Select Committee on Home Affairs Written Evidence


48.  Memorandum submitted by the Commission for Racial Equality

1.  INTRODUCTION

  1.1.  The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) is a publicly funded, non-governmental body set up under the Race Relations Act 1976. We work in both the public and private sectors to encourage fair treatment for everyone, regardless of their race, colour, nationality, or national or ethnic origin. The CRE has a statutory duty to work towards the elimination of racial discrimination, to promote equality of opportunity and to promote good relations between people of different racial groups. It also has a duty to keep the working of the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended under review and to submit proposals for amendment to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, either when required to do so or when the CRE thinks it necessary.

  1.2.  With these roles in mind the CRE has considered the likely impact on race equality and race relations of the proposals in the Government's Legislation on Identity Cards consultation paper[77]. The CRE responded to the Government's previous consultation on this subject in January 2003[78]. This submission builds on some of the issues raised in the earlier consultation response, but is also sensitive to political developments since then, and the higher level of detail included in the draft bill published on 26 April 2004. Two days after the bill was published the Home Affairs Committee (HAC) issued a press release seeking further written evidence to inform its own scrutiny of the draft bill.

  1.3.  This submission to the HAC highlights the CRE's initial observations regarding the substance of the draft bill, and the principle of an ID cards scheme more generally. It does not represent a comprehensive analysis, and it does not draw a conclusion as to the advisability of the Government's plans. It does however register some reservations about the likely impact on race equality. Once the Commission has studied the details of the draft bill further, a further response to the provisions in the draft bill will be submitted direct to the Home Office before July 20 and made available on the CRE website.

  1.4.  Broadly the draft bill proposes to:

    —  establish a database—the National Identity Register, which will hold identity details of those people registered and issued with a card;

    —  specify information that may be recorded in the Register (including the biometric data) and the safeguards to ensure this is only available to those with lawful authority;

    —  provide data-sharing powers to conduct thorough background checks on applicants for identity cards so as to make sure that the details they have provided are correct;

    —  establish powers to issue identity cards. This includes designating existing documents (which could include passport cards, residence permits for foreign nationals, and photocard driving licences) as part of the identity cards scheme. It also includes the power to issue `plain' biometric identity cards;

    —  enable regulations to be made that will specify how an application for an identity card should be made and the information that must be produced to support an application;

    —  set out the safeguards to protect an individual's data and define the exceptional circumstances in which specified agencies, such as security and intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies could have information disclosed from the Register without an individual's consent;

    —  provide safeguards over "function creep" in terms of information that may be held on the card or the Register;

    —  enable public and private sector organisations to verify a person's identity by checking a card against the National Identity Register, with the person's consent, to validate identity and residential status before providing services;

    —  create new criminal offences around the misuse of identity cards and other identity fraud issues and provide a civil penalty for failure to notify changes affecting the accuracy of an individual's entry on the Register;

    —  include enabling powers so that in the future regulations can be made relating to the use of the card scheme; and

    —  provide a power to set a date when the scheme would become compulsory with a requirement to register and be issued with a card and a civil penalty for failure to register.

2.  THE PRINCIPLE OF AN ID CARD SCHEME

  2.1.  In its Next Steps[79] paper of November 2003, the Government announced its intention to build the base for a compulsory ID card scheme. The draft bill sets out how it aims to proceed, and enables the move from a voluntary to a compulsory scheme. However, there remain strong concerns about the principle of introducing identity cards, and that the Government has made a decision to proceed without setting out a clear and compelling case for doing so. At a very minimum, the government must convince all communities of two things:

    (a)  That the ID card scheme is a proportionate, and cost-effective response to public policy problems, and can be delivered.

    (b)  That a potential scheme would not entail adverse effects for ethnic minority groups.

