My publications
My key sources COPYRIGHT > The originating content of this website is my own work, and subject to my copyright. But on one condition only, I hereby give my con- sent to its unrestricted reproduction for any purpose: the condition is that its source is subject to proper ack- nowledgment, giving my name, my assertion of copyright, and the name of this website as it source, namely >
www.warrenevans.net
David Blunkett is sound in parts, and perhaps we should expect no more. He certainly has his weak points as well. His new naturalisation package below is a bewildering mix of good and bad.
But he is wholly wrong to return to the theme of compulsory identity cards. The governmental hysteria following 11 September (for it is manifestly not a matter of public hysteria, here in Europe) does not justify the resurrection of this oft-failed project. Many of us will now have to devote time and energy to combat this bad idea. I was delighted to read a strong editorial leader opposing the measure, for all the right reasons, in The Daily Telegraph .
There is no evidence that , even in the trumped-up “war against terrorism”, our Police are less effective than the Police (say) of Hamburg, Barcelona, Rome or Amsterdam, where compulsory ID cards have long been in use. The Police have never made their case, on that score. The claim that it would be merely a “benefit entitlement card” is a fig-leaf, because it would be compulsory for everyone even those who never claimed, and never wished to claim, any social security benefit. The wealthy never claim free bus passes, but they will still have to have a card.
It is argued that the production of a card to the Police “would not be compulsory” – what a hoot! The Police already use many techniques as part of effective interrogation, and they must often sail close to the wind. If they used the “Wot no card?” technique, even without statutory power to do so, few people would know how to handle the situation, let alone make an effective complaint to the Commission. Let's get real: any "universal" card would increase police powers, without generating any demonstrable improvement in detection rates. Teenage crime would not be affected, for example, because these cards could not possibly be required of minors.
Other arguments abound , not least the risks of simple inefficiency. Even with a 1% failure rate (99% perfection) over half-a-million citizens every year would be exposed to new forms of injustice at the hands of the Police and other public authorities. It is also argued that illegal immigrants would be easier to track down. But how many slip through the net after they have been interrogated by officials? Illegal immigrants consist (at any one time) of perhaps 1-in-400 of the resident population, and the enforcement problem is to identify them in the first place. Before an official can interrogate a suspected illegal immigrant, he must first find someone to interrogate: with immigration control, that is the $64,000 needle-in-a-haystack question. ID cards will do nothing to change that. Again, there is no evidence that the Authorities in ID-card countries are any more "successful" on this score: in this sector, much more radical
re-thinking is necessary.
The same is true
of benefit fraudsters, although there is certainly an argument for making social-security benefit documentation more difficult to fiddle.
Finally, the Home Office says that the card would replace the other personal documents which it issues (Passports, Driving Licences). But that is a disingenuous argument, merely a matter of internal departmental convenience. For the real threat to personal freedom comes from the very process of data centralisation, the cumulation of personal data in single hands. The citizen has nothing to gain from this gratuitous concentration of information. For to concentrate data is to concentrate power.
The truth is that there would be no governmental gain to justify the civil rights loss. Labour backbenchers should again arise, to make that clear assertion. ID-card countries have had them in use for many decades, without proving their effectiveness. I shall be seeking to mobilise the opposition of the newly-formed Socialist Civil Liberties Association , which meets again next Monday.
But tell me, where do you stand on this? Drop me
a line.
I would reverse the order. And for the most part, the new White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven demonstrates an intention to embark upon comprehensive reform.
Many of the ideas are sound – extending the “working holidaymakers” scheme for young foreign travellers, extending the work-permit arrangements, confirming the right to apply for naturalisation after four years’ residence. The White Paper is well-intentioned, but does not break new ground. There is no systematic “Green Card” scheme which would assure an orderly path to UK settlement for workers in all categories, on a fair queuing basis. There is no sponsorship scheme, enabling newcomers to be supported by organisations or groups within the UK, removing the need for them to draw state benefits, a practice which is well established in Canada and is under active consideration by the German government. There is no amnesty for existing illegal immigrants, as is regularly practised in the United States.
The scheme is designed to maintain the Less Eligibility Principle . That was the term given to the welfare strategy of the UK Government in the 1850/75 period. All support services (the workhouse, outdoor relief) were to be “less eligible” (i.e. less attractive as the alternative of choice) than any conventional mode of life. Workhouses were intended to be nasty places, with tough management regimes. Diets were deliberately meagre, the food deliberately of poor quality. The same was true of prison management, at a time when deportation to the Colonies ceased, and many of our great Victorian prisons were built. Public housing was virtually non-existent, until much later in the 19th century. The object was to deter the poor from developing any kind of welfare dependency. Being poor should be made a truly awful experience.
