From Gerard Baudains.
ONCE again, Jersey people might be required to have a compulsory Identity Card.
It didn’t work during the Occupation, when sanctions were somewhat more severe than Senator Routier proposes today, and won’t work in the future.

First of all, one must ask the fundamental question: what is it supposed to achieve?

We are told the primary purpose is to ‘fight immigration’ and the white van man syndrome, whereby non-locals arrive on the ferry to do work in Jersey only to leave soon after without paying taxes or Social Security contributions.

Well, here I am surprised by the good Senator. As political head of the Social Security Department for many years, I’d have expected him to know better. However, I mitigate this with the knowledge that he is a reliable team player and therefore will be purveying the collective thoughts of the Council of Ministers – such as they are.

The plan has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese, so let’s start with the most obvious; one of the largest users of white van man is the States itself. An awful lot of maintenance that could be done locally is instead farmed out by entities such as the JEC, Transport and Technical Services department and the Airport to name just three. No need for a compulsory ID card to cure this – merely a ministerial direction to the appropriate department.

The other main culprit is alleged to be the construction industry. Leaving aside the fact that it’s bureaucratic red tape that prevents employing locals whereas outside assistance bypasses this (I wanted to employ two persons a couple of years ago but decided against it when contemplating all the bureaucracy involved) how exactly would an ID card be more effective than the present Social Security card – which everyone already has and is necessary in order to be employed?

Presumably the good Senator – he was president of/minister for Social Security long enough – recalls the occasion when his department did a raid at the waterfront aimed at catching the white van men allegedly working there? Perhaps he also recalls that on that day it appeared a Bank Holiday was declared – but only on the waterfront. No one was there – they had been tipped off.

Would the Senator explain how an ID card would be more effective than the Social Security card in such cases? Would he also inform us how applying the new legislation would remove white van man from the construction industry when very few working in it are employed directly, but are sub-contracted?

This whole idea is an old one kicked around to avoid having a meaningful immigration policy. It will not work, is offensive to those who lived here during the Occupation, will cost a fortune to administer (remember how the ‘efficiency’ savings that moving from welfare to Income Support was going to create actually became £100m more?) and, above all, is unnecessary.

The present Social Security card – which we all have – could well be tweaked to be more effective on the employment front simply by adding a suffix to the number declaring the holder’s status. Exactly as proposed on the new card. Of course, that wouldn’t satisfy the Council of Ministers because it wouldn’t cost enough.
I suggest this proposition is postponed from June until after October’s elections.
That way, the public can effectively vote on it by noting each candidate’s intention in that direction.