Examination of Witnesses (Questions 125-186)
Q125 Chair: Order,
order. This is the Select Committee's second evidence session
on the issue of student visas. We welcome to the dais Mr Mountford
and Mr Doel. The interests of Members of this Committee are noted
in the Register of Members' Interests. Could I add that my wife
is a solicitor and a part-time judge and deals with immigration
cases. Is there anyone else who wishes to declare a specialist
interest?
Thank you for giving evidence to us today. I am sure
you have followed the Committee's proceedings and the evidence
that was given last week, so some of the questions that Members
of the Committee may put to you may come directly as a result
of evidence that we have received.
Perhaps I could start with you, Mr Doel. The Government
rightly is very concerned about the issue of bogus colleges and
I am sure you have seen a copy of the Committee's report into
bogus colleges. Do you think that enough is being done to deal
with this issue?
Martin Doel: We
share the Government's concern and clearly we gave evidence previously—
Chair: Sorry, you will
need to speak up.
Martin Doel: We
share that concern, not least in terms of the reputation of bona
fide colleges that are members of the Association of Colleges,
and made representations over a considerable period about the
need to protect the title "college" and were, therefore,
very thankful to the Committee for its recommendation in that
regard. Work continues to be done with the department towards
protecting the title "college" but clearly there are
difficulties around the ubiquity of that title. But as I say,
conversations still continue, particularly around the conjunction
of words, perhaps around general further education college as
a distinguishing facet. We are hopeful that some progress may
be made in that regard.
Q126 Chair: In
terms of what has happened over the last year, are you satisfied
with the action that is being taken by the UK Border Agency to
try and find out where these colleges are and close them down?
Martin Doel: I
think we are increasingly satisfied by the determined action being
taken by the UKBA and also the increasing focus on institutional
level checks that actually will enable that to happen.
Q127 Chair: Do
you still know of bogus colleges that exist in this country that
are operating, taking in students, colleges that basically are
abusing the system?
Martin Doel: We
receive occasional reports from our members in that situation.
I cannot say that I have received a report lately about a particular
college.
Q128 Chair: In
the last year or so—so this covers two Governments—how
many complaints have you received about a bogus college?
Martin Doel: No
more than five, but then I would not expect the Association of
Colleges to be a prime focus for those complaints being received.
Clearly, the action we would take in those circumstances is to
pass on the complaint directly to the UK Border Agency. I am aware
also that our sister organisation in Scotland has received some
complaints in this regard because obviously we have relationships
with those organisations.
Q129 Chair: Do
you think abuse is a major issue in this sector or do you think
we are coming to terms with dealing with it by unannounced inspections
and the new register of sponsors?
Martin Doel: I
think it was a very significant problem but one that is now beginning
to be addressed. The scale of the remaining problem is very difficult
for me to establish from where I sit, but as much as the actuality
here, I am also very concerned about the reputational issue. I
am very grateful latterly for this Committee and also the Government
itself making the distinction between bona fide colleges, members
of the Association of Colleges, and the bogus colleges. That distinction
I think has been very helpful indeed in terms of promoting the
reputation of good colleges delivering a good service to international
students.
Q130 Chair: So
you would still like to see the previous Committee's recommendation
to protect the word "college" enshrined in legislation?
Martin Doel: I
think that would be a very helpful development indeed and that
is a position shared by colleges in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland
and England.
Q131 Chair: Thank
you. Mr Mountford, you will be getting questions, but if you feel
you need to chip in at any time please feel free to do so.
John Mountford:
Sure.
Chair: Mr Clappison has
a question for you.
Q132 Mr Clappison:
Perhaps I could ask Mr Mountford if he could just tell us a little
bit about his sector, what it does for international students
and how many of them there are studying in publicly funded colleges.
John Mountford:
Indeed. We offer a range of different programmes for international
students. The majority would be doing what we define as level
3 courses. So that is courses that potentially could lead on to
university or would be vocational programmes in their own right.
Within the sector we have around 20,000 to 30,000 international
students studying in FE and sixth form colleges.
Q133 Mr Clappison:
What type of subjects would they be studying typically at level 3?
