Published elsewhere: Nick speaks on immigration. and proves that my fears were justified...

A shortened version of this article was published on Liberal Democrat Voice yesterday...

Last June, in one of the Coalition's less glorious moments, the idea of insisting that those wishing to bring a foreign spouse into the country should have a minimum level of income was mooted. Naturally, I wasn't impressed.

It was bad enough that the Government adopted it, but it was the Labour response that was even more dubious? Here's what Yvette Cooper said at the time;

It is not clear that the best way to protect the taxpayer is to focus solely on the sponsor’s salary. For example, in the current economic climate, someone on £40,000 today could lose their job next month, and then, of course, there is no way to protect the taxpayer. The system does not take account of the foreign partner’s income, which might have a differential impact on women. Will the Home Secretary explain why the Government ruled out consulting on a bond that could have been used to protect the taxpayer if someone needed public funds later on?

So, when Nick Clegg talks about the idea of introducing a security bond for visitors from certain countries, it isn't original and it isn't clever. In fact, the security bond for foreign spouses option is already used in Denmark.

But the justification was that it would act as a disincentive against false marriages. The Government, having consulted the Migration Advisory Committee, chose to go down the route of minimum income levels for the British spouse instead.

And, one can see the logic. If you're going to set the bond at a particular level, how do you choose it? Too high, and you punish those whose intentions are entirely honourable, too low, and you set the rate for those whose intentions are less so. Nick does at least see that;

The basic premise is simple: in certain cases, when a visa applicant is coming from a high risk country, in addition to satisfying the normal criteria, UKBA would be able to request a deposit – a kind of cash guarantee. Once the visitor leaves Britain, the bond will be repaid. Clearly, we need to look into the detail and seek a wide range of views, including from the Home Affairs Select Committee. 

The bonds would need to be well-targeted – so that they don’t unfairly discriminate against particular groups. 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 dependant on your ability to pay the security bond. 

However, his naivety is astonishing. If you target the bonds, they by definition discriminate against particular groups. Is he really telling me that the bonds will apply to the United States but not India, Japan but not Botswana? Does he not understand that we already make it difficult for citizens of many countries to get a visa, insisting on payment without guarantee of success, dealing with applications remotely so that decisions are not made locally? For example, if you are Jamaican and applying for a visa, your application is not processed in Kingston, but overseas. You are not interviewed, merely scored against criteria decided upon by the Home Office. Hardly a sensitive, accurate process.

It might not be the case that Nick means to give the impression of racism, but if you are an ethnic minority, you might not be quite so generous of spirit.

You might ask, "Wouldn't it be better to improve the visa application process?", and it's a perfectly good question. Unfortunately, we've already cut back our network of consulates as a cost-cutting exercise, so the tick-box method of processing applications is the only currently practical option. It just isn't a very good one.

So, if my uncle wants to visit me from Mumbai, how much should he be charged? On top of his airfare, any accommodation costs and expenses? Does it depend on how long he plans to stay? He is family, so my father or I might choose to pay the bond.

But it can't apply only to family visits, or you would create an incentive to lie about the purpose of your visit, so it must potentially apply to all visitors from the designated countries, which brings me to the potential effect on tourism and trade.

If you are a tourist, you have a choice - Paris or London, Berlin or Edinburgh, for example. If you're like me, you're price sensitive, and if the United Kingdom wants to add a large chunk to the potential upfront cost, I might decide that it isn't worth the bother and go to Prague instead. And what will the cost of that be to our tourism industry?

And then, there is the risk of retaliation. Proposals to tighten the visa regime for Brazilians coming to this country were shelved when it became abundantly clear that the Brazilian government would simply retaliate in kind. Trade trumping principles, you might conclude, and I would agree with you. 

In June, I wondered if this was a sign of things to come. I didn't think that the answer would come quite so soon, and certainly not from the Leader of the Liberal Democrats...