Latest news with #DavidBlunkett
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
The small boats crisis could make Blair's digital ID dream a reality
The last time a Labour government tried to introduce ID cards, Britain was a very different place. It was a pre-smartphone era, and less than half of the population had an internet connection, let alone social media. Privacy was expected. In 2002, five months after 9/11, David Blunkett, home secretary at the time, proposed a national 'entitlement card' designed to crack down on fraudulent use of benefits and the NHS. The plan ultimately morphed into an ID card scheme tied to a national identity register, a central record of citizens. Civil liberties campaigners howled, and despite the then prime minister Tony Blair's enthusiasm, the public never bought into the idea. The coalition government scrapped the idea in 2011, with immigration minister Damian Green personally feeding the hard drives into an industrial shredder. Few lamented the scheme's downfall. But Britain was also a different country in another way. In 2002, net migration into Britain was 172,000, compared with 431,000 last year. Illegal migration is more difficult to measure, but estimates suggest the size of this population has exploded, and small boat crossings have made the problem painfully visible. Asylum claims are at a record high. Immigration is now seen as the most important political issue by the British public, whereas two decades ago the NHS and terrorism were stronger priorities. Blair's ID card push came in the wake of terrorist attacks and was justified on national security grounds. Modern-day promoters of ID cards now believe that concerns around immigration could be the secret to reviving public appetite for a national scheme. Labour Together, the Westminster think tank seen as being closest to the Labour leadership, said last month that a digital 'BritCard' would be the most effective way for people to prove they have the right to be in the UK. Rather than the plastic cards proposed under New Labour, this would involve a mandatory free ID, downloadable on to a smartphone, that could be used to check people's age, their right to drive, work, rent and open bank accounts. The group says that 80pc of the public supports a digital identity in some form. The joint most popular reason for backing the idea is it would deter people from coming to the UK illegally to work. 'The polling is pretty conclusive that people like the idea of a system by which you can prove who you are', says Jake Richards, a Labour MP who supports the idea. 'I don't think there's this big civil liberties argument against it as there was in the Noughties.' Richards points out that many pieces of a digital ID are already in the works, although ministers do not call it that. The Government's digital services are already being combined into a single online system known as 'One Login' used to access childcare benefits, apply for grants and apply for training. Ministers are launching a digital driving licence later this year through a wallet service. Legal migrants must already display an eVisa when applying for jobs. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, is trying to centralise NHS data as a 'patient passport' by 2028. Blunkett recently argued that the Government should admit this effectively amounts to a digital ID. 'If something's going to happen, you might as well get some credit for it,' he wrote in Prospect magazine. Today, proving one's identity and right to work can involve an array of different documents and processes. There are 16 different ways for UK nationals to prove they have the right to work in the UK. A government-issued ID that displays credentials such as a person's name, right to work, whether they are over 18 and whether they have a driver's licence would, in theory, be harder to game. Proponents also claim that a digital ID card would cost significantly less than its analogue counterpart. In 2005, one analysis claimed that ID cards could cost around £18bn, or roughly £300 per person. Labour Together has estimated that the digital equivalent would cost between £150m and £400m, less than what the Home Office spends annually tackling illegal immigration. Rachel Coldicutt, a technology strategist who has studied digital IDs, says that this may be optimistic. 'Conservatively, you need to put another zero on those figures,' she says. 'Any solution needs to be absolutely rock solid from a technical perspective, and getting that right and usable by everyone is much, much harder than sending out a driver's licence. The real issue is that this could be a white elephant.' Debate on digital ID benefits Coldicutt is also sceptical about the benefits. ' People smugglers won't be scanning IDs before letting people onto small boats, and employers who don't check ID won't suddenly start obeying the law,' she says. While not a silver bullet for solving the problem of illegal migration, supporters argue that making it easier to check IDs would at least help. Verifying the multitude of potential documents can be expensive for employers, so many do not bother, and the multitude of potential documents makes it trivial to fake them. Measures such as last week's announcement that the Government will share the location of asylum hotels with food delivery companies to cut down on illegal working suggest the system, as it stands, can be easily bypassed. A free ID checking app, in comparison, would provide instant answers. Opposition to ID cards in Britain has often stemmed from historical liberties. Critics say digital IDs are reminiscent of a 'papers, please' society that Britain has never been. The only times they have existed have been during the two world wars, as well as the postwar period when practices such as rationing remained. But that argument holds less weight in a world in which we regularly part with personal information to shop online, or, in social media's case, merely to show off. As of last week, adult websites and social media sites must now verify users' ages, so that children are not shown inappropriate material. In other words, people must show ID. Opponents argue that digital IDs would be exclusionary to those without modern smartphones, but the argument is fading as more jobs require staff to be tethered to WhatsApp. Even if there are potential difficulties, Labour MPs are desperate to find a way to counter the rise of Nigel Farage's Reform UK, for whom each immigration scandal leads to a potential bump in the polls. In April, a group of more than 40 Labour MPs said digital ID cards were needed to take control of the migration system, saying 'this Government will only succeed if it is able to get a grip on illegal migration'. 'Lots of colleagues come up and say yes, that time has come', says Richards, the Labour MP. 'I think there's a lot of hunger for it.' The Government itself is yet to commit to the idea, beyond saying it is 'examining' proposals for a BritCard. But if the boats keep coming and the public gets behind the idea, Sir Keir Starmer may yet succeed in doing what Sir Tony couldn't.
