LONDON: In a big victory for India, Britain has decided to abandon its controversial plan to impose a £3,000 immigration bond on visitors from "high-risk" countries in Africa and Asia.
India, which was one of the countries targeted with the bond, had lodged strong protests against the project at the highest level of government in UK.
The scheme if introduced would have been applicable to visitors from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Ghana.
The fee would be over and above the existing visa costs.
The bond was to deter over stayers as part of the government's intention to reduce the number of immigrants to less than 100,000 per year.
An applicant would have to forfeit the amount unless they left when required.
A home ministry official confirmed on Sunday that the proposal of a visa bond has now been dropped.
"The government has been considering whether we pilot a bond scheme that would deter people from overstaying the visa. We have decided not to proceed," a home office spokesperson said. Outrage from all corners of India - the third largest investor in the UK in 2011, was one of the major reasons for Britain's U-turn over the plan.
It is believed that British Prime Minister David Cameron who will stop in New Delhi on November 14 on route to Colombo to attend the Commonwealth meet will inform his Indian counterpart Dr Manmohan Singh of the decision.
The latest decision was also influenced by Britain's deputy prime minister Nick Clegg threatening to block the policy. With general elections coming up, Cameron didn't want a confrontation with the Liberal Democrat leader. Another of Cameron's heavy weight cabinet ministers - business secretary Vince Cable also launched a full-fledged attack against the visa bond recently.
He said "it has caused outrage in India - one of UK's biggest trading partners".
The pilot was announced originally by Home secretary Theresa May who said this was the next step in making sure "our immigration system is more selective, bringing down net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands, while still welcoming the brightest and the best to Britain."
She had also confirmed that in the long run, UK would formally introduce a system of bonds that deter overstaying and "recovers costs if a foreign national has used public services." The announcement had left Cameron's cabinet divided.
MP Keith Vaz who is chairman of the Home affairs select committee had shot down the scheme warning that such bonds would "antagonise settled communities in Britain and enrage our allies such as India".
UK's Immigration & Asylum Act gives the government the right to force such a financial security from temporary migrants, which would be forfeited if they fail to leave after the expiry of their visa.
Britain's former attorney general also trashed the controversial immigration visa bond calling it "highly discriminatory that will never pass through the House of Lords".
Patricia Scotland, better known as Baroness Scotland of Asthal who was voted one of the 100 great Black Britons and had created history by becoming the first black female QC (Queens Counsel) vehemently opposed the introduction of a visa bond as a deterrent for illegal immigration and said it could never be explained "by the rule of law".
Baroness Scotland asked Britain's home minister May to explain "how she can assert that the visa bond will be lawfully delivered".
The Baroness called May's proposal "a populist measure" and an "emblematic move" to retain their vote bank before the next general election.
Lawyer Sarosh Zaiwalla who has earlier defended high profile clients like Sonia Gandhi, and theDalai Lama had said it was possible to challenge the visa bonds before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg as "such a requirement from a few select countries will in my view amount to discrimination against Indians".
Mr Zaiwalla said "The bonds have not yet come into existence and needs to be approved in parliament. But it's a clear case of discrimination on the basis of race and country".
May had recently indicated that she was backing down on the idea of the visa bonds. In a speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester recently, Britain's home secretary said she would "scrap the immigration bonds scheme altogether if she did not have the full support of her Liberal Democrat coalition partners".
Taking a dig at the Lib Dem partners, May had said "The latest policy they're fighting is immigration bonds. It's a simple idea - the government should be able to take a £3,000 deposit from temporary migrants and return it when they leave. If they overstay their visa, they'll lose their money. Bonds were in our manifesto at the last election. But the Lib Dems suddenly announced that it was their idea. Then they said they were against them. Then they said they were for them - but only to help more immigrants to come here. Now they say they're against them after all. So let me be clear - if the price of Lib Dem support for bonds is more immigration, I will scrap the scheme altogether".
Ironically it was Nick Clegg who had announced earlier this year that migrants from "high risk countries" that is expected to include the Indian sub-continent would soon have to mandatorily sign a cash bond of thousands of pounds to enter Britain.
The British deputy prime minister said he had asked the UK home office to introduce a "powerful new tool" that will see immigrants requiring to pay the entry fee as a guarantee that they will leave the UK when their visa expires. The cash guarantee could cost anywhere between £1,000 rising to as much as several thousand pounds for visitors from the countries deemed to pose the highest risk.
The cash would be refunded when they leave.
Clegg, who chairs the Cabinet's home affairs committee had asked the home office to run a trial "security bonds" scheme by the end of this year.
The Liberal Democrat leader who said he himself "was the son of a Dutch mother - she, herself, raised in Indonesia by a half-Russian father and husband to a Spanish wife" however added that "the bonds would need to be well-targeted - so that they don't unfairly discriminate."
"The amounts would need to be proportionate - we mustn't penalise legitimate visa applicants who will struggle to get hold of the money. Visiting Britain to celebrate a family birth or a relative's graduation or wedding should not become entirely dependent on your ability to pay the security bond," Clegg had said.
