4. Supplementary memorandum
submitted by the Association of Colleges
Please note that AoC published a formal response
to "Selective Admission: Making Migration Work for Britain"
and responded the Government consultation, "Partial Regulatory
Impact Assessment for the Registration of Education and Training
(Learning) Providers".
To set the context for the comments below, it should
be noted that AoC is very pleased to be working proactively with
colleagues from the IND, Home Office, FCO, UKvisas, DfES, UKCOSA
and the university sector via the Joint Education Taskforce (JET)
and related work streams, to explore in detail the issues relating
to Immigration Bill and the points-based system and the potential
impact on international students coming to the UK. Phase 2 of
the Prime Minister's Initiative to attract more international
students to the UK (PMI2), which will be launched in April 2006,
demonstrates the crucial need for a balance between "control"
and ensuring that barriers to international student recruitment
(with its widely-acknowledged benefits for the UK) are minimised.
PMI2 will include a focus on ensuring a positive experience at
quality-assured institutions for bona fide overseas students.
We will be working closely with UKCOSA and Universities UK on
this area but are very keen to ensure that adequate resources
are allocated to related developments within the PMI2 strategy
and that FE institutions are appropriately supported within this.
The following comments take account of the detailed
work which is being undertaken by the JET and thus relate to our
outstanding concerns.
1. AoC is opposed to the abolition of the right
of appeal against visa refusals, both in-country and at entry
clearance and has already made strong representation against this
in conjunction with Universities UK.
1.1 As a minimum, the right of appeal should
not be removed until the points based system has been introduced
and a review of its initial operation and impact has been carried
out.
1.2 A regulated administrative review procedure
(the features of which should be documented and which should be
accompanied by guidance for entry clearance staff) should be assured,
preferably within the primary legislation of the Immigration Bill.
1.3 The assessment process should be subject
to independent adjudication, to include "sampling" review
and to which individual refused applicants would have recourse.
2. AoC is opposed to the requesting of "bonds"—the
proposed system of requiring students from certain countries to
leave a financial deposit which would be repayable on their return.
AoC's concern is that this possibly substantial extra cost will
act as a disincentive to genuine students, whilst not necessarily
serving as a barrier to those deliberately setting out to use
the student route for illegal immigration purposes. AoCrecommends
that the focus should be shifted to applicants' provision of evidence
of financial security.
3. The proposed use of the term "sponsor"
for approved institutions hosting international students is very
problematic (particularly within some cultures) as it implies
financial support is being offered by that institution. It is
important that an alternative term is found.
4. AoC believes that "bogus" institutions
are a serious problem in terms of both exploitation of international
students and damage to the reputation of UK education. The current
DfES register has no in-built quality criteria and will be superceded
by the new Register of Approved Providers. However, if the latter
is to provide an effective means of control, the following measures
are important:
4.1 Entry to the Register should be governed
by accrediting bodies which have demonstrably robust systems and
resources to enable them carry out all elements of their function.
To avoid a conflict of interests, such bodies should not also
be membership organisations.
4.2 Accreditation decisions relating to both
entry and withdrawal should be subject to regular independent
review (as erroneous exclusion from the Register could result
in loss of business for organisations).
4.3 Criteria for admission to the Register should
include an on-site inspection element as portfolio evidence is
not a sufficiently robust safeguard. Similarly, proxy measure
such as awarding body/exam centre validations are not in themselves,
a testament to the quality of the education/training provision
offered and therefore should not stand alone as a criterion for
entry.
4.4 Accrediting bodies should be streamlined
as far as possible (preferably one per education sector) for reasons
of equity (assessment of providers against common standards) and
in the interests of ensuring clarity and credibility in relation
to international target audiences.
Diane Mullen
International Policy Manager
13 February 2006
| 
