---

Points-Based Immigration System

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, I have not yet said that because he pre-empted me, not because I was not going to. I am very glad that he took the words out of my mouth, as that will shorten my speech. I want to quote the remarks of Kamal Nath, the Indian Trade Minister. He said:"““'We are not asking for more permanent immigration…We are talking about people coming in for a month or so to integrate software systems.' An Indian software company that could not send executives or technical experts into the UK for short periods would be unable to service…warranties or sell new systems that would require on-the-spot maintenance in the future.””" As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) has said, that would damage industry not only industry in that country but in this country. The Association of Technology Staffing Companies refers to the practice as ““onshore offshoring””. It is a vital service to UK industry and I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. Finally, I want to talk about the visa bond that has been proposed many times in the past and, I am pleased to say, has always been rejected. I hope that it will be rejected again. I hope that fervently on points of principle as well as pragmatism. I find the idea that a visa bond should be available to somebody when they are seeking entry clearance for this country obnoxious. An entry clearance officer, in considering whether to grant a visa for entry into this country, must be satisfied that on the balance of probability the applicant will comply with the visa conditions—that is, that they will return to their country of origin within six months, or within whatever period for which the visa is granted. If we allowed a visa bond system, when our entry clearance officer doubted whether someone would comply with our visa conditions, that person could come to this country if they were rich and able to pay £5,000 or £10,000—whatever the figure might be—but that they could not if they were poor. That sticks in my craw and I hope that it sticks in the Minister's. I do not recognise it as anything like a Labour policy. If an entry clearance officer has genuine doubts that somebody will comply with our rules and regulations, a visa should be denied. When those doubts exist, people should not be able to enter the country if they are rich but not if they are poor. If entry clearance officers were considering a situation in which they could grant admission, and thought, ““I am not sure in this case. Perhaps I will offer to allow the person in if they put up a bond,”” that might start out as an exception, but I am confident that it would soon erode the decision-making ability and discretion of the officer. It would become not an exception but a norm. It is much easier to guard one's back as an entry clearance officer by imposing a bond. The Minister must resist that erosion of principle. Many other Members wish to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall draw my remarks to a premature close.