That describes the Howard/Straw approach to immigration. Being an immigrant to the UK should be configured as a truly awful option. And if that spills over to the treatment of asylum seekers, that’s tough. And while David Blunkett shows some glimmer of understanding of the case for reform, he has not departed from that old Home Office position. He has embarked upon his personal migration, but without getting very far. As Bill Morris (TGWU) said, “Overall, the White Paper is intended to deter, not welcome”.
At some stage, we must all make that systemic switch. We must start to welcome newcomers in our midst. For those who seek to join our community, to be naturalised, and to settle here, we must improve the quality of our welcome. After all, we need them.
The contrary is also true. We are perfectly entitled to be tough on unlawful immigrants, if there are equitable options in place for lawful migrants. The prerequisite for toughness is that we offer convincing legal paths for legal immigrants to tread. All the European countries now need immigration, for the sustenance of their economic and social fabric. This is the reform Rubicon which David Blunkett has yet to cross.
And his ideas for a “naturalisation” ceremony are hilarious. Now: I do not reject the creation of some kind of rite de passage. Rituals have declined in our society, and we ought to be inventing new ones. My great mentor and good friend Michael Young Death of a Great Entrepreneur was working on a new form of civilian baby-naming ceremony at the time of his death. And I thoroughly approve of Lord Lester's Bill to create "Civil Partnerships" (with the same legal effect as marriage) as between diverse couples, which would create a very important new ritual in society, with great social and personal signficance. So I am certainly not opposed to new rituals. And on naturalisation, if I were an MP I would not vote against the suggested ceremonial details, anachronistic and absurd though I consider them to be. I do not even oppose the idea of offering
free English lessons.
But I will go to the barricades against the idea of newcomers' having to “pass” a marked exam in spoken and written English, in order to be “allowed in” to the charmed circle of UK citizenship. This is a test too far. It would be oppressive, and cause fear and distress, particularly to older applicants. It has always been possible for a newcomer to be accepted as a UK citizen, with any degree of linguistic proficiency or with none. That represents a sound liberal principle. Language is a peripheral issue. It is the sovereignty of the individual spirit and individual personality that matters, not current language choice or ability. The creation of language examinations is misconceived as a matter of principle, and for that reason will cause massive problems in practice.
Just imagine! Welsh speakers from Patagonia are to be admitted on the basis of their Welsh proficiency, even if they speak no English... What about dumb people: will they be examined in “English” sign-language? And who will be the Examiners? What sort of English will they speak? Estuary or Brum? In what accent will the oral examination be conducted? Will they all use BBC English? The complexities will themselves be hilarious. I hope that Blunkett ditches the idea quickly, along with his ill-judged complaints about brides-from-abroad, before they irretrievably destroy his gravitas. Because in politics David, people sometimes remember the bad parts of the egg, and not the good.
But he is being pursued by Richard Branson’s lawyers demanding a name-change and threatening legal action. They claim that he is “passing off” his little Ormskirk company as part of the mighty Virgin empire. It's all too heavy-handed.
True, no businessman is allowed to represent, or “pass off” his business as that of any other. That is an ancient common law restriction upon business freedom. If there is a “likelihood of confusion in the public mind” between the images of the two business, the Courts will require the newcomer to give way, and use some other image. And that is the case, in spite of the fact that Companies House may have accepted the formal company name upon registration. Yet in spite of the unimportance of the Boileau business, the Virgin lawyers are determined to protect the value of the brand name. Their reaction is entirely disproportionate. I remember that, when I worked for BOVIS, there was a small Birmingham builder who called himself B-VIS, and used the same bold red lettering as Bovis used to use (before the humming-bird arrived, with Wolff Olins). The builder was of course "passing off" his site as ours, because at a distance the eye could not tell the difference between the two
signs. But we laughed it off, and let it pass. Branson should get out more, and call off his dogs of war.
It is however a straw in the wind, an indication of where, in modern business, value lies. Brands matter. Mr Boileau has a fight on his hands.
This graph, from the Daily Telegraph, shows what has happened to the gold price in the last two years since before the commencement of the American presidential election campaign, which seems to have boosted confidence and depressed gold prices. Elections, these days, are good for business. Japanese anxieties are reported to be a major factor in promoting a flight into gold, thus pushing up the price.