Daily Mail
7 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Blair warned to keep 'out of control' immigration focus group report secret, amid concern public's views would be 'explosive' in the wrong hands, new documents reveal
David Blunkett told Tony Blair to keep secret a report that laid bare the public's view of 'out of control' immigration, newly released files show. The Prime Minister was warned by his Home Secretary in 2004 that the findings 'could be explosive in the wrong hands'. The top-secret focus group report unequivocally condemned the Government's record on immigration and asylum, files released to the National Archives in London reveal. The Home Office study of 27 panels from a mix of ethnic backgrounds, ages and geographic locations across the country in 2004 found the public considered immigration to be 'out of control'. Mr Blunkett, Home Secretary from 2001 until 2004, told Mr Blair: 'The consensus remains among the British public - particularly those reading national newspapers - that immigration and asylum are "out of control".' He added: 'You will see that this research, and the references to it in the paper, could be explosive in the wrong hands,' he wrote. The concern was despite Labour making progress reducing arrivals to the UK. Mr Blair sought to put pressure on France for their failure to stop uncharted migrants entering the UK via the Channel, the documents reveal. In the focus group, the March 2004 report authors acknowledge the research 'confirms that immigration is an issue of real concern to people'. It adds: 'There are no obvious signs of a breakthrough as a result of what has been achieved so far, and little recognition or credit for what the government has done on asylum.' Yet only a month earlier, Mr Blair was positively relieved that efforts to tackle immigration appeared to be working. The weekly asylum report for February 20 showed the UK had removed just over 300 asylum seekers, an improvement on previous weeks, with noted decreases in the number of Chinese and Somalian applicants - the two most common nationalities seeking asylum. 'This seems to be falling into place at long last,' Mr Blair wrote. However, the findings of the Home Office-backed study showed Labour's efforts to curb immigration were not being recognised on the doorstep. Net international migration to the UK in the year 2003/4 was 167,000 people, up from around 153,000 the previous year. 'Participants were overwhelmingly of the view that the UK does not have an effective immigration policy,' the report found. 'They feel that our traditional tolerance has been exploited and become a major weakness. They have a sense that our borders are completely open and overrun. 'Immigrants are perceived to benefit from positive discrimination and access to services such as education, housing and healthcare at the expense of the indigenous population who have 'paid their dues'.' The report also concluded that the public 'generally discarded' the potential positive contributions of migration, with many associating newcomers with 'scrounging' on benefits, or illegal activity. It added: 'These attitudes are held fairly consistently across all ethnic groups and all age groups. 'There were liberal dissenters in some groups - but these were firmly in the minority. 'Strongly-held negative impressions are more the result of anger that things have 'got to this state' rather than outright racism. 'There is a real resentment of political correctness - which is considered a reason why immigration and race cannot be discussed openly and therefore tackled effectively.' Mr Blunkett suggested that the press were 'moving the goalposts' to reinforce the idea that the asylum system was 'unmanaged and uncontrolled', with particular emphasis about the abuse of public services such as schools and hospitals. The files also reveal how the UK Government attempted to put pressure on Paris - including Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the future French President - to ramp up security on the other side of the Channel. Mr Blunkett is said to have raised this with Mr Sarkozy 'a number of times', but that the Elysee Palace's Finance Ministry refused to adequately resource so-called juxtaposed controls - where French officials are placed in the UK to check for illegal immigrants, and visa-versa.