  2.2.  Before moving to the CRE's assessment of the race equality implications of the draft bill, it is important to revisit briefly the Government's justifications for the ID card scheme. This is because the issues the government hopes to tackle with ID cards are all pertinent for ethnic minorities. There is a potential benefit to ID cards scheme in that they could enable immigrants and other groups to authenticate their identities (for accessing the labour market and public services where they are entitled). However, ID cards, on their own, are not a complete solution to all of the problems the Government has identified. The Government has stated that most of the cost of the scheme will be necessary if the UK moves to a biometric system for passports and driving licences anyway. That should not be the overriding factor in a decision to extend the scope of the scheme to tackle illegal working and benefit fraud. It is debateable whether significant portions of the proposed £3.1 billion cost of the scheme could not be used in other ways to tackle the threat of terrorism, for example by building links with local communities. Certainly the potential benefit of ID cards is not the same for each problem identified by the Government.

    —  Tackling terrorism and transnational crime

  2.2.1.  The CRE is aware that advanced technology and the increased mobility of finance and people worldwide make it more difficult to authenticate and protect an individual's identity today. Heightened public concern associated with the growing national security threat is reflected in opinion polls indicating that British people are more willing to sacrifice a certain amount of liberty for greater security. The CRE appreciates that in light of these threats, the Government must take measures to face the challenges posed by those who would use identity theft and fraud for terrorist activity, and allay genuine security concerns shared by all of Britain's communities[80].

  2.2.2.  However, it is also critical that threats posed by a few individuals do not translate into measures that, especially since September 11, are perceived as being targeted exclusively at Muslims or any other racial or faith community. If the proposed scheme is to proceed, the Government has proposed limited data sharing powers. It is encouraging that the draft bill contains no general power to share data for purposes. Understandably, the bill allows for disclosure in the interests of national security and for preventing and investigating serious crime. Security and intelligence agencies can increase their effectiveness in tackling terrorism by focusing greater attention on improving community relations. It is crucial to tackling the threat posed by extremists from all communities. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said earlier this year that "It is more important than ever before that we in government build a close relationship and dialogue with Muslim communities."[81] This positive engagement could easily be undermined by number of high-profile arrests and detentions of Muslims that have led to no charges or convictions[82]. Between 11 September 2001 and March 2004, there have been 561 arrests in the UK under the Terrorism Act. But up to the end of January, only 100 of these had faced charges under this legislation, leading to six convictions. It is therefore vital that safeguards and guidance are in place to ensure that the practical use of the ID register by the security agencies does not exacerbate the intrusion that some communities feel (who believe they have unjustly suffered in recent months), or heighten general suspicion of particular groups unnecessarily.

  2.2.3.  At the same time, almost no empirical research has been undertaken to establish clearly how identity cards might effectively prevent acts of terrorism. A recently published report[83] has highlighted that of the 25 countries that have been most adversely affected by terrorism since 1986, 80% have national identity cards, one third of which incorporate biometrics. The research was unable to uncover evidence that the presence of an identity card scheme in those countries was seen as a significant deterrent to terrorist activity. More crucially perhaps, a national identity card as proposed by the Home Office, could only assist anti-terrorism efforts if it were used by a terrorist who was eligible and willing to register for one, if the person were using their true identity, and if intelligence data could be connected to that identity. At the very least, the government will have to consider the provision in the draft bill that states that a foreign national need only apply for an ID card if they are going to be in the country for over three months. This provision would not effectively tackle the threat of bombers for example who would need only a few days in the country to plan and execute their plans.

    —  Allowing employers and service providers to establish more easily whether people are entitled to work, or to access services

  2.2.4.  As well as measures aimed at tackling terrorist threats to national security, the CRE welcomes coordinated efforts to disrupt the activities of international criminal gangs responsible for people-trafficking and illegal working in unsafe conditions. It is well documented that illegal working can have a damaging effect on race relations, and unfairly disadvantage sections of the legally employed workforce, many of whom are from established ethnic minority communities[84]. The CRE understands therefore the importance of vigorously tackling the problem to ensure that the process of integrating legitimate newcomers to the UK is not undermined by tensions with established communities. However, while addressing the issue will help build confidence in the immigration and asylum system, there is no clear evidence that ID cards solve the problems associated with low prosecution rates for employing illegal workers. The government has acknowledged difficulties in enforcing Section 8 of the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act in its current form, and forthcoming changes to it are necessary. However, if unscrupulous employers do not check existing documentation because it is advantageous for them not to, there is no guarantee that they will start checking ID cards.