John Mountford:
Well, A-levels obviously are a major source for international
students coming to our colleges, but not simply A-levels; all
vocational programmes in a whole range of different areas, and
not just standard courses in business and computers, which obviously
are important, but also in specialist areas as well. I think that
is a key point that the colleges we represent do have this huge
range and a lot of—
Chair: Mr Mountford, you
will need to speak up.
John Mountford:
Sorry. We do have this large range of curriculum offer for international
students and we feel it is incredibly important for our members
that they can continue to offer these courses in areas like air
traffic control, for example, in Blackpool College or fisheries
at Grimsby College, and that they are allowed to continue to offer
these programmes.
Q134 Alun Michael:
There is a comment in your submission that you are disappointed
that so many poor private education providers have managed to
register as Tier 4 sponsors. What are the problems with the current
system of accreditation? Why is that happening?
John Mountford:
I am happy to pick that up. As Martin's initial point, we are
encouraged that there is this increased focus on highly trusted
sponsors, there is this increased focus on the quality of—
Alun Michael: Sorry, that
is not the question.
John Mountford:
Yes, but still we do feel that there is increased need to—
Alun Michael: No, I know
what you feel. I want to know what the problem is.
John Mountford:
Well, we would feel that the problem in a sense is the accreditation
of colleges and that in our sector we have—
Q135 Alun Michael:
Yes, I understand that; that is what you said. What is the problem?
Why is it happening?
John Mountford:
Well, there needs to be a more consistent approach to accrediting
providers.
Q136 Alun Michael:
Who needs to do what?
John Mountford:
We have Ofsted in our sector, for example, which is a very robust
approach to accrediting the quality of educational establishments,
and we hope—
Q137 Alun Michael:
That is fine. What is the problem?
John Mountford:
Well, that there should be an equal level of accreditation across
the board for anyone who is sponsoring a student.
Q138 Alun Michael:
Yes, so who should do what?
John Mountford:
Well, I guess that is something the Government could pick up to
make sure that there is a good quality of accreditor or—
Alun Michael: I am sorry—
Martin Doel: I
think we would have concern that the colleges are—
Q139 Alun Michael:
Sorry, we know what your concern is. I am asking you what needs
to be done.
Martin Doel: I
would say I think there needs to be more resource devoted to a
more intrusive and more proactive accreditation of private training
providers—
Q140 Alun Michael:
By whom?
Martin Doel: It
would need to be either by Ofsted on contract to Government, which
would obviously have consequences for income to Ofsted in order
to do this because Ofsted is not funded in order to do that currently,
or some other body would need to be established in order to do
that. I would find it hard to say that the UK Border Agency would
be competent to do this if they were looking at the quality of
the education provision within those institutions. Currently,
there is not any independent verification of the standards that
are being achieved in those institutions.
Q141 Alun Michael:
Are you suggesting that there should be a single body that does
this all?
Martin Doel: I
would not be prescriptive, I think, in order to say how this should
be done, but I do think there needs to be an independent verification.
Alun Michael: You are
not in a position to be prescriptive, but you are in a position
to be clearer as to what you are recommending.
Chair: Mr Doel, I think
it would be very helpful if after the session you could just do
the Committee a little note as to how you think the system could
be improved. Members of the Committee did go to Brighton yesterday
and, indeed, in evidence that we have heard previously there is
concern about the number of bodies that do accreditation. I think
what Mr Michael would like to know is do you think there are too
many bodies involved? Should there be one body? What would be
very helpful to the Committee is if we had your views as to whether
or not that should happen.
Q142 Alun Michael:
What my question was directed at was asking for specific proposals
rather than a vague, "Somebody ought to do something about
it".
Martin Doel: We
have not considered the specific proposal previously. I would
be happy to go away and make the proposal. All I would say in
terms of the specific proposal, I would like to see the same functionality
that applies to colleges be applied to those other further education
colleges, regular—
Q143 Alun Michael:
The devil is in the detail. We need to know from you how you would
do that.
Martin Doel: Yes,
that is fine, happy to do that.
Q144 Steve McCabe:
I do not want to prolong your argument over this, but I just want
to check. Is that because you want to check the quality of the
educational output of these establishments or is it because you
want it to act as a deterrent for them attracting foreign students?
