29. Memorandum submitted by
UKCOSA
INQUIRY INTO
THE POLICY
AND PRACTICE
OF IMMIGRATION
CONTROL
1. We have been asked to present evidence
for your inquiry and, in particular, on the size and nature of
abuse relating to international students and ways in which it
might be minimised in the future.
UKCOSA
2. I am doing so on behalf of UKCOSA: The Council
for International Education, the UK's national advisory body serving
the interests of international students and those who work with
them.
3. Our members include all UK universities, those
colleges which are active internationally and a range of specialist
and representative bodies. The Chair of our Board of Trustees
is Dame Alexandra Burslem (formerly Vice Chancellor, Manchester
Metropolitan University) and our President is Sir John Hanson,
Warden of Green College Oxford.
4. Our funds come from our members and via a
block grant from the Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
and we sit on both the DfES led Prime Minister's Initiative (PMI)
Strategy Group and the Home Office led Joint Education Taskforce
(JET).
SUMMARY
5. I explained that we would have two main points
to make.
— Firstly that neither we nor, to
the best of our knowledge, anyone else has any reliable data on
the scale of immigration abuse via the student route—though
a number of unsubstantiated or misleading statements have been
made over the last couple of years.
— Secondly that whilst there are obviously
defects in the current system we are optimistic that what is about
to be formally proposed under the new Points Based System could
lead to improvements both for international students and in terms
of effective immigration control—if developed sensibly,
possibly piloted in some areas and carefully monitored and evaluated.
BACKGROUND: THE
CURRENT SYSTEM
6. As the Committee will be aware, under the
current system, students apply for and obtain entry clearance
on the basis of, amongst other things, an offer letter from a
UK institution. Given the current system for admission to courses,
they may receive multiple offers (and especially for a postgraduate
course which has no central applications system). Given the time
scale, however, they often apply for a visa on the basis of the
first received and make their final decision on which to choose
later. The result is that it has been difficult for institutions
to predict who will and who will not arrive and enrol and it has
been impossible—or not thought necessary—for government
to track individuals from entry clearance application to arrival
and enrolment.
7. Some students may go to the institution which
issued them with the offer which they presented when making their
entry clearance applications; others will decide to go to other
institutions in the UK which they subsequently decide they would
prefer; some decide to go to "competitor" countries
instead; and some decide, for a host of reasons, to stay at home.
8. Following what appeared to us to be, in many
ways, a political response to public opinion and the media, an
announcement was, as you know, made in April 2004 of a "crack
down on bogus students and bogus institutions".
9. The Home Office visited and closed down or
removed from their approved list several hundred apparently "bogus"
colleges and the DfES Register of Learning Providers was introduced
later that year. Both of these steps were in principle, sensible.
There had obviously been a degree of abuse and we supported the
moves. There were (and presumably still are), without doubt, some
elements within the private sector which are not reputable, have
little interest in legitimate students, often misleading them,
taking their money, not providing credible courses—and sometimes,
as comes to light occasionally on our advice line, illegally withholding
individuals passports and/or threatening to report them to the
Home Office unless they pay substantial fees (for which they obtain
little value).
10. They damage the UK's reputation for quality,
they feed off innocent students and they contribute to abuse.
11. Can we emphasise however that this is
a relatively small number of colleges in the private sector and
that, whatever new systems are introduced, must monitor most carefully
their activities and not place additional hurdles in front of
the vast majority of legitimate international students who choose
to come to the UK; nor hefty new costs or requirements on the
majority of good quality UK universities and colleges (including
of course the whole of the public sector).
12. As we say, there were, in 2004 and 2005,
a range of misinformed reports on the scale of abuse most of them
coming from a complete misunderstanding of the way in which visas
are issued and academic offers accepted (see above). At one time,
and following we believe some enquiries by UKvisas attempting
to match the names of students to whom visas had been issued with
those who had actually arrived at the specific UK institutions,
a figure of "5,000 missing students" was reported in
the media. We challenged the figure in the Joint Education Taskforce
and were re-assured to be told that it had not come from any Home
Office or ministerial statements or briefings (presumably as there
were, as we all know, no reliable figures known).
THE NEW
SYSTEM
13. We are, as I say, expecting to hear early
next month the government's detailed proposals for a new Points
Based System and have been working closely with the Home Office,
through the Joint Education Taskforce, on some of the core principles
and aspects of implementation.
14. We expect them to include, in particular,
student visas (ie Tier 4) linked to institutions and a new form
of "Sponsors Register" with new criteria including educational
quality (though we continue to oppose the totally inappropriate
use of the term "sponsor" within an educational context).
15. We understand that the first Register was
developed in a virtually impossible time-scale responding to political
requirements and argued at the time that it would be inadequate
if applicants were merely required to show that they were "legitimately
established businesses" with sets of accounts and floor plans.
The educational part of the new "Sponsors Register"
needs to be robust, respected, carefully monitored (and ideally
include a Code of Standards and a clear complaints mechanism).
16. This Register, together with visas linked
to institutions (but with simple and inexpensive transfer arrangements
continuing to allow flexibility) could, we believe, be the key
to significant improvements.
17. There are however aspects which continue
to give us cause for concern.
— We have heard little for instance
on the question of enforcement. Student X has a visa to go to
college Y (perhaps chosen because of prestige). But if s/he does
not turn up deciding to register at perhaps a cheaper and less
prestigious establishment (as currently sometimes happens) or
not to pursue studies at all, what action will be taken? The only
answer we have received so far is that somehow college Y will
be penalised whilst it may be no fault of theirs and we have nothing
on action against individuals. It is as if they should have recruited
more reliable students and if they do not, their status as sponsors
will somehow be reduced.
— The whole system relies therefore
on shifting the responsibility from the Home Office and onto institutions,
most of which (at least in the public sector) have not hitherto
been found to be at fault but may now have to invest in new systems
to cover aspects of abuse which have not been quantified or linked
to particular sub sectors.
— It could upset future patterns of
recruitment—with our leading universities and colleges not
accepting students from certain parts of the world as they could
increase `risk' and damage their status as a "sponsor".
The implications of this for our links with, in particular, key
countries in the developing world could be significant and need
consideration.
— Finally, the cost of the system
must be a critical measure of whether or not it is worth the potential
or suggested benefits. We have heard virtually nothing on this
subject and await the results of the Regulatory Impact Assessment.
If it will result in significant cost increases to "sponsors"
(including the majority for which there has been no substantiated
evidence of abuse) or to students, whilst bringing only marginal
improvements, there will clearly be substantial opposition to
implementation from the education sector.
18. There are, therefore, still many aspects
to be agreed but in principle it is our view that what is being
proposed could, if appropriately designed and costs carefully
controlled, have benefits to the immigration system, to the sector
and to the international students themselves.
19. This final aspect is, we believe, fundamental,
at a time when we also expect to hear detailed plans for the next
phase of the Prime Ministers Initiative to attract more international
students to the UK, against massive international competition.
20. Immigration control is essential but so is
our success in attracting the best young brains to the UK in the
future, avoiding unnecessary new burdens on the vast majority
of the sector and enabling and encouraging the vast majority of
legitimate students to come to the UK with ease whilst continuing
to crack down robustly on what is a very small rogue element.
Dominic Scott OBE
Chief Executive
24 February 2006
| 