The Guardian
07-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Blunkett urges ministers to use ‘incredible sensitivity' in changing Send system in England
Ministers must use 'incredible sensitivity' in making changes to the special educational needs system, former education secretary David Blunkett has said, as the government is urged not to drop education, health and care plans (EHCPs). Lord Blunkett, who went through the special needs system when attending a residential school for blind children, said ministers would have to tread carefully. The former home secretary in Tony Blair's government also urged the government to reassure parents that it was looking for 'a meaningful replacement' for EHCPs, which guarantee more than 600,000 children and young people individual support in learning. Blunkett said he sympathised with the challenge facing Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, saying: 'It's absolutely clear that the government will need to do this with incredible sensitivity and with a recognition it's going to be a bumpy road.' He said government proposals due in the autumn to reexamine Send provision in England were not the same as welfare changes, largely abandoned last week, which were aimed at reducing spending. 'They put another billion in [to Send provision] and nobody noticed,' Blunkett said, adding: 'We've got to reduce the fear of change.' Earlier Helen Hayes, the Labour MP who chairs the cross-party Commons education select committee, called for Downing Street to commit to EHCPs, saying this was the only way to combat mistrust among many families with Send children. 'I think at this stage that would be the right thing to do,' she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. 'We have been looking, as the education select committee, at the Send system for the last several months. We have heard extensive evidence from parents, from organisations that represent parents, from professionals and from others who are deeply involved in the system, which is failing so many children and families at the moment. 'One of the consequences of that failure is that parents really have so little trust and confidence in the Send system at the moment. And the government should take that very seriously as it charts a way forward for reform.' A letter to the Guardian on Monday, signed by dozens of special needs and disability charities and campaigners, warned against government changes to the Send system that would restrict or abolish EHCPs. Labour MPs who spoke to the Guardian are worried ministers are unable to explain essential details of the special educational needs shake-up being considered in the schools white paper to be published in October. Downing Street has refused to rule out ending EHCPs, while stressing that no decisions have yet been taken ahead of a white paper on Send provision to be published in October. Keir Starmer's deputy spokesperson said: 'I'll just go back to the broader point that the system is not working and is in desperate need of reform. That's why we want to actively work with parents, families, parliamentarians to make sure we get this right.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Speaking later in the Commons, Phillipson said there was 'no responsibility I take more seriously' than that to more vulnerable children. She said it was a 'serious and complex area' that 'we as a government are determined to get right'. The education secretary said: 'There will always be a legal right to the additional support children with Send need, and we will protect it. But alongside that, there will be a better system with strengthened support, improved access and more funding.' Dr Will Shield, an educational psychologist from the University of Exeter, said rumoured proposals that limit EHCPs – potentially to pupils in special schools – were 'deeply problematic'. Shield said: 'Mainstream schools frequently rely on EHCPs to access the funding and oversight needed to support children effectively. Without a clear, well-resourced alternative, families will fear their children are not able to access the support they need to achieve and thrive.' Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: 'Any reforms in this space will likely provoke strong reactions and it will be crucial that the government works closely with both parents and schools every step of the way.'