Martin Doel: I
think both. It serves both purposes. By establishing the quality
of the provision we maintain the reputation of further education
within the UK and, therefore, the ability to attract students
to all institutions but on the basis of a strong reputation. So
it achieves that outcome for our colleges by regulating, if you
like, the unregulated sector because it begins to portray a UK
offer that is strong and maintained across the world. So, that
I think is the dual benefit of doing it in that way.
Q145 Alun Michael:
Sorry, can I just come back to something you said, the unregulated
sector? Isn't the issue between weak accreditation and regulation
and strong accreditation and regulation? Are you saying that there
is a part of the sector that is not regulated at all?
Martin Doel: The
distinction between regulation and accreditation is a neat one
at points. In terms of regulation, we would say our colleges are
regulated by a government agency empowered directly from Government
and overseen by this Parliament. I am not sure that all the other
accreditation organisations are similarly overseen.
Q146 Alun Michael:
Just one final point. In an earlier answer, you talked about the
issue beginning to be addressed. I was under the impression that
quite a lot had been done subsequent to the Committee's earlier
report on this issue. Are you saying that not enough has been
done?
John Mountford:
I think the progress is very encouraging and we hope to see that
continued. There definitely has been a clampdown on bad practice.
Q147 Alun Michael:
What bit of that has not gone far enough? Is it just the accreditation
issue?
John Mountford:
I think that is the key issue that we need to get a tight grip
on the people who are sponsoring students and that needs consistent
standards for all sectors doing sponsoring.
Q148 Alun Michael:
I think at the end of the day you need to be clear about what
it is you are recommending and perhaps that can be covered in
the Chairman's note.
Chair: If you could send
us a little note that would be very helpful.
John Mountford:
Sure.
Q149 Chair: Can
I just go back to you, Mr Mountford? In terms of countries, the
origin countries, is it still China, India and Pakistan as the
top three countries?
John Mountford:
Well, China and India certainly are the top two, and after those
two countries there is quite a range of different nationalities
coming to study in colleges, including places like Korea, Japan,
Turkey and also Pakistan.
Q150 Chair: We
were very interested in our visit yesterday to find out that a
number of English language schools had offices abroad. Is that
also the case with those associated with your organisation?
John Mountford:
A lot of colleges would work with representatives abroad, so agents
who would represent them and help them to recruit students. Not
a huge number would have a permanent base internationally.
Chair: I will come back
to agents a little later.
John Mountford:
Sure.
Q151 Mr Winnick:
Your organisation obviously has an interest in the status quo.
Would that be correct? There is no shame in it.
John Mountford:
No, I would not necessarily say that was the case. I think of
all the sectors we get hit hardest by bogus providers because
our courses can get easily confused. So for all the sectors, we
are probably the keenest for the UK to get its house in order,
if you like, because it will protect good practitioners like further
education colleges and it will protect genuine students, which
must be good for all of us.
Q152 Mr Winnick:
Your paper that you circulated refers to international students
bringing in around £42 million worth of income to the college.
£42 million over what period of time?
John Mountford:
That would be an annual fee.
Q153 Mr Winnick:
An annual fee. Clearly, any restriction that the Government is
indicating, for reasons good or otherwise, would adversely affect
that income, wouldn't it?
John Mountford:
Yes, if that was a restriction—the number of students who
could study. I think we need to make the point that a lot of those
students would also continue on to universities, for example,
as well, so that is just the first stage of their contribution
to UK education.
Q154 Mr Winnick:
What particular concerns do you have regarding the Government's
consultation paper? Are you opposed in general or to certain aspects?
John Mountford:
The general theme of the paper is encouraging because it seems
to be focusing on highly trusted sponsors, the fact that we need
to get the quality of the institution right. But, of course, the
first question, for example, was about should we increase the
minimum level from level 3 to university level, which immediately
raises concerns. A lot of our—
Q155 Chair: Because?
John Mountford:
Well, because we represent colleges that specialise in providing
programmes at level 3. Also, we had some concerns about the suggestion
that students should return home before they progress from one
programme to another. We feel that if a student has finished a
programme with a highly trusted sponsor there should not be any
hindrance to them going on to study at another highly trusted
sponsor.
Q156 Mr Winnick:
You think it is unnecessary, bureaucratic?
