The government of Bahrain is facing resistance from the parliament over a bill that seeks to tie the validity of the Central Population Registry (CPR) card to residency duration. The government argues that existing laws already address the issue, making the new legislation unnecessary. The bill aims to enhance financial returns to the public purse by tightening control over irregular labour and restricting access to government and banking services.
The government insists that legislative measures should introduce new elements rather than reiterate what is already established. It stresses the importance of reassessing current laws relevant to the issues the bill seeks to address. The proposed legislation targets non-Bahraini residents, linking the validity of their CPR cards to their residency period. However, the government argues that such provisions are already covered in the executive regulations of the Identity Card Law from 2007.
According to the government, existing regulations ensure that CPR card holders must be legally residing in Bahrain, a fundamental condition for both issuance and renewal. It cautions that tying the validity of CPR cards to varying residency durations could lead to practical complications, particularly in regards to discrepancies with driving licenses and residency visas. The Information and eGovernment Authority (iGA) automatically suspends the activation of CPR cards upon notification of residency cancellation, preventing those who violate residency conditions from accessing essential services.
The government also highlights potential inconsistencies within the proposed bill, such as the disparity in validity periods for different types of residency. For example, the Golden Residency Visa extends for 10 years, while identity cards for non-Bahraini residents would only be valid for five. This contradicts the principles of the Identity Card Law, which aims to maintain legislative effectiveness while allowing flexibility to adapt to changes in the labour market.
Ultimately, the government advocates for retaining the current framework and making adjustments through executive regulations without the need for new laws. This approach allows for swift administrative responses to the evolving dynamics of the labour market. The government argues that the proposed bill is unnecessary and may create practical complications if implemented.