  2.2.5.  While the government should develop an effective enforcement system to eliminate illegal working, equal attention should be focused on ensuring that the proposed scheme does not lead to discrimination—where employers choose not to employ individuals from ethnic minorities altogether rather than carrying out the relevant checks. The CRE therefore welcomes the Government's commitment to work closely with employers organisations and trade unions to make the checking the proposed ID card to confirm an employee's eligibility to work a straightforward process. The Application Registration (ARC) Cards, which replaced paper identity cards for asylum seekers, have proven to be accepted by asylum seekers and refugee communities as a secure form of ID. The introduction of the card, although controversial in the beginning, has improved a system which was too slow, vulnerable to fraud and unfair both on local people and on asylum seekers. It is possible therefore, that an ID card could also become quickly accepted on the fight against illegal working.

  2.2.6.  However, the Government's proposals, if they are to proceed, must ensure that those who are legally allowed to work are not prevented from doing so by the slow updating of information held on the ID register. Unemployment among refugees of working age is around 36%, six times the national average[85]. Refugees and ethnic minorities are already disadvantaged because of barriers to the labour market. The draft bill places a duty on the individual to ensure that information about themselves is accurate and complete, with a £1,000 civil penalty for those who contravene this requirement. Where this information relates to changes in immigration status allowing an individual to work, the CRE trusts that the systems the Home Office put in place for updating such information would not slow down access to the labour market for affected groups.

  2.2.7.  There are also other options for tackling illegal working. It is often suggested that a potentially more effective approach to addressing illegal working would be to ensure the effective enforcement of existing employment law—through a statutory body responsible for monitoring employment practice, for example[86]. An alternative approach would be to monitor illegal working as part of the enforcement regime related to the national minimum wage—since part of the concern about illegal working is that exploited workers are not being paid the national minimum wage. More stringent enforcement of employment law would target disreputable employers who undermine the good practice of trustworthy employers.

    —  Increasing confidence in the security and integrity of our immigration controls, leading to a more cohesive society

  2.2.8.  It is encouraging that the Government continues to recognise that managed inward migration is of potential value to the UK economy and society[87]. Many observers have highlighted the impossibility of knowing how many people are illegally present in the UK[88]. It is debateable whether a compulsory national identity card scheme would reveal significant numbers of such people. It is probable however, given current experience, that many would be forced to lead an increasingly underground existence. In the course of the debate about ID cards, very little has been said by the Government about assessing the impact on those who have been living and working illegally in the UK for many years—particularly the impact on the children of such people (who may be kept away from vital non-emergency public services once the scheme becomes compulsory). The entrenching of such an underclass would not be conducive to building community cohesion.

3.  RACE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

  3.1.  The CRE welcomes the Home Office commitment to a thorough race impact assessment of the ID card scheme. The focus group work and polling of ethnic minority groups was a useful starting point, and the inclusion in the draft bill at Annex C of a partial Race Impact Assessment of the scheme reflects attention paid to key issues of concern that have emerged over the last few months.

  3.2.  Although the Government has highlighted opinion polls showing that four out of five people support the introduction of ID cards, Home Office research on public perceptions of identity cards also showed that ethnic minorities, when consulted, did not embrace the idea of identity cards, and were more likely to have reservations than the White British population[89].

  3.3.  The CRE notes that nothing is mentioned in the race impact assessment about the pilot scheme that is currently underway to test the operation of the scheme among 10,000 volunteers. The CRE anticipates that the Home Office is monitoring all aspects of the pilot for its impact on race equality, and that it will publish the results ahead of any further decisions about the ID card scheme.