John Mountford:
It is an unnecessary bureaucratic step and I think already there
is a lot of pressure on the immigration services to get visas
processed, and to add extra weight on to that I think would be
counterproductive.
Q157 Chair: Mr
Doel, you indicated you wished to speak?
Martin Doel: No,
only—it has moved on somewhat—to endorse the greatest
concern from colleges would be the threat to apply a blanket restriction
according to level of qualification. The qualifications that colleges
deliver at level 3 and below are recognised as being world class.
Many countries seek out those qualifications and it would be unnecessary
and unhelpful to preclude that level of study within the country.
Given that, highly trusted status provides a way of managing the
system more effectively.
Q158 Mr Winnick:
Are you really telling this Committee that in the general atmosphere
of reducing immigration you are more or less the innocent party,
that there is no particular reason why students should be targeted
in this way?
John Mountford:
All we can say is that the colleges we represent are genuine educational
establishments. They are accredited by Ofsted, for example. For
them to be—to restrict their ability to recruit genuine
students who want to come and study at genuine educational providers,
to make a contribution to UK college life from a financial and
a cultural point of view, would be a great shame.
Q159 Nicola Blackwood:
Could I just ask what percentage of FE students are international
students?
John Mountford:
It is not a huge proportion. It is probably somewhere between
5% and 10%.
Q160 Nicola Blackwood:
Are you expecting that percentage to increase for any reason?
John Mountford:
Not necessarily, no.
Q161 Nicola Blackwood:
What is your view of the rules governing the international foundation
year or other pathway courses? Do you think that they should be
governed and accredited and regulated in the same way as FE courses?
John Mountford:
I think all courses should be regulated, absolutely.
Q162 Nicola Blackwood:
No, I am not asking that. I am saying should they be regulated
in the same way? Do you think that there is a problem with the
way in which the international foundation course and other pathway
courses are currently being regulated?
John Mountford:
Most foundation year courses would be regulated by the university
the students are going on to, and we would trust our university
partners to do that appropriately. It is a part of the educational
sector that is not—that regulation would not come from the
college. It would normally come from the university who is receiving
the student.
Q163 Nicola Blackwood:
So when you speak about other organisations whose educational
quality is poor and is dragging down your reputation, you are
not really talking about pathway courses or international foundation
year courses?
John Mountford:
It depends on the provider and it depends on the institution regulating
that provider.
Q164 Nicola Blackwood:
Do you think that you would avoid that problem if there was a
consistent regulation such as a stable accreditation system that
you felt more confident in and the public would feel more confident
in?
John Mountford:
I think that would be a very sensible suggestion, yes.
Q165 Nicola Blackwood:
Do you think that all of these organisations, for example, should
be linked to a higher educational establishment?
John Mountford:
All the courses going on to a foundation year, to higher education?
Nicola Blackwood: Yes.
So pathway courses, they would go on to higher education.
John Mountford:
By definition they would have to go on to somebody who was delivering
higher education programmes.
Q166 Nicola Blackwood:
But they are not necessarily linked. You have independent colleges
that have an agreement perhaps with a university but you do not
necessarily have that close relationship?
John Mountford:
I think there would have to be a very close examination of the
quality of those providers. I would not like to say every independent
HE provider does not do a good job because I cannot possibly say
that, but what I would say is that the control of those providers
would have to be tight and would have to reflect the same standards
that every other provider has to prove.
Q167 Nicola Blackwood:
Do you think at the same time as regulation of the provider there
is also this weak link, it seems to me, with the agents and representatives
and establishing the veracity of those agents for colleges in
the UK can be very difficult. Do you think that there should be
an accreditation system for agents who recruit international students?
John Mountford:
I think everything that we can do to support our partners domestically
or internationally to make sure they are informed, and representing
us properly, must be a good thing. But I think one of the advantages
of the highly trusted sponsor system is that the criteria are
extremely tight. So if colleges or universities or private providers
are working with agents who are not doing a good job, who are
not representing them properly, who are misrepresenting them to
students, that would be quickly found out because they would be
falling short of the criteria. So one of the advantages of the
highly trusted system is that it makes colleges, universities
and schools take a very active approach to working with people
and representing them. If we do not get it right, we are going
to be damaged later on.
