Report - Guardian

The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005 133- The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) stated that ‘a universal mechanism ofidentification would be “a welcome step forward in improving access toservices”’, however it also mentioned that the requirement for foreign nationalsto register first would place heavy burdens on individuals.- The Home Affairs Select Committee, which published a report on identity cardson 30 th July 2004, accepted the useful role that ID cards may maintain withregard to access to services; however, in considering the effect of identity cardson minorities, particularly the socially excluded and ethnic minorities, concludedthat they would be asked more frequently by the police to produce the identitycard and this would have an adverse effect on race relations.- The Government accepts that a compulsory scheme would be lessdiscriminatory.- Overall, the majority of participants were in favour of the Identity Card scheme.This last finding is the more surprising when one considers the findings of the UKPassport Services study: it noted that 55% of the BME subgroups considered biometricsas an infringement of civil liberties, as did 53% of those who were designated as ‘otherreligion’. Similarly, 42% of the 18-34 subgroup saw biometrics as an infringement ofcivil liberties.ID and Illegal Immigration and WorkComplaints concerning the discriminatory and draconian nature of the immigration stopchecks have led to some compromise in the way operations are conducted, asdemonstrated by the withdrawal of support from the London Underground. If the police,working with immigration officials, can already stop a person at random on the groundsthat they reasonably suspect him of being an “immigration offender”, and demand toverify his immigration/citizenship status, the National Identity Register and the ID cardfits into these plans perfectly. The Bill, in this context, is therefore integral to thecreation of an increasingly police-orientated state. If a person of Asian origin has theoption of carrying an ID card or being subject to 40 minute ‘verifications’, then thedescription ‘voluntary’ becomes meaningless. The introduction of identity cards,whether mandatory to carry at all times or not, will enshrine and condone random,racially based stop-checking.On the issue of illegal working, the situation is similarly confusing. The Bill creates asituation where employers are not obliged to verify identity cards, but the fact that theyhave done so will qualify as a defence if they are accused of employing a person withno right to work in the UK. The Government already has in place many safeguards forcontrolling illegal working in the UK: indeed, the legislation in this area was updated inMay 2004. Changes to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1998 were introduced to:- Make it harder for people who do not have permission to work in the UnitedKingdom to obtain work by using forged or false documents;- Make it easier for companies to ensure that they employ people who are legallypermitted to work in the United Kingdom;