Opinion Closed for business
The UKs populist visa bond scheme could damage its long-term interests
The UKs populist visa bond scheme could damage its long-term interests
There is little doubt Britain badly needs an effective immigration policy that enjoys public confidence. On current evidence,though,it falls short on both counts. A few brave politicians may be prepared to infuse rationality into a discussion about immigration but,for the most part,the coalition government and the opposition seem determined to engage in a race to the bottom.
Even by such abysmal standards,the announcement from the Home Office that it remains keen on a pilot scheme,to be started later this year,that will require visitors from certain countries (including India) to furnish a 3000 pound bond (approximately Rs 2.7 lakh) to enter the UK seems spectacularly ill-conceived. Far from promoting confidence in the UKs immigration policy,the scheme is likely to tarnish the countrys image internationally,deter much-needed overseas visitors and,consequently,result in loss of revenue.
Ironically,it was only in February this year,when visiting Delhi,that Prime Minister David Cameron gushed about Britains special relationship with India. A grand vision was unveiled to suggest that India and Britain were on their way to doubling bilateral trade,from 11.5 billion pounds in 2010 to an estimated 23 billion pounds in 2015. Seen in this light,the visa bond scheme seems to be a rather strange way of appreciating a strategic relationship. At worst,it seems to convey an undiplomatic message,that Britain is prepared to accept Indian investment minus the Indians who come with it.
No wonder that Indian Commerce Minister Anand Sharma felt incensed enough to term it a retrograde step. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry also warned that the visa bond scheme was likely to have an impact on Indian companies investment plans for Britain,while the Confederation of Indian Industry said it was likely to divert UK-bound tourists to more tourism-friendly European countries.
Other critics have heaped scorn on the British government for being selective in its approach: the pilot scheme intends to cover visitors from six high risk developing countries (India,Pakistan,Bangladesh,Nigeria,Ghana and Sri Lanka) but ignores the conundrum of over-stayers from developed jurisdictions such as Australia,New Zealand and the US,altogether. Be that as it may,there are three other significant deficiencies associated with the visa bond scheme that deserve close attention.
First,the deterrent effect of the visa bond scheme has been exaggerated. Anyone coming to the UK with the intention of overstaying illegally is unlikely to be swayed by the bond alone. As an unintended consequence,the scheme may discourage a larger category of genuine visitors,while the tiny fraction that seeks to abuse the system in the first place might well continue. In addition,administering a system of bonds without a system of exit controls will be near impossible. The UKs long-promised e-Borders system,which is to monitor people leaving the country,continues to be swamped in technical delays. It is not expected to be in place until 2015 at the earliest,and questions around its comprehensiveness remain unanswered. As a recent parliamentary select committee report on migration pointed out,official statistics in this area were no more than just guesswork.
Even so,the visa bonds will not change net immigration statistics. The Home Office maintains that it will bring down net immigration,which the government has pledged to cut to the tens of thousands. But net immigration is measured by the International Passenger Survey (conducted by the Office of National Statistics),which does not count those intending to stay for less than a year as migrants. The visas at issue are for up to six months. What this means is even if the bonds dissuade some visitors,the net migration statistics will not reflect it.
The broader issue in all of this lies in the political undercurrents. Britain does need a credible immigration policy. However,the answer is not to deter legitimate visitors from coming to Britain. It is to have a better system for tracking down illegal immigrants and forcing them to leave. For the present government,though,populist gimmickry has become an easy tactic to divert attention from its own failure to get a grip on the system.
The priority should be to set the immigration system right while avoiding knee-jerk populism,which,as it turns out,is economically counter-productive. The truth is that at a time of economic difficulty,Britain needs overseas investments and tourism in abundance. The visa bond pilot scheme seems to entirely miss this substantive context and it risks damaging Britains long-term interests. If Britain seeks to be seen as a destination that is open for business,it should shelve this scheme.
The writer is a London-based lawyer express@expressindia.com
Share
