Why Theresa May should back down on immigration bonds

A £3,000 visitor bond will hurt the poorest families, while doing nothing to deal with illegal immigration.

During his latest international tour, David Cameron again told us we are in a "global race". In Pakistan he righty declared, "we want to see the trade and investment relationship between Britain and Pakistan grow." On Tuesday in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister reinforced his message telling us it was "vital that we expand our trade and increase overseas investment into the UK” and that he raised the issue of trade with Pakistan’s new Prime Minister. He had a similar message on his trip to India a few months ago, though as I said at the time his rhetoric often failed to match the reality

Well, here we go again. While David Cameron’s rhetoric abroad is laudable, the reality back home is very different. In recent weeks, Theresa May has been busy briefing Sunday newspapers on her new plan for a £3,000 visitor bond for visitors entering the UK. Which are the countries selected for her pet pilot scheme? You guessed it: India and Pakistan, along with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Ghana. So while David Cameron tells us he wants to develop trade with India and Pakistan, Theresa May lets it be known these countries need a bond scheme for visitor visas because she considers them 'high risk'.

With pressure from her backbenchers on immigration and big promises made at the last general election, the Home Secretary wants to be seen to be tough. No doubt she is keen to create an impression that somehow her £3,000 bond proposal will lower net immigration levels. However, immigration as measured by the International Passenger Survey only counts migrants who plan to stay in the UK for more than a year. Since these visitor visas are only issued for up to six months, the bonds will have no impact on net immigration at all.

Meanwhile, the reaction in those countries we want to deepen our trade with has been less than enthusiastic, placing strain on our economic ties and diplomatic relations. India’s Hindustan Times reported the news with the headline: "UK plans visa bonds for 'high-risk' Asians, Africans", highlighting that Theresa May’s plans only affect immigrants from non-white countries. Pakistan’s Foreign Office has protested against the bond requirement, and a leading Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported that "despite the apparently strong political ties, visa issue has remained a major irritant relationship (sic)". The paper also highlights the fact that "over one million Britons of Pakistani origin have contributed significantly to the deepening of bilateral relations", adding to the insult by this government. Nigeria has retaliated too. One of the country's politicians, Abike Dabiri-Erewa, stated that if the changes go ahead, the government would force Britons to pay £20,000 to enter the country.

So the economic rifts that will be caused by this policy are damaging to say the least. Labour politicians have been urging the government to do more to promote trade. Chuka Umunna, in what I think is a first for a shadow cabinet business spokesman, recently led a trade mission to Africa and has been pointing out the long term investment potential of nations such as Nigeria and Ghana. Chuka reminded us that "Ghana is on course to be the eighth fastest growing economy in the world between 2011 and 2015. The IMF expects the Nigerian economy to grow by 7 per cent this year alone."

Nigeria is the seventh largest country in the world and, according to a UN report, its population is set to exceed that of the United States by 2050. In fact, the west African nation will start to compete with China as the second most populous country in the world.

With such a fast-growing population, infrastructure requirements will be absolutely key to Nigeria’s development and the UK now risks losing engineering and trade links with the country because of the British government’s perceived hostility on this issue.

Similarly, we all know that India is a rising force to be reckoned with. The country's economy is growing at an average of, with the IMF forecasting its 2018 GDP levels at $2,980bn. But despite the Cameron government's rhetoric, visa restrictions are already having an impact on the UK’s economic ties with India, with universities reporting a fall in student numbers. The Home Secretary might as well put up a sign saying the UK isn’t open for business.

When I asked the Prime Minister this week if he thought the bond scheme would help or hinder trade, he told me that Theresa May was looking at bonds in order to deal with 'economic migrants' but the bond scheme is no answer to the problem he wants to solve. There are serious questions about how the scheme will work. A £1,000 bond scheme for visitor visas was considered by the last Labour government but soon dropped for fears that it would be unworkable and unfair to the poorest families, while doing nothing to deal with illegal immigration.

 

In recent days in my own Leicester constituency, diaspora communities have reacted with dismay. Everyone accepts we need a system of managed migration alongside measures to deal with illegal immigration. But a bond scheme will hurt genuine visitors who don’t abuse the system. At a local temple over the weekend, constituents asked me if it was really fair that their relations should have to put up £3,000 to attend a graduation or a family wedding or a funeral, or even just visit an old friend. It’s a fair question, so here’s hoping the Home Secretary backs down.

Theresa May arrives to attend a meeting at Downing Street on May 23, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

Jon Ashworth is Labour MP for Leicester South. 

Getty
Show Hide image

What are the consequences of Brexit for the refugee crisis?

Politicians neglected the refugee crisis whilst campaigning – but they shouldn't now concede to the darker undertones of the debate.

In the chaotic aftermath of Brexit, the refugee crisis seems like a distant memory. Yet not even a year has passed since the body of a young Syrian boy washed up on a Turkish beach, shocking the world.