Q168 Nicola Blackwood:
But don't you think it would relieve the burden and the risk if
you knew that you were engaging with an accredited agent?
Martin Doel: Additional
regulation here in terms of the accreditation of agencies seems
to me an entirely helpful thing for colleges to be able to recognise
those that they can most immediately trust and use to protect
their own reputation. So, using incountry resources in order
to do that seems to me to be an entirely helpful thing.
Q169 Chair: As
Nicola Blackwood has said, in a sense this could be done quite
easily. We have embassies abroad in places like India and China.
They are still there, I understand. You have British Council offices
there. So the checking out of these agents is something that could
be done quite easily.
Martin Doel: "Using"
is sometimes an emotive word, the additional intelligence that
would flow to colleges would be very helpful to me both in a commercial
sense and to prevent my own reputation being damaged by recruiting
from a poor agent. So I think every college would welcome the
more information they can achieve and the more reliable information
they can achieve on the agents that may be providing students
to them.
Chair: Indeed.
Q170 Mark Reckless:
What do you think that the impact generally of the proposed changes
may be on the reputation of UK education overseas?
Martin Doel: John
may add more from actually having gone to a number of countries
here, but I accompanied a number of outbound visits recently.
The concern is that it would create the impression that the UK
is not open for business in this area and that it is a very difficult
place to access training and, therefore, that many students may
be driven away from otherwise finding the right course with the
right provider in this country. So, it is creating an overall
impression of the UK that we then will have to work hard both
in terms of the reputation of the quality of what we provide and
also in terms of the right student being able to find the right
course here.
Q171 Mark Reckless:
Might it also increase the perception that the UK is not a soft
touch for people really wanting to come here to work but actually
purporting to be in study?
Martin Doel: I
acknowledge there is a very fine balance to be struck here and
clearly that balance needs to be observed at all points. At stages
I think it can dip into that impression that it is very difficult
to come here and to access that training. At other times, yes,
I think we need to have the benefit of strong control. I think
the balance is a tightrope to be walked here. We are very conscious.
The other thing I think would be very helpful in
this area would be to have more reliable data to indicate reliable
trends here. We have been conducting surveys of our members to
have better data on international student recruitment at colleges,
but we have only just established our own databases in order to
do this. So establishing trend data is quite difficult for us
to do. I am not sure that anyone else has really strong data here.
I think that would be a useful thing to drive, to understand what
the consequences are for reputation and the impression we are
creating.
Q172 Nicola Blackwood:
How do you gather data about reputation and impression?
Martin Doel: First
of all, I think you can see the data on recruitment, that is an
indication about the effectiveness of your recruitment or otherwise
and if it is falling or it is rising. I think there is also room
to just ask some student surveys of the impression of people that
do come here—more difficult to reach those that choose not
to come here, selfevidently—to understand from the
impression of recruited students how difficult they found it to
come to the UK and what impressions were created about it when
they came here. It would be a useful thing to—
Q173 Chair: If
they do not come here because they perceive there to be obstacles,
where would they go? Which other countries are our main competitors
as far as students—
Martin Doel: The
main competitors I would identify, and John may add to this, particularly
as many of the students who wish to come to study in the UK obviously
welcome the use of the English language, so other English languagebased
providers represent—
Q174 Chair: For
example?
Martin Doel: Australia,
Canada, less so the United States because the community colleges
I do not think are as focused at international student recruitment
as perhaps some of the universities are in the US, but particularly
Canada and Australia. The Netherlands also is very active in this
field. On a different note, because I think they have a very different
vocational system, Germany is a very powerful competitor in many
parts of the world.
Q175 Chair: Just
one other point in answer to something that Nicola Blackwood mentioned,
is there more you can do to help UKBA deal with the issue of bogus
colleges or bogus students? Is there more information you can
give them? At the event that we held yesterday in Brighton some
very interesting examples were being given about the way in which
colleges could help; for example, at the end of the course notifying
UKBA that the course is over. Are there any practical steps you
can take in order to crack down on abuse?