India, which was one of the countries targeted with the bond, had lodged strong protests against the project at the highest level of government in UK.
The scheme if introduced would have been applicable to visitors from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Ghana.
The fee would be over and above the existing visa costs.
The bond was to deter over stayers as part of the government's intention to reduce the number of immigrants to less than 100,000 per year.
An applicant would have to forfeit the amount unless they left when required.
A home ministry official confirmed on Sunday that the proposal of a visa bond has now been dropped.
"The government has been considering whether we pilot a bond scheme that would deter people from overstaying the visa. We have decided not to proceed," a home office spokesperson said. Outrage from all corners of India - the third largest investor in the UK in 2011, was one of the major reasons for Britain's U-turn over the plan.
It is believed that British Prime Minister David Cameron who will stop in New Delhi on November 14 on route to Colombo to attend the Commonwealth meet will inform his Indian counterpart Dr Manmohan Singh of the decision.
The latest decision was also influenced by Britain's deputy prime minister Nick Clegg threatening to block the policy. With general elections coming up, Cameron didn't want a confrontation with the Liberal Democrat leader. Another of Cameron's heavy weight cabinet ministers - business secretary Vince Cable also launched a full-fledged attack against the visa bond recently.
He said "it has caused outrage in India - one of UK's biggest trading partners".
The pilot was announced originally by Home secretary Theresa May who said this was the next step in making sure "our immigration system is more selective, bringing down net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands, while still welcoming the brightest and the best to Britain."
She had also confirmed that in the long run, UK would formally introduce a system of bonds that deter overstaying and "recovers costs if a foreign national has used public services." The announcement had left Cameron's cabinet divided.
MP Keith Vaz who is chairman of the Home affairs select committee had shot down the scheme warning that such bonds would "antagonise settled communities in Britain and enrage our allies such as India".
UK's Immigration & Asylum Act gives the government the right to force such a financial security from temporary migrants, which would be forfeited if they fail to leave after the expiry of their visa.
Britain's former attorney general also trashed the controversial immigration visa bond calling it "highly discriminatory that will never pass through the House of Lords".
Patricia Scotland, better known as Baroness Scotland of Asthal who was voted one of the 100 great Black Britons and had created history by becoming the first black female QC (Queens Counsel) vehemently opposed the introduction of a visa bond as a deterrent for illegal immigration and said it could never be explained "by the rule of law".
Baroness Scotland asked Britain's home minister May to explain "how she can assert that the visa bond will be lawfully delivered".
The Baroness called May's proposal "a populist measure" and an "emblematic move" to retain their vote bank before the next general election.
Lawyer Sarosh Zaiwalla who has earlier defended high profile clients like Sonia Gandhi, and theDalai Lama had said it was possible to challenge the visa bonds before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg as "such a requirement from a few select countries will in my view amount to discrimination against Indians".
Mr Zaiwalla said "The bonds have not yet come into existence and needs to be approved in parliament. But it's a clear case of discrimination on the basis of race and country".
May had recently indicated that she was backing down on the idea of the visa bonds. In a speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester recently, Britain's home secretary said she would "scrap the immigration bonds scheme altogether if she did not have the full support of her Liberal Democrat coalition partners".
Taking a dig at the Lib Dem partners, May had said "The latest policy they're fighting is immigration bonds. It's a simple idea - the government should be able to take a £3,000 deposit from temporary migrants and return it when they leave. If they overstay their visa, they'll lose their money. Bonds were in our manifesto at the last election. But the Lib Dems suddenly announced that it was their idea. Then they said they were against them. Then they said they were for them - but only to help more immigrants to come here. Now they say they're against them after all. So let me be clear - if the price of Lib Dem support for bonds is more immigration, I will scrap the scheme altogether".
Ironically it was Nick Clegg who had announced earlier this year that migrants from "high risk countries" that is expected to include the Indian sub-continent would soon have to mandatorily sign a cash bond of thousands of pounds to enter Britain.
The British deputy prime minister said he had asked the UK home office to introduce a "powerful new tool" that will see immigrants requiring to pay the entry fee as a guarantee that they will leave the UK when their visa expires. The cash guarantee could cost anywhere between £1,000 rising to as much as several thousand pounds for visitors from the countries deemed to pose the highest risk.
The cash would be refunded when they leave.
Clegg, who chairs the Cabinet's home affairs committee had asked the home office to run a trial "security bonds" scheme by the end of this year.
The Liberal Democrat leader who said he himself "was the son of a Dutch mother - she, herself, raised in Indonesia by a half-Russian father and husband to a Spanish wife" however added that "the bonds would need to be well-targeted - so that they don't unfairly discriminate."
"The amounts would need to be proportionate - we mustn't penalise legitimate visa applicants who will struggle to get hold of the money. Visiting Britain to celebrate a family birth or a relative's graduation or wedding should not become entirely dependent on your ability to pay the security bond," Clegg had said.
No comments:
Post a Comment