When campaigning for the EU referendum began, politicians neglected the crisis. Not because the situation had ameliorated, but because the issue had become strategically toxic. Nigel Farage's infamous poster aside, the Leave side preferred scare stories about economic migrants rather than refugees; the Remain side because the refugee crisis, more than anything else since its inception, highlighted the fragility of the ideals that underpin the European Union.

Many of the main issues aired in the course of the referendum debate were related to the refugee crisis, regardless of how little it impacted on them in reality; immigration, strain on public services, national identity. The refugee crisis became a proxy issue; implied, but not addressed, for fear of detrimental impact in the polls.

However, in his repugnant posters (it should be stressed, nothing to do with Leave campaign itself), Nigel Farage made explicit what he thought posed the greatest threat to the UK. Rightly, the posters have been condemned by both sides of the referendum debate, but the underlying suspicion of refugees it reflects has concerned many organisations.Their concern has only been exacerbated by the result of the referendum. The spike in hate crime compounds their fears.

Paul Dillane, head of UKLGIG, a charity that supports LGBTI asylum seekers to the UK, expressed unease at the reaction of his clients: “The asylum seekers I work with do not understand the decision that has been made – they feel vulnerable, they feel unwelcome. Yes the law hasn’t changed, and if they’re at risk of persecution, they will be protected. But they don’t feel like that now.”

Despite the troubling situation, the result of the referendum changes little when it comes to refugee law. “Refugee policy is shaped in London, not in Brussels”, said Stephen Hale, Chief Executive of Refugees Action. “The decision about how well we support refugees in terms of integration is a matter for the UK, not Brussels. The number of Syrian refugees we choose to resettle is a matter for the UK, not Brussels.”

Although the law may not have changed, from a diplomatic or political perspective, the same cannot be said. This does have the power to negatively impact legislation. Post-Brexit reaction in France surrounding the Touquet Treaty typifies this.

The Touquet Treaty, reached between the UK and France in 2003, permits each country to carry out passport checks on the other countries’ soil. It is what, according to French politicians in Calais, has accelerated the growth of the "Jungle", which currently accommodates close to 5,000 refugees.

Because the agreement was signed outside the auspices of the European Union, Brexit does not affect its legal legitimacy. However, for France, EU membership was crucial to the nature of the agreement. Speaking earlier this year, Harlem Desir, French Secretary of State for European Affairs, said the Touquet Treaty is “a bilaterial agreement. So, there will be no blackmail, nor threat, but it’s true that we cooperate more easily in both being members of the EU.”

Natacha Bouchart, mayor of Calais and a long-time critic of the treaty, has been vocal in her demands for legislative change since the result. Speaking to French broadcaster BGM TV, she said: “The British must take on the consequences of their choice. We are in a strong position to push, to press this request for a review and we are asking the President to bring his weight to the issue.” Some have adopted the slogan of the Leave campaign, telling them to now “take back control of your borders.”

Modification of the Touquet Treaty was branded part of ‘Project Fear’ by the Leave campaign. Because of this, change – if indeed it does happen – needs to be handled carefully by both the British and French governments.

The reaction of Natacha Bouchart is already a worrying sign for refugees. Firstly, it perpetuates the toxic narrative that casts refugees as an inconvenience. And secondly, any souring of relations between the UK and France over Brexit and the Touquet Treaty only increases the likelihood of refugees being used as political bargaining chips in the broader EU crisis over Schengen.

A divided government and disintegrating opposition do little to aid the situation. Furthermore, come October, how likely is a Brexit Tory cabinet – governing off the back of a manifesto predicated on reducing immigration – to extend the support networks offered to refugees? Even before the referendum, Theresa May, a supporter of the Remain campaign, said that Britain should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, replacing it with the more questionable Bill of Rights.

Uncertainty of any kind is the most immediate danger to refugees. “Everyone is talking about it,” said Clare Mosesly, founder of Care4Calais. “But opinions on the impact are divided, which is creating yet more uncertainty.” Refugees, unsure whether Brexit will lead to increased fortification of the border, are prone to take ever more dangerous risks to reach the UK. Even economic uncertainty, seemingly distinct from issues such as the refugee crisis or immigration, has a negative impact. “The thing that worries me about a fragile economy”, said Paul Dillane, “is that when a country’s economy suffers, minorities suffer as well. Tolerance and inclusivity are undermined.”

The government must stress that the welcoming principles and legislation Britain had prior to Brexit remain in place. Andrej Mahecic, from the UNHCR, said “we will continue to rely on the UK’s strong support for humanitarian responses to refugee crises. Our work with the government on the UK’s asylum system and refugee resettlement schemes continues.”

The will from NGOs is there. The political will is less assured. In the aftermath of Brexit, the government must not concede to the darker side of the referendum debate.