 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:Gosia McBride,
Chris Shaw, Committee
Clerks † attended the
Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 16 June 2009(Afternoon)[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]Clause 52Restriction
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.
Amendment 57
would address the underlying problem of the Government’s
tendency to legislate for powers whose nature and extent is realised
only much later,
when further regulations or guidance are introduced. That process
undermines the authority of Parliament. Given that no reason has been
advanced for a power to impose conditions restricting studies other
than for the stated purposes, which would remain permitted under the
amendment, the clause appears to be too wide ranging.
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.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 17 June 2009 |