There is not enough publicity given to consultations, and for as much talking as people like me make on subjects and issues in the blogosphere there aren't enough that actually engage with the processes available and try and do at least a little to influence the outcomes possible. You can see the current Home Office consultations here. If you want to check out a wider range of consultations you can see a linked list of government consultation sites here, just be aware you may need to click around on some sites to find consultations and *some* of the sites will make you want to commit suicide with poor navigation...you've been warned!

Of interest there are several consultations I'm not going to go into detail here but will list...

• Fire and Rescue service national framework
• Framework for interfaith dialogue and social interaction
• Residence and domicile personal tax rules
• Adding capacity at Heathrow airport
• Options for strengthening bus passenger representation
• Regulation of Enforcement Agents

Some there are a little more high profile, for instance having your say on the situation with Heathrow Airport expansions, or about better regulation of the fairly murky world of bailiffs and the "enforcement agents" that have far too many powers in this country, others like the interfaith and fire service ones are still pretty interesting while perhaps being a little bit more niche.

The main consultations

In particular I'd like to specifically talk about two consultations I want to highlight that you can have your say on. The first is about protesting and protesting close to parliament, with a deadline of 17th Jan 2008; the second is a consultation about the newly proposed visa limits and foreign visitors legislation, with a March deadline.

Thou dost protest too much...

Firstly with the consultation on protests, either marches (moving demonstrations) or assemblies (stationary demonstrations) to begin with. Q1 and 2 on the paper are innocently worded questions that seek your approval for police control of demonstrations, and more importantly to allow for the police to have more powers to constrict and ban assemblies.

The Government believes peaceful protest is a vital part of ademocratic society, and that the police should have powers to managepublic assemblies and processions to respond to the potential fordisorder. Should the powers generally in relation to marches andassemblies be the same?Question 1

Personally I would be wary of trying to give the police more powers to stop you from demonstrating given especially as they can already impose conditions on your protest if they believe it may be a cause for certain issues.

However the reason they seem to ask the question in this way is because of the very much more specific questions about protesting within the no-protest" zone at Westminster. In paragraph 3 it asks about security risks and one has to wonder if any reduction in the legislation of demonstrating closer to parliament can happen if harmonisation of the way police are involved with assemblies with that of marches doesn't take place. With this Q3 and 4 asks what considerations and provisions need to be made for protest in this area. With the paper ending with Q's 5-8 that ask a little more frankly about opinions on the balance of allowance of demonstrations versus the security risks and need for prior notification, especially with smaller groups, it seems clear that just such an answer is being sought.

We are accordingly interested in views on the merits of an advance notification system that applies only to assemblies over a certain size. However, in thinking about size it is also important to consider the cumulative effect of a number of simultaneous "small" demonstrations in the vicinity of Parliament.

All in all I'm not sure. The cynic in me is thinking that it's a consultation seeking for approval to greater control protests around the country while giving only a little freedom back in one specific area. However on the other hand protests in this one specific area are likely to be much more vital than, say, a bonfire demonstration in Bognor. Certainly this consultation at least alludes to no more occurrences of the stupid .

If your name's not down...

Now this subject is very interesting, an obvious ploy to try and put the government over as "tough on immigration" which I am still wholly opposed to.

First up in their new four category system of identification is Tourists. This is the main headline change that they are consulting on, the removal of a 6 month period on a visa to 3 months.

In 2006, 5,750,000 visitors entered the UK forpurposes other than business visits. Touristsare currently granted six months leave to enterthe UK but the evidence suggests that the vastmajority of tourists only require leave to enterthe UK for less than three months. In both 2003and 2005, the ONS International PassengerSurvey found that only 1.1% of overseasresidents visiting the UK as tourists stayed for3 months or more. Of these visitors in 2005,around 32% were in the UK on holiday, 27%were business visitors and 29% were visitingfriends and family.

What this says is the following...the government wants to make visas 3 months for tourists because ultimately only 0.35% of yearly tourists stay longer than that. My obvious question to this is that if only 0.35% of people are staying longer than 3 months then why is there a specific need to reduce the limit? It's clear that we've not got a massive issue with too many tourists in our country (and if we did we'd only be getting a boost to our economy), so why change the rules? The consultation paper is woefully lacking in substance on this reason, only alluding to trying to make it easier for tourists to be able to prove that they can sustain themselves financially for the "maximum period".

Here is an alternative, don't give everyone a "maximum" visa as standard, give them a 3 month visa as standard, and keep the option of a longer visa for those tourists that do want to spend their sustainable cash in our pubs, restaurants, museums and hotels.

To encourage group travel to the UK, a specifictourist visa could be introduced. This visa couldbe competitively priced and time limited, forexample 30 days similar to the ADS scheme, andavailable only to groups who hold a visa for theSchengen area when applying for entry clearanceto the UK.

This document then moves on to talk of the above, which sounds more like ways to make money off of visitors than "securing our borders". I have no qualms against visa "products" as they call them, if they are enhancing access to our country by interested tourists, but if they are just fleecing people for more money then morally it's a little on he corrupt side.

The second category is a business visitor category, a move seemingly made to simply give a bit more definition to this type of traveller within the UK. "Student visitors" can also be skipped as a section as they are including the information for reference only.

The last section, and the most controversial I feel, is the "family visitors".

"Securing the Border" proposed that a sponsoredfamily visitor route would be explored. Thesponsorship concept is now widely accepted,as a result of the Points Based System, as away in which sponsors, such as employersand institutions, can demonstrate greaterresponsibility for identifying, and securing entryfor, those people that they wish to enter the UK.Transferring the same concept to the sponsoredfamily visitor route could ensure that genuinefamily visitors find it easier to come to the UK.

Sponsoring family visitors would apparently make the issue of people "pretending" to be family and then disappearing cease to happen...and the way to do this? It would be to ensure that rather than the family member being able to pay their own way, the family living in the UK would have to go under scrutiny as to their ability to maintain the visiting relations. Further more the government wants to ask if specific types of people living legally in the UK shouldn't have the right to see family members, one assumes unless they apply for a tourist visa...any potential difference in cost isn't discussed here.

The idea of requiring financial securities forvisitors coming to the UK has been consideredbefore. It was first raised in a consultation paperpublished in 1999 as a way to meet concerns ofmembers of the ethnic community that genuinefamily members were having their applicationsrefused because entry clearance officers werenot satisfied that they would leave at the end oftheir visit.

So because immigration controls are prejudiced against certain ethnic communities, the answer is to ask them to fork up some cash. Where in the world should this ever be the right solution to an issue of prejudice? This is where the figure of "£1000" for a deposit to let your family member see you has come from.

Is it just me or does it seem patently unfair to tell people that the only way their family can see them is if they charade about as a tourist and prove their financial security for three months, or if you can stump up a deposit where the slightest infringement may see you lose that money...that is if you're even the right "type" of British resident to be able to see your loved ones in the first place! Not only that but it openly discriminates against those that are poor enough to not be able to risk a deposit (physically or contractually handed over before the visit), and against those too poor to come into the country through the "tourist" heading. Really what it seems to be saying is that if you're visiting from the US or Canada (or similar) we'll do our best to help you, sorry about the hurdles...but anyone coming from a place we have a bit of an immigrant "problem", we're going to tar you all with the same prejudicial brush and do our best to stop you getting in.

Please, especially on the last consultation I talk about, let your feelings known on this issue where the government are making inane and pointless changes on one hand while on the other putting up very real barriers in a very unequal manner to what will ultimately be a lot of genuine families just wanting to visit their relations.