On 17 February 2022, the Home Office closed the Tier 1 (Investor) visa category of the UK immigration rules to new applicants. The Tier 1 (Investor) visa was open to high net worth individuals who were willing and able to make a substantial financial investment in the UK.
The decision to close this visa category came in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the international community’s response to the invasion of a sovereign, independent state.
However, the decision was not entirely precipitated by the Ukraine crisis. It was a widely known fact that the government had long-held security concerns about who was entering the UK on this visa; what was the true source of their wealth and what the reputational implications for keeping this route open might have for the UK’s institutions and society generally.
A view that was less widely known or ventilated, was whether the Tier 1 (Investor) visa was offering any real ‘value’ to the UK economy and, specifically, for the job market and business investment.
It is true that in 2014 the minimum level of investment was raised from £1 million to £2 million, but still the concerns remained as to whether this visa route offered economic value to the UK. It is arguable that beyond the inflationary impact these high value investors had on the housing market (and the ‘buy to leave’ wasteland of portfolio properties they might have created), there is little evidence to suggest their wealth had any real impact on the wider UK economy, especially in terms of investment, innovation, research, regional development etc.
Of course, it is undeniable that their spending power was keenly felt in the luxury goods market (spare a thought for the poor Bond Street retailers, for instance), but this has always been a relatively small, niche section of the economy and it was not a good look (or ‘good optics’ in modern parlance), for any government grappling to steer a general economy through challenging times to be lauding a section of the economy accessible only to financial elites.
In the end, it would appear that the international crisis referred to above, coupled with the growing concerns about who many of these investors really were and what was the source of their often extreme wealth, coalesced and led to the closure of this category.
For the avoidance of doubt, we should state that whilst the Tier 1 (Investor) category was closed to new applicants, it remains open for those migrants who are already in the UK and who wish to apply for further leave to remain and eventual settlement, though one suspects such applications may well be scrutinised even closer than they might otherwise have been.
When the decision was taken to close the Tier 1 (Investor) category, some commentators believed that at some point it would re-emerge in a new, improved guise. However, beyond wishful thinking, the basis for such a view was never clear, given the perceived lack of value to the UK economy and the security concerns held by the government. Nonetheless, those of us in the immigration space in particular were interested to see if that would be the case. Sadly (some might say) it appears this is a ‘phoenix’ which is set not to rise.
The government’s recently published vision for UK immigration entitled: New Plan for Immigration: Legal Migration and Border Control which makes no reference to the re-emergence of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa and, instead, focuses on introducing new (and promoting existing), visa routes to attract talented, highly skilled and educated workers and entrepreneurs who can help evolve and grow the wider UK economy in a more long-term, sustainable and measurable way. This model is underpinned principally by the Innovator visa and Start-up visa; the Skilled Worker visa and the new, Global Business Mobility category of visa routes.
It is expected all of the above visa routes will offer immigration options which are fairer, more secure and tailored to the evolving needs of the 21st century, post-Brexit UK economy.
As laudable as these objectives are, it remains to be seen whether they live up to expectations, or prove to be an empty vessel amounting to no more than a PR exercise designed to amplify the fast fading messages of ‘ We are UK plc’; ‘We are open for business’; and ‘We want the Brightest and the Best’, whilst remaining resolute to an agenda of simply ‘keeping the numbers down’. Time will tell.
On the back of this last point, there are many who believe (borne from experience) that an Entry Clearance Officer’s starting point when considering an application is to see how it can be refused and that any opportunity to refuse, whether reasonable or otherwise, will not be passed up. No latitude will be extended to the applicant; no discretion employed and no consideration given to the value that individual might bring to the UK.
By way of illustrating the point further, much has been made of the ‘recently introduced’ Australian-style points based system (a system many will know was actually introduced in 2008, so one fails to see what is so new about it. A re-brand maybe?). Under this system, if an applicant objectively scores the requisite number of points for ‘Attributes’, ‘English language’, ‘Maintenance’ etc then the application should be approved.
However, this process has been criticised for not always being as objective and transparent as it should be. Increasingly (and the Innovator visa serves as a good example) a highly subjective assessment is relied on to refuse the application, whereby the Entry Clearance Officer will carry out his/her own independent, limited and often flawed research into the ‘innovative’, ‘viable’ and ‘scalable’ nature of the business (the three pillars of the Innovator visa) and in so doing flatly contradict the findings of the relevant Endorsing Body charged with assessing those exact three pillars.
It is worth noting that Endorsing Bodies are Home Office authorised organisations, with proven track records in assessing whether businesses are sufficiently innovative, viable and scalable and which then issue Endorsement Letters to applicants if they are satisfied the three pillars have been sufficiently evidenced. The Endorsing Body model was introduced precisely because the government acknowledged that experienced, independent organisations were better placed to assess the business element of these applications than Entry Clearance Officers.
It is an observation which is worrying; runs counter to an objectively defined and transparent application process and which ultimately could serve to discourage the very people- the ‘Brightest and the Best’ from applying to re-locate to the UK.
We can only wait and see what this ‘New Plan for Immigration’ means for the UK; how attractive the business elements will be for overseas talent and, crucially, how it will be implemented in practice. I, for one, will be watching with interest.
Article written by Charles Green, Immigration specialist at Rooks Rider Solicitors. Find out more and get in touch: https://www.rooksrider.co.uk/people/charles-green/ E: cgreen@rooksrider.co.uk | T. +44 (0) 207 689 7144.
