Government plans to further curtail freedom of movement must be examined with the closest scrutiny

The government has launched its new plan for visitors without a visa or immigration status to apply for Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) before coming to the UK. The scheme was announced against a background of deep concern about both its competence and its motives.

Many people from across the political spectrum will also feel a sense of loss because they are unable to travel so freely to Europe now that the UK has left the EU, and the introduction of the proposed European system of prior authorisation will compound that loss. So the proposed UK electronic system, which mirrors the electronic border monitoring developed by the United States, should be examined with the closest scrutiny.

The scheme has two broad elements. The starting point is that everyone visiting the UK, apart from those travelling from Ireland – which is part of the common travel area dating back to 1922 – will have to get clearance before they travel, just as visitors to the US have to do. Anyone coming even for a weekend will have to apply. Alongside this are a series of new or expanded paths to longer-term settlement. These include special categories for skilled workers, people of “global talent”, and health and care workers. There is special access for holders of Hong Kong passports, and there are new arrangements for India.

Given that the EU is planning something similar, it is clear that getting prior authorisation to travel will become the new norm. For most people this may simply be a small additional bit of admin – another travel irritation, rather like taking your shoes off before going through the scanner at an airport. But it is also part of a troubling global trend, whereby governments are able to monitor the movements of both citizens and visitors to an extent that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.

If this is the price that must be paid for freer but more orderly migration, then it might be acceptable. But the experience of the US is not encouraging. It has had more than a decade of electronic border control, yet Donald Trump still sought to build a physical barrier along the Mexican border. The past incompetence of the Home Office and the difficulties the government has had in running large database projects do not inspire confidence that we will manage much better.

The world is moving to a new and harsher order. After more than 70 years during which freedom of movement – and settlement – has gradually been extended, we may now be at the start of a long era of such freedoms being gradually cut back.

Few people would argue for everyone to be able to travel anywhere without any restrictions. We must accept that we have a world with borders. But it would be a catastrophe if barriers to movement were to be raised yet higher in capricious and savage ways.

We need to examine carefully the UK’s new plans. We also need to compel the government to show grace to the world in framing its migration policies, and to demonstrate competence and fairness in administering them.