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

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale; on every other occasion in Grand Committee, I have been accustomed to going third. These Benches—noble Lords can see the support behind me—do not support the regulations. We do not support the national identity card scheme so it follows that we do not support the regulations. Phrases such as "the thin end of the wedge" have been used on a number of occasions. We have probably now moved a little closer to the middle of the wedge. Since warning the Minister last night of only a couple of questions that I thought I might have on the regulations, thinking that most of the points would be rhetorical, I have come up with some more questions. I apologise that I have not warned him of them, but they are all perfectly obvious and I am sure that he is well briefed. First, since the scheme is being rolled out as part of an incremental arrangement, what has been learned so far? How successful is the scheme in the Government’s view? How is the success measured? The Minister has told us that 120,000 cards have been issued, that there have been 15 successful prosecutions and that 14 cases await prosecution. I assume that that means that they are awaiting trial and that all 29 refer to prosecutions made possible by the cards. I do not know whether the Government are able to give us any comparison with the pre-card regime. Also, who were the stakeholders with whom the regulations were discussed? What were their views? They are mentioned in paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum. If there was no formal consultation on the regulations, presumably there is no formal collation of the views but, in a scheme which is being rolled out, it is fundamental that the views of stakeholders are accumulated and made available in some manner. I am aware that I have now probably been speaking for as long as the Minister. I apologise to the Grand Committee, because I intend to go on for a bit longer. The Government have stated their reason for focusing on foreign nationals—the difficulties experienced by employers in deciding whether a foreign national is entitled to work. I am intrigued to know how much more rolling out will be required for there to be full coverage of foreign nationals. Until it is full, how much use is a partial scheme? I am intrigued to know that the regulations cover footballers and members of religious orders. To many citizens, those two would be much the same. Indeed, some football supporters regard themselves as missionaries for their sport and their teams. It is difficult not to think of foreign nationals as guinea pigs with relatively little public support. I do not mean groups that we have heard about—groups that are likely to abuse or breach the requirements. We know what happened when the Government tried to extend the scheme to airport workers; no doubt that is why they are sticking with foreign nationals. What assurances can the Minister give about fears of discrimination against some groups? Will this not adversely impact on members of black and minority-ethnic communities? Foreign nationals get the card only if they are here legally and already have documentation to prove it. Most people in this country illegally have come over on visas and have overstayed. I make the point, which has been made before and which we will make again and again, that exit checks are needed, not ID cards. We need to catch criminals, not just identify them. The appraisal annexed to the Explanatory Memorandum states that ID cards for foreign nationals will deter some illegal immigrants and will therefore reduce crime. What is that crime? Is it the crime of illegal immigration or is it suggested that illegal immigrants are disproportionately criminal in their tendencies? On fee income from overseas students, it is stated that an element of the immigration fees paid by them is attributable to the card. Since most of the funding for their fees comes from overseas sources, the fee is counted as a benefit to the UK economy. I am not asking a question about this; I simply want to put on record that I find that comment slightly shocking. The annexe also states that the card will make life easier for the cardholder over time. I again make the point that only when there is a full rollout will we see the benefits. There is great emphasis on the benefits to employers, who have to check whether potential employees are entitled to work. In the debate on this regulations yesterday in the Commons, the Minister, Meg Hillier, said that the scheme, ""is going very well. We are beginning to get reading machines out there; we have a number".—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 8/12/09; col. 7.]" She said there were 12 reading machines in active use at border controls and that they would be rolled out more widely. She said that the 12 readers would be deployed across major ports from January. Apart from the fact that 12 machines seem very few if this scheme is to be comprehensive, even as regards this relatively small group, I do not understand how it can help employers until each employer has a reader or easy access to a reader. I assume they are very expensive. Another benefit that the Government claim is that the scheme will help stamp out health tourism. Those who seek to extend their stay because they have come over for private medical treatment that has not finished will have practical difficulties in obtaining the card. The chances are that they will be too unwell to traipse off to do whatever is necessary to get that extension recorded. We are also told in the Explanatory Memorandum that cards will make things easier for the groups concerned. I do not understand that. It is an overarching point. Perhaps the Minister will be able to answer it. I shall not ask him to justify the regulations on the grounds of fighting terrorism because I am convinced there is no answer. However, I shall ask, finally, whether he can cheer us up by telling us that no further order or rollout is proposed in the next six months.