  3.4.  Reservations about ID cards are based largely on the historical operation of policing checks.[90] These are substantiated by statistical evidence of continued racial bias in the way stop and search operates. The CRE welcomes, therefore, that the draft bill provides a specific prohibition on introducing regulations that would require a card to be carried at all times. If the scheme is to have the confidence of ethnic minority groups, the production of comprehensive codes of practice for raising awareness of the scope of police powers is crucial. However, equally important is effective and unbureaucratic recourse to an independent body that can investigate practical abuse of the scheme by individual police officers and other authorities at street level. There is no lack of guidance on stop and search, but Home Office figures show that black people continue to be eight times—and Asian people three times—more likely to be stopped and searched than their white counterparts. There is scope for police officers to use ID cards to inconvenience ethnic minorities unnecessarily, and authorities in France and Germany have been accused of discriminating against ethnic minorities with on the spot requests for ID cards even where this is forbidden.[91] While the draft bill specifically addresses the powers of police officers in relation to ID cards, there is nothing similar outlined for other law enforcement agencies for whom relations with ethnic minority communities have been uneasy.

  3.5.  The CRE is concerned that the Government, should it decide to continue with the scheme, intends to take a two-phase approach which makes having an ID card compulsory for foreign nationals resident in the UK for more than three months. It remains to be seen whether this provision is discriminatory to foreign nationals under UK race relations legislation. However, the CRE is concerned to some degree about the message this approach sends out to the public; one that suggests that foreigners are second-class people within society, and can be treated as such. This would not promote good relations between different national or ethnic groups. It should also be remembered that this two-phase approach will affect many members of long established ethnic groups in the UK who have either chosen not to take up British citizenship, or cannot because dual nationality is not allowed in their country of birth. One solution is to make the scheme mandatory for everyone at an earlier point.

  3.6.  The Government has acknowledged concerns about the amount of data that could be included in the ID register and on the face of any card. The CRE welcomes the stringent approach to specifying in Schedule 1 of the draft bill, the information that may be included in the scheme[92]. The Government has signalled that "the level of information to be held on the National Identity Register and on the face of the card `will not be significantly more than that recorded now for the issue of passports'".

3.7.  CONCLUSION

    —  There is a potential benefit to an ID card scheme to the extent that it could provide an easier way for immigrants to authenticate their identities for accessing the labour market and public services where they are entitled.

    —  However, ID cards, on their own, are not a complete solution to all of the problems the Government has identified.

    —  The convenience factor (of extending current plans in place for developing biometric passports and driving licences) should not be the overriding reason for extending the scope of the scheme to tackle other perceived problems.

May 2004






77   Referred to from here on as the `draft bill', consultation paper Cm 6178 is available on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/identitycardsconsult.pdf Back

78   CRE (2003) Response to the Government's Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud consultation paper http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/docs/idcards.doc Back

79   Home Office (2003) Identity Cards: The Next Steps (Cm 6020) Back

80   BBC (2004) Muslims urged to fight terror http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3586565.stm Back

81   Speaking at the Muslim News Awards 31 March 2004. Back

82   BBC (2004) Hundreds arrested, handful convicted http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3290383.stm Back

83   Privacy International (2004) Mistaken Identity: Exploring the Relationship Between National Identity Cards & the Prevention of Terrorism http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/uk/id-terrorism.pdf Back

84   TUC (2003) Overworked, underpaid and over here-Migrant workers in Britain. Back

85   DWP (2002) Refugees: Opportunities and barriers in employment and training http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rrep179.asp Back

86   CAB (2004) Nowhere to Turn http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/docks/nowhere-to-turn0204.pdf Back

87   Speech by Tony Blair on to the Confederation of British Industry on migration (27 April) http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page5708.asp Back

88   Home Affairs Select Committee (2004) Asylum Applications: Second report of Session 2003/4 http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/218/218.pdf Back

89   Home Office (2003) Public Perceptions of Identity/Entitlement Cards http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/qualitative-research031111.pdf Back

90   Home Office (2003) Public Perceptions of Identity/Entitlement Cards p26. Back

91   Liberty (2004) The Government's ID Card Proposals: Submission to Home Affairs Committee http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/privacy/id-card-oral-evidence-feb-04.pdf Back

92   The information would include a person's name, address, date and place of birth and nationality, immigration status (for third country nationals), biometric data and head and shoulders photograph. Ethnicity data will not be recorded on the register or on the face of the card. Back


 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 30 July 2004