UK Policy Consultation & Briefing

ID Card Discrimination Campaign

Parlaimentary Briefing
House of Commons Committee Stage of the Identity Card Bill

Why JCWI is concerned about identity cards:

The JCWI (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) is an independent national organisation which has been providing legal representation to individuals and families affected by immigration, nationality and refugee law and policy since 1967.

JCWI actively lobbies and campaigns for changes in law and practice and its mission is to eliminate discrimination in this sphere. JCWI works to influence debates on immigration and asylum issues in both the UK and at European level.

Migration-related legislation such as the identity card bill is therefore of central importance to us. Our membership also consists of many black and ethnic community organisations that represent people who may be affected by the proposed measure.

JCWI's general position on a national identity register is that it may be beneficial if people apply to register on a voluntary basis. However as the Bill stands we have concerns in relation to a number of clauses which we outline below:

Recommendations to the Standing Committee

Clause 18: The clause which gives us most concern is 18. We recommend deletion of section two of this clause for the following reasons:

1. The Government has given undertakings that this Bill will not lead to a culture whereby people are compelled to carry and identity card at all times and produce it to the police or other public officials. Section One of Clause 18 provides a safeguard against this.

2. However section two provides for an exception to this, viz those who may be compelled to register by reason of being a class of individual specified by the Home Secretary according to clause six. As the government has previously said foreign nationals will be compelled to register before other groups and clause six will allow for this, such individuals will be compelled to carry the card and to produce it if section two is allowed to stand

3. We believe this could impact on black and ethnic minorities, who if perceived to be foreign by police and public service officials may be compelled to carry the card de facto and be requested to produce it the card disproportionately. This will undermine any de jure safeguard provided by section one

Clauses six and nine: We believe there are good arguments for jettisoning clause six. There is ample evidence that the risk of traffickers exploiting migrant workers is increased because of their inability to access official documentation (The Guardian Mon 10 and 11 January 2005). Any move to compel foreign nationals to join a register and produce card in their dealings with authority could well compound the dependence of undocumented workers on the traffickers. In any case we recommend the Committee review the level of civil penalties ranging £1,000 to £2,500 for non-compliance with registration requirements

1. While these civil penalties are not mandatory we consider that if they were imposed at the maximum level they would be disproportionate in respect of the earnings of many migrant workers, particularly those arriving under the Sector Based Scheme, and who may fail comply with registration requirements purely through oversight.

2. European Court of Justice case law is clear that excessively punitive penalties applied in respect of non-nationals' non-compliance with registration requirements will be regarded as contrary to general Treaty principles of equal treatment and discriminatory (cite case).

Clause 15: We recommend deletion of Clause 15 and 17 for the following reasons:

1. Given the Department of Health proposals on primary health care, the exception to clause 15 under section two in connection with public health services may lead to the exemption of undocumented migrants from entitlement to some classes of treatment which they may be able to access currently

2. There has been no adequate impact assessment to date of the effects of such an exemption on the health of undocumented migrants or on public health generally: for example, potential of an individual not registered who requires and is denied insulin treatment to then make an increased claim on emergency services

3. The Department of Health has so far failed to reply to responses to the consultation on its proposals to restrict primary health care to overseas visitors or to report on the impact of its restriction of secondary care treatment from April 2004

4. This clause carries the risk of discriminatory treatment to black and ethnic minorities legally settled in England and Wales who if perceived to be foreign by public health service officials may be asked to produce proof of identity disproportionately in relation to accessing public health services.