularly to ensure compliance with discrimination legislation. The Information Commissioner will have the responsibility of ensuring that the personal biometric information collected from the millions of persons granted limited leave to remain is collected, stored, transferred and processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act and used only for the purposes specified by Parliament. That is a huge addition to his responsibilities. However, in view of the concerns expressed by Liberty, ILPA and others and the need to ensure that we are in step with the rest of the EU, as well as the very significant cost uncertainties arising, the appointment of an independent monitor is a necessary and prudent safeguard.