John Mountford:
I would answer your question by saying that in our sector we have
a lot of good practice that could be used as an example of how
to manage a college and especially how to manage student monitoring,
things like attendance, retention, achievement and so on, which
are critical parts of what the UKBA are looking to do. So I think
from a practical point of view if UKBA wants to spend time in
further education colleges looking at the systems we have in place,
which could then be used throughout the sector, then I think that
would be useful.
Martin Doel: If
I can take that, I think the association would see itself having
a very strong rule about promoting best practice among members,
and actually the liaison we have with the UKBA officers now is
very strong and consistent and we would continue to work in that
way and look to do that. We have also introduced an international
charter for colleges. This is, if you like, almost going beyond
highly trusted status, and colleges subjecting themselves to further
examination and peer review, to best practice delivery around
the quality of their provision to international students. So we
would be looking to continue to support that direction of travel.
As to actually whistle-blowing on poor colleges in the locale,
then I think perhaps, yes, we may think about what we can do to
make members' voice heard with the UKBA, but I think the key thing
is if they are working with the UKBA around UK highly trusted
status, one would expect there to be quite close links already
with their relevant—
Q176 Chair: I
think the Government is also concerned about students coming here
and working. I think the Minister, who will give evidence later,
talked about PhD students working on the tills at Tesco, for example.
Is there anything that you can do in order to help that situation?
Martin Doel: We
have had conversations with UKBA about what is reasonable to expect
an educational institution to do in order to check on the whereabouts
of their students. College students are very closely tracked in
terms of keeping registers on them, which would not happen in
a university. So it is a much more tightly controlled day, but
even they will not be able to tell whether the student is working
15 hours a week rather than 10 hours in the absolute detail. Clearly,
colleges will see themselves as having responsibility. If it became
known to them that a student was abusing the terms on which they
were here, they would draw it to the attention of the UKBA and
they would want to do that particularly to protect their status
as highly trusted institutions.
Q177 Chair: Mr
Doel and Mr Mountford, thank you very much for coming in to give
evidence to us today. What would be extremely helpful is if you
could supply us with that note as to how you think the system
can improve.
Sorry, one last question. What is the average fee
that is paid? I know there are different courses, but on average
how much does one of your international students pay?
John Mountford:
It is about £5,500 per year.
Q178 Chair: For
a year?
John Mountford:
For a year.
Q179 Chair: The
total amount of income is how much to the British economy from
your perspective? We know the global amount.
John Mountford:
Well, as we said earlier, it is £42 million in fees, but
we would have to at least double that to capture all the money
they have spent in the community and so on.
Q180 Chair: In
terms of local jobs?
John Mountford:
The number of jobs linked to that?
Chair: In your colleges?
Martin Doel: It
would be very hard to make an estimate because many of the students
would actually join an existing college group rather than being
taught separately. So to make an estimate of how many jobs would
be lost if we were unable to recruit would be a difficult thing
to do. I would be very happy, together with the note we are going
to provide, to give some reasonable estimate. If I was to invent
a figure today, that is exactly what would be done. We have not
considered that from that perspective, but happy to do so.
Chair: Sure. Just when
I said it is near the end, Nicola Blackwood has a quick question
to ask you.
Q181 Nicola Blackwood:
How many of your students come in on Tier 4 and how many on a
student visitor visa, if any?
John Mountford:
From February, when it began, to October there were 9,000 students
issued a Tier 4 student visa. So, on that basis, we would estimate
about 12,000 a year.
Q182 Nicola Blackwood:
12,000 a year on the student visitor visa?
John Mountford:
Yes. If we work out that the average student would stay for one
and a half or two years, say, on an Alevel programme, about
24,000 would be on Tier 4 visas.
Q183 Nicola Blackwood:
But how many on the visitor visa, sorry?
John Mountford:
I do not have that figure to hand.
Q184 Nicola Blackwood:
Could you send that to us?
John Mountford:
Of course, yes.
Q185 Chair: We
are eager to complete this inquiry as soon as possible. You do
not have a date, do you, when the Government intends to publish
its results of its consultation?
John Mountford:
We have only been given approximate—
Q186 Chair: What
was the approximate date?
John Mountford:
April, I believe.
Chair: Excellent, thank
you very much. We look forward to receiving your note. Thank you.
Could I call to the dais Dominic Scott and Aaron Porter, please?
| 
