Nil points

In February 2009 a new immigration system was introduced in the UK. It was presented as a simplification of the previous 80 routes for gaining a work permit, but the new five-tier visa structure, the Points Based System (PBS), has been poorly received in the arts and culture community. Inviting international artists has become a laborious and expensive process under a visa system that considers neither the British creative economy nor the artists’ mobility that feeds it. Since the late 1990s, cultural policy has been deeply bonded to business practice in the development and management of cultural and artistic projects, giving rise to the creative economy. During the same period there has been an intense promotion of international exchanges (AP221) and the UK’s experience has led this trend within Europe.

But a system which impedes artists’ mobility also contradicts cultural policy. However, it can be understood as an expression of the nature of globalisation, characterised by the free circulation of goods and money, but not of people. This is reflected in the intensification of EU border controls. By crudely categorising migrants into ‘desirable’ and ‘undesirable’, the UK’s PBS exercises a level of control that goes far beyond our borders.
For those qualifying under ‘shortage occupations’, it is relatively easy to score the points required to gain a visa. For the majority of cases, meeting the criteria means having recognised qualifications in your field – and in English. Academic achievement does not necessarily make you an excellent dancer, pianist or painter. The critical factors are innate ability and personal quality, which are proven by training and experience. By disregarding this, the PBS excludes talented artists and cultural professionals from visiting the UK, and thus enriching it. Criteria around prospective earnings and the ability to maintain yourself whilst in the UK are another area where the PBS fails to appreciate the nature of the arts, which is characterised by flexibility and fragmentation of the labour market. Salaries are lower than in other spheres, and consequently scoring well in this area is very difficult. The stature of many organisations often replaces material reward for cultural professionals; will this remain the case if the system continues?
The biometric data required for visa applications, which must be provided in person at designated centres, is another barrier. Not all such centres are able to process visas. The security basis of this can be understood, but it creates a major financial burden for both individuals and organisations. Travel costs alone can be prohibitive, more so if you must attend a collection point in another country. Waiting for three weeks without your passport for the UK Border Agency (UKBA) to process your visa can be dangerous. Moreover, I would argue that it is not sustainable for the UK to make these demands of artists from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Should visa applications be made by sponsor organisations? Presently, applicants must provide a Certificate of Sponsorship issued by a sponsor licensed by the Home Office. But this is something that small organisations can’t realistically provide for unknown artists. Visa sponsors perform a number of duties, central amongst which is the responsibility that they monitor the movements of the artists they sponsor, and they are subject to inspection without notice by the UKBA.
If the PBS took in to account the nature of the labour market of the creative economy and artists’ mobility, there would be plenty of room for improvement. Realistically, this will not happen in the short term. But alternative solutions are urgent and who better than the creative sector to think laterally and outside the box? It is a sector renowned for its networking capacity. The development of a website, for instance, which harnesses this skill might be one option. Such a site could provide a forum for artists and organisations to exchange experiences and be directed to the most accurate and up-to-date information. In addition, it is recommended that sponsoring organisations have at least one part-time staff member who deals with the workload related to visa applications, proactively sends the Home Office more information than requested, double checks any information provided by UKBA staff who, it has been reported, sometimes provide contradictory information, books refundable flights for your guests and uses business visas as frequently as possible.
The economic and time costs incurred by the PBS, for both applicants and sponsors, are rapidly eroding the UK’s position as an international cultural hub. One such example is WOMAD. An acclaimed world music festival, it is still only established enough to manage the costs above as a one-off. However, these costs are not exceptions, they are the new rules, potentially forcing even such a major festival to take fewer artistic risks than in previous years. Not because its reputation doesn’t allow it to take risks with talent, but because getting visas for some artists will be too difficult. If WOMAD has to fall back on safe, recognisable names, what hope is left for small organisations? How can minor companies continue to develop relationships with unorthodox artists begun before the PBS came into effect?

Understanding the Five Tiers:
Under the PBS artists are expected to enter the UK through either Tier Two (Skilled Migrants with a Job Offer) or Tier Five (Temporary Workers). A very small minority may qualify under Tier One (Highly Skilled Workers).