House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2008 - 09
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: Miss Anne Begg, † Mr. Roger Gale, Sir Nicholas Winterton
Anderson, Mr. David (Blaydon) (Lab)
Blunt, Mr. Crispin (Reigate) (Con)
Brake, Tom (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Burns, Mr. Simon (West Chelmsford) (Con)
Green, Damian (Ashford) (Con)
Gwynne, Andrew (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Hamilton, Mr. David (Midlothian) (Lab)
Holloway, Mr. Adam (Gravesham) (Con)
McCabe, Steve (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol, East) (Lab)
McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Prosser, Gwyn (Dover) (Lab)
Rowen, Paul (Rochdale) (LD)
Walker, Mr. Charles (Broxbourne) (Con)
Wilson, Phil (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Woolas, Mr. Phil (Minister for Borders and Immigration)
Gosia McBride, Chris Shaw, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 16 June 2009

(Afternoon)

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]

Clause 52

Restriction on studies
Amendment moved (this day): 57, in clause 52, page 43, line 28, at beginning insert
‘where leave is granted for the purpose of studies in the United Kingdom,’.—(Damian Green.)
4 pm
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment 58, in clause 52, page 43, line 29, at end insert—
‘(ib) a condition restricting his studies to an education institution registered as a sponsor of non-EU nationals.
(1A) An educational institution registered as a sponsor of non-EU nationals must be defined as a University, Institute, Royal College or College under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1685).’.
New clause 10—Restriction on studies: further definition—
‘(1) The Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1685) are amended by inserting “College” in column (1) of the Schedule.
(2) Section 2(1)(b) of the Business Names Act 1985 (c.7) does not apply to the carrying on of the business under a name which includes the word “college” by a person—
(a) to whom the business is transferred on or after the date on which section 52 came into force; and
(b) who carries on the business under the name which was its lawful business name and immediately before that transfer,
during the twelve months beginning with the date of the transfer.
(3) Section 2(1)(b) of the Business Names Act 1985 (c.7) shall not apply to the carrying on of the business under a name which includes a word “college” by a person who—
(a) carried on that business immediately before the date on which section 52 came into force; and
(b) continues to carry it on under the name which immediately before that date was its lawful name.’.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): It is a delight to see you occupying the Chair, Mr. Gale, albeit temporarily. I was at the beginning of my remarks on this group. The break was fortuitous, as it allowed me to look at more details of what the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs said in the Home Affairs Committee this morning, which is directly pertinent to the new clause.
The Committee will remember that I was setting out the background as to why the issue is so important. Not only Opposition parties but many bodies, including the Home Affairs Committee and the security services, have been warning the Government about abuses of the student visa system for immigration purposes for some years. The Minister for Borders and Immigration said this morning that he rather agreed that the old system was deeply imperfect, but that there was now a new system that made things much better.
This morning, the Minister of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—or DBIS, if that is what we call it now—said that his understanding was that the register was already in place and that the IT systems should be up and running by the end of the year. That does not sound completely like a system in full flow. If the hope is that the IT system will be working by the end of the year, there is clearly some way to go before the new system is properly up and running. There is a long-running problem that we have all known about. There has been inactivity on the part of the Government in cracking down quickly enough on bogus colleges.
The scale of the problem is enormous. One of the witnesses to a recent Home Affairs Committee inquiry estimated that there could be tens of thousands of bogus students across the country. I would be interested to know what the Government’s estimate is. Even more frightening is that the British high commission in Pakistan estimates that half of all students to whom it grants visas disappear after reaching the UK. Does the Minister recognise that terrifying figure? We have no estimate of the number of foreign nationals on student visas who have worked more than the permitted 20 hours during term time in the past 12 months.
We have failed to find out from the Home Secretary how many student visas were revoked in each of the past five years as a consequence either of failure to register with the relevant institution at the beginning of the academic year or failure to attend classes. I asked that question and had one of the standard brush-offs, which cited disproportionate cost as the reason why an answer could not be given. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position that it would cost thousands, but nevertheless, this is a serious problem, which affects the security of this country and the integrity of our immigration system. It seems—because I believe all the answers I am given by Ministers—that we do not know the scale of the problem. It is difficult to solve a problem if one has no idea of its scale. That, apparently, is the situation we are in. If the Minister wants to say that despite all that it would be too expensive—cost thousands—to have the basic information that would enable us to solve the problem, so be it, but that is an interesting insight into the running of government.
Let me move to amendment 57, the purpose of which is clear. Any condition restricting studies could be imposed only on people who had been given leave for the purpose of studying and not on anyone else with limited leave to enter or remain. I hope that the Minister welcomes the amendment. It is in line with the Government’s stated aim, which is that the clause meets the objective in the points-based system that students should be tied to the institution that sponsors their entry to and stay in the UK. If so, there is no need for the Secretary of State to take wider powers to impose restrictions on the studies of migrants who have been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK. That point arose on Second Reading.
