32. Memorandum submitted by
Universities UK
SUMMARY
1. Universities UK is pleased to submit
evidence to the Home Affairs Committee to aid its inquiry into
Immigration Control. This note sets out a range of areas in which
universities have an interest, and on which Universities UK is
working with the Home Office to enhance immigration procedures
in relation to international students.
2. The note covers issues relating to the implementation
of the Government's five-year plan "Selective Admission:
Making Migration Work for Britain". It also highlights
concerns about the current system of registration for education
and training providers, which is in our view wholly inadequate
as no indication of quality standards are provided.
MEASURES TO
IMPROVE THE
FUNCTIONING OF
THE STUDENT
VISA SYSTEM
AND COMBAT
ABUSE
3. Universities UK has been working with the
Home Office over the last year on a range of student immigration
issues. There have been many changes to immigration policies and
procedures over the last three years which has posed problems
for prospective international students, current international
students, staff in UK universities and for the reputation of the
UK as a welcoming destination for international students.
4. The last few months have seen a welcome change
in attitude and approach by the Home Office through the Joint
Education Taskforce and associated work. We remain in a learning
phase as the Home Office begins to understand the variety and
complexity of international education and the UK's considerable
success in this area of activity. The education sector is also
beginning to benefit from a greater understanding of the direction
in which the Home Office is seeking to move.
5. The most recent proposals were outlined in
the consultation on "Selective Admission: Making Migration
work for Britain". Universities UK and many Universities
UK members responded to this consultation and some of the key
points from the Universities UK response are outlined below. A
copy of the full Universities UK response is attached [not
printed].
OBJECTIVITY OF
CRITERIA/ABOLITION
OF APPEALS
IN ENTRY
CLEARANCE CASES
6. The proposals suggest that the criteria used
to make visa decisions will move from the current wide range of
criteria, some of which are subjective to a system where points
are allocated on objective criteria. The Government has argued
that this will remove the need for an appeal mechanism and have
brought forward measures to remove the right of appeal in Entry
Clearance cases as part of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality
Bill, currently before the House of Lords.
7. UUK has disputed the Government's assumption
that appeals will no longer be necessary in relation to international
students on the following grounds;
— 34% of students who apply for visas
are currently refused. Of those who appeal, 25% are successful.
This indicates poor quality decision-making.
— A range of reasons are currently
given for refusal. Frequently these indicate that an applicant
has been refused on inappropriate grounds, or because the ECO
has failed to follow the Immigration Rules. For example, one students
was refused because the Entry Clearance Officer "did not
find it credible" that the student in question would study
in Northern Ireland if their aim was to improve their English.
Even if the new system is more objective, we are not convinced
that it will remove the possibility of inappropriate decisions
being made.
— Furthermore, although the new system
will be more objective, it will not remove the need for
some element of subjectivity. As the Immigration Minister Tony
McNulty has said "100% objectivity is a fool's errand . .
. It is not about simply ticking boxes and adding points up, although
that is a large part of the measure.".
— Further information is needed on
what objective criteria will be used to allocate points to prospective
and how criteria will be weighted in terms of points. The Government
will publish its response to the consultation on proposals for
a points-based immigration system towards the end of February.
We are disappointed that the Government brought forward legislation,
now nearing the end of its passage through parliament, to abolish
appeals before the new scheme has been designed, let along implemented.
— Even if the new system proves to
be flawless, we would argue that it will take time to implement
across 160 visa issuing posts. Implementation will require extensive
retraining of immigration officers. We have therefore argued that
it would be preferable to introduce the system and allow it to
bed-down before removing appeal rights.
POSITION OF
UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES
WITHIN SYSTEM
8. The distinction between highly skilled (Tier
1) and skilled (Tier 2) is unclear and it would be useful to have
further discussions with the Home Office around how the full range
of academic and other staff from overseas may fit within the new
system.
SPONSORSHIP
9. The proposal for sponsorship arrangements
for those below Tier 1 raises a number of issues for institutions
as employers and as recruiters of international students.
— The terminology of "sponsorship"
in education may be problematic as sponsors are often associated
with financial support whereas this proposal is a form of "visa
guarantee".
— The idea of a "certificate
of sponsorship" seems to add another unnecessary layer of
bureaucracy. A number of institutions are supportive of an alternative,
less bureaucratic solution involving institution-specific visas.
— From recent discussions with the
Home Office officials it appears that the "certificate of
sponsorship" is designed to ensure an institution has gone
through a process of checking a student before issuing an offer
and/or acceptance. All HEIs follow robust admissions procedures
for international students and there are a number of checking
systems already in place. However although HEIs can and do assess
the academic suitability of prospective applicants, it is the
responsibility of the immigration authorities to assess other
aspects including the financial position of prospective students
bearing in mind individual circumstances.
— It may be possible to devise an
enhanced acceptance or confirmation letter to assure the Home
Office/UKvisas that HEIs have followed their own appropriate procedures
and this letter combined with institution-specific visas would
remove the need for an additional "certificate of sponsorship"
document. However, there needs to be further discussions between
HEIs and the Home Office to highlight the nature and extent of
good practice in international admissions.
— Whether a "certificate of sponsorship"
system, an enhanced acceptance letter system or an institutional
visa system is adopted there needs to be careful consideration
of the development of a simple and efficient mechanism to allow
students to change their course or institution at no or very little
cost.