Yahoo
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Keir Starmer must end the injustice of indefinite sentences today
It is scarcely believable that there are still 2,614 people in prison in Britain serving indefinite sentences under legislation that was repealed 13 years ago – at a time when other prisoners are being released early because the jails are full. The government is now being given the chance to end this monstrous injustice – and to ease prison overcrowding – by adopting a plan drawn up by Lord Thomas, the former lord chief justice. Indeterminate sentences were brought in under the last Labour government as an exceptional measure for prisoners considered too dangerous to release without special safeguards. But Labour peer David Blunkett, who introduced the legislation, said that many more such sentences were handed out than he had intended, and the policy was the 'biggest regret' of his career. The sentence was abolished by the coalition government, but existing prisoners continued to be subject to the stringent rules, not knowing whether they would ever be released and, if they were, being recalled to prison for minor offences. Thus, there have been a succession of terrible cases reported by The Independent, including those of Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for stealing a mobile phone, and Abdullahi Suleman, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for stealing a laptop. Plainly, there is more to their stories than this, and the Parole Board does need to be sure that those who are released are unlikely to be a danger to the public. But it cannot be right that, had they committed their crime a day after indeterminate sentences were abolished, they would have long been freed. What makes it worse is that other prisoners, some of whom pose a greater risk to the public than they do, are being let out early to free up prison places. As we report today, Lord Thomas has led a panel of experts in drawing up proposals to give every prisoner serving an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence a release date within two years, and to recall them only as a last resort. James Timpson, the prisons minister and Labour peer, should accept this workable and detailed plan and seek to close this shameful chapter in the history of British criminal justice. Presumably, the only reason that he has not acted to end this scandal already is that Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, is reluctant. Having been forced to order the early release of prisoners to avoid the police having to let criminals go because there is nowhere to put them, she does not want to hand further ammunition to ignorant critics who accuse her of being soft on crime. She has shown courage in taking the difficult measures forced on her by the irresponsibility of Conservative ministers, who allowed prisons to reach crisis point. She should show some more bravery in doing the right thing, which can even be sold, in part, as another emergency measure to free up prison places. If she will not do it, Sir Keir Starmer should instruct her to. He is the law and order prime minister, the former director of public prosecutions, who understands the criminal justice system better than any minister. He cannot allow this injustice to continue and must act on Lord Thomas's recommendations. We understand that the prime minister has taken to asking officials with increasing frequency, as he gets to grips with the frustrations of trying to deliver change: 'Why not today?' Why, we should ask him, not put an end to this scandal today?
The Independent
21-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Keir Starmer must end the injustice of indefinite sentences today
It is scarcely believable that there are still 2,614 people in prison in Britain serving indefinite sentences under legislation that was repealed 13 years ago – at a time when other prisoners are being released early because the jails are full. The government is now being given the chance to end this monstrous injustice – and to ease prison overcrowding – by adopting a plan drawn up by Lord Thomas, the former lord chief justice. Indeterminate sentences were brought in under the last Labour government as an exceptional measure for prisoners considered too dangerous to release without special safeguards. But Labour peer David Blunkett, who introduced the legislation, said that many more such sentences were handed out than he had intended, and the policy was the ' biggest regret ' of his career. The sentence was abolished by the coalition government, but existing prisoners continued to be subject to the stringent rules, not knowing whether they would ever be released and, if they were, being recalled to prison for minor offences. Thus, there have been a succession of terrible cases reported by The Independent, including those of Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for stealing a mobile phone, and Abdullahi Suleman, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for stealing a laptop. Plainly, there is more to their stories than this, and the Parole Board does need to be sure that those who are released are unlikely to be a danger to the public. But it cannot be right that, had they committed their crime a day after indeterminate sentences were abolished, they would have long been freed. What makes it worse is that other prisoners, some of whom pose a greater risk to the public than they do, are being let out early to free up prison places. As we report today, Lord Thomas has led a panel of experts in drawing up proposals to give every prisoner serving an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence a release date within two years, and to recall them only as a last resort. James Timpson, the prisons minister and Labour peer, should accept this workable and detailed plan and seek to close this shameful chapter in the history of British criminal justice. Presumably, the only reason that he has not acted to end this scandal already is that Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, is reluctant. Having been forced to order the early release of prisoners to avoid the police having to let criminals go because there is nowhere to put them, she does not want to hand further ammunition to ignorant critics who accuse her of being soft on crime. She has shown courage in taking the difficult measures forced on her by the irresponsibility of Conservative ministers, who allowed prisons to reach crisis point. She should show some more bravery in doing the right thing, which can even be sold, in part, as another emergency measure to free up prison places. If she will not do it, Sir Keir Starmer should instruct her to. He is the law and order prime minister, the former director of public prosecutions, who understands the criminal justice system better than any minister. He cannot allow this injustice to continue and must act on Lord Thomas's recommendations. We understand that the prime minister has taken to asking officials with increasing frequency, as he gets to grips with the frustrations of trying to deliver change: 'Why not today?' Why, we should ask him, not put an end to this scandal today?