The Minister will be aware that on Report in another place, my noble Friend Lady Hanham tabled an amendment that would have achieved much the same thing as my amendment. She argued that the clause does not provide enough safeguards and that an appropriate balance has to be struck. Other Members of the other place pointed out the practical pitfalls. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, who is a professor at Cardiff university, observed that the clause would pose particular difficulties for medical students at Oxford, Cambridge and St. Andrews, who often do not know where they will pursue their clinical studies, and for all medical students following a six-year course. Amendment 57 is very practical.
Given the testimony by the Further Education Minister to the Home Affairs Committee this morning, I am glad that the Government seem to agree with the intentions of amendment 58 and new clause 10. The Minister spoke about the problem of bogus colleges—people using the word “college” to set up a bogus institution. I agree that it seems strange that by law we protect the term “university”—one cannot set up an institution and call it a university in this country—but one can set up an institution and call it a college. He said that he would undertake to reconsider the matter and that there will be an opportunity to do so in the autumn. I assume that he was talking about a Bill that the Government have planned on the matter.
Although I was grateful for those comments, bogus colleges are, as I have observed already, a big problem that has been a long time in the solving. It seems possible that we could solve it in the Bill and so save ourselves time in a few months when I assume that a different Department will be seeking to solve it with another Bill in the next Session.
That is not an academic point. It was not clear from the Minister’s testimony to the Home Affairs Committee whether he intends to introduce provisions in a new Bill or add them to an existing Bill. Given the stage in the electoral cycle, if there is a new Bill, it is conceivable that it will not reach the statute book before a general election, which could result in several years’ delay before it is introduced. That is quite a serious point, which I hope that the Minister for Borders and Immigration will address.
The new clause addresses the problem with the previous registers, which have proved inadequate in controlling bogus colleges. As with other provisions in the Bill, without proper enforcement, a register is just an empty gesture. I shall quote some figures that I think are constructive. By 1 October 2008, 541 educational institutions applied for licences to sponsor college students; only 19 are universities, 169 are further education colleges and 353—the vast majority—are “other educational establishments”. The border agency has requested attendance reports from 153 colleges and 48 universities since limited mandatory reporting was introduced in April 2007, and since January 2005, 256 colleges on the register of education and training providers have been investigated by the authorities. Of those, 114 have been found to be in breach of the immigration rules and have thus been removed from the register.
That illustrates the scale of the problem and of immigration. We also know that 770 higher education institutions have registered to be tier 4 sponsors in the points-based system. That figure will include universities and other organisations such as private colleges and schools.
The amendment would ensure that only educational establishments registered with Companies House could become a sponsor for foreign students. Currently, those with the word “college” in their title may apply to be a sponsor regardless of whether they are formally recognised under business law. I hope that the Government will support the amendment, particularly given the remarks of the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs this morning.
The Minister for Borders and Immigration will know that bogus colleges have been a problem for a long time, and that the problem affects different people. Obviously, it affects individual students, but it also affects the reputation of the UK educational system around the world and of the UK immigration control system. One issue to be tackled is the fact that businesses can use the word “college” almost at will. He will know that the Association of Colleges and the Association of Scotland’s Colleges seek to prevent UK and foreign students from enrolling in bogus colleges by making it compulsory to ask the Secretary of State’s permission before using the word “college” in a business name. The Bill offers the ideal opportunity to rectify that fault, which has been recognised by everyone involved.
When drawing up the new register for education sponsors, the UK Border Agency rejected applications from more than 300 institutions, many of which were bogus colleges. The Association of Colleges says that as a condition of receiving public money, all its member colleges are subject to stringent regimes of public audit and inspection. As a result, when students attend a bona fide college, they have certain expectations. Bogus colleges prey on unsuspecting students, who are predominantly from overseas. Once they have paid their fees for what are bogus qualifications, no recourse is available to them. Many students are scared to contact the authorities for fear of deportation, because they discover that although they may be the innocent victim of a scam, that will make them vulnerable. In the end, they are in a no-win situation. Either they return to their country of origin angry at the treatment they have received in the UK or they stay here illegally. I am sure the Minister agrees that neither of those results is satisfactory.
The new clause aims simply to protect the word “college”. Any organisation that wishes to trade under any name that includes the word “college” would require the express permission of the appropriate authorising official to do so. The Minister may wish to debate whether that would fit best into the new, multi-purpose Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or within his Department, but that is a second-order issue. When I look across Government, it seems to me that everything now comes under the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—indeed, there are people who wish that.
 
Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 17 June 2009