10. There are also issues around the link between
the provision of information on applicants and/or students and
reducing bureaucracy for "compliant" sponsors. In discussions
with the Home Office it appeared that institutions could be assigned
to different risk categories depending on how many "no-shows"
or "non-attenders" were reported which may limit the
incentive to provide information. Institutions may fear that if
they provide information on "no-shows" or "non-attenders"
they may be assigned to a "higher-risk" category requiring
more regulation. It is unclear how the Home Office will view and
appraise the institutional provision of information on applicants
and students.
REPORTING
11. It has been clear over the last year that
government wishes to introduce a more comprehensive and reliable
way of tracking students with entry clearance to find out where
they enrol and whether they continue to attend on a regular basis.
Universities UK has been working with the Home Office on reporting
issues for over a year and a pilot study involving a small number
of institutions is underway. The Home Office has agreed to a targeted
approach rather than making blanket requests for information but
further discussions will be taking place with the Home Office
over the next few months, as many issues around reporting remain
unresolved.
ENTITLEMENT TO
WORK AND
BE ACCOMPANIED
BY DEPENDENTS
12. The proposal to grant certain entitlements
to migrants in some tiers and not others could potentially be
problematic for students if they face further restrictions on
working or cannot be joined in the UK by their families. The right
to work is important for the UK's competitive advantage in the
international student recruitment market and also for the benefits
gained by international students through broadening their experience
of the UK and further developing their English language skills.
It is also important to allow international students to be accompanied
by their dependants.
FINANCIAL BONDS
13. The proposals to ask for financial bonds
from certain categories of applicants and/or from certain countries
could pose significant issues for prospective international students
that could deter genuine students. If the Home Office decides
to use bonds it will be important for the Home Office to clarify
how the categories and countries to which bonds are applied will
be determined. It will also be important to clarify the position
of those students who may be in a high-risk category either due
to their student status or due to their nationality but who are
in very limited financial circumstances and are perhaps receiving
scholarships or other financial support. It will also be important
to consider whether bonds will be an effective mechanism for tackling
abuse or a deterrent to genuine students. Bonds would also introduce
considerable risks to institutions seeking to recruit from particular
countries as the introduction of bonds in countries could seriously
undermine interest in studying in the UK.
REGISTER OF
EDUCATION AND
TRAINING PROVIDERS
14. In January 2005 the DfES launched its register
of education and training providers. The register had been developed
at the request of the Home Office to provide a list of education
and training providers. The Home Office and UKvisas needed a list
to use when determining whether someone applying for a student
visa was seeking to attend a "genuine" education or
training provider.
15. However, there seems to have been a rather
fundamental difference in approach and understanding between the
DfES and Home Office. The DfES appears to have listed organisations
that had received funding for education and training rather than
education and training providers. The register currently has around
14,000 entries, of which 13,000 were entered automatically and
1,000 have applied to join.
16. Combined with this difference in approach
were significant omissions and flawed search mechanisms. A significant
number of universities experienced problems for a variety of reasons,
despite Universities UK providing the consultants who developed
the register with a full list of Universities UK members and their
addresses. Problems included institutions not being found in the
search if "University of X" was requested rather than
"X University", commonly used institutional acronyms
not recognised, incomplete addresses, omissions and multiple entries.
17. In addition there is some evidence that entry
clearance officers are frequently disregarding the register and
relying on their own knowledge and experience to assess whether
an institution is appropriate or not.
18. Many of these issues have been addressed
but the most significant issue remains. There is no quality assessment
or use of quality standards to let organisations join the list.
Before the list was developed Universities UK and other organisations
expressed concerns that a place on the list would be used by some
organisations to attempt to indicate some level of Government
approval. A number of organisations do use the fact that they
are on the list in this way.
19. The DfES acknowledge many of the issues with
the current register but no significant improvements will be made
ahead of the new list of institutions that will be developed by
the Home Office as part of the new points-based immigration system.
This list will determine which institutions are able to recruit
international students based on agreements to adhere to "sponsorship
requirements" and issue "certificates of sponsorship".
20. A relatively small number of organisations
(around 40-50) have been removed or refused entry to the list
since it was set up in 2005. The checks made by the DfES and Home
Office are focused on existence as businesses with minimum requirements
on evidence of education or training provision.
21. It is still possible both for genuine students
to be misled into applying to study at institutions subject to
no quality assurance procedures and receive a poor quality experience
which reflects badly on the UK. It is also still possible for
those seeking to use the student route fraudulently to use one
of the many thousands of institutions on the list.
COLLECTION AND
DISSEMINATION OF
INFORMATION ABOUT
STUDENTS ENTERING
AND LEAVING
THE UK
22. Universities UK is working with the Home
Office on a project to improve information-sharing between institutions
and the Home Office. The findings of this project will be available
within the next few months.
23. Currently there are no comprehensive mechanisms
for institutions to know who has received a visa on the basis
of documentation provided by an institution and who has entered
the UK. Institutions are keen to improve on this situation and
to be provided with information on people who have been issued
with visas.
24. It is unclear whether any systematic checks
are made on people exiting the UK. Without exit checks any work
done by institutions is negated.
9 February 2006
| 
