Examination of Witnesses (Questions 242-271)
Q242 Chair: Sir Andrew,
Mr Mehmet, you are old stagers at this Committee, so you know
the format, so I will not go through it again, and you have been
sitting in at the evidence. Thank you very much for coming to
give evidence. The Committee always is very keen to hear from
MigrationWatch. Could I start with this issue of when is a migrant
not a migrant? You have heard the evidence. I am sure you have
followed this issue in the press as well.
Sir Andrew Green:
I have indeed, Mr Chairman. We are—as one of your Members
mentioned—a lone voice, but we do speak for, I think, about
77% of the population.
Q243 Chair: Indeed. Specifically
on the issue of students, there is a feeling—and I know
this is not a definition of this Government, but it is an EU definition—that
a student is a migrant if they stay over 12 months. All the evidence
that we have received indicates that a student—what you
and I would regard as being a student—is somebody who comes
to this country for a short period of time to complete a course,
and when that course is over, unless they stay 10 years, which
of course the time limit for applying for indefinite leave, they
have to return at the end of their course. Do you think that that
is a correct definition of what a student is?
Sir Andrew Green:
Just before I answer that, Chairman, can I make it clear to the
Committee that we do not support cuts in students for the sake
of cuts. We do not believe that is the purpose of this exercise.
We would not support it if it was. The whole purpose of this exercise
is to tackle bogus students, because they add to net migration.
Both bogus students and genuine students who overstay add to net
migration and if we don't get net migration down, our population
will hit 70 million in 20 years' time. That is a racing certainty.
So I would like to invite the Committee, as they examine this
subject, to bear well in mind that the only way this very difficult
issue can be addressed is to bear down on every route of migration
within that.
Chair: We understand that,
but can I just concentrate on—
Sir Andrew Green:
Yes.
Q244 Chair: Within that,
you mentioned, quite rightly, what you were after is bogus students
and bogus colleges.
Sir Andrew Green:
Yes, exactly.
Chair: Not genuine people
who wish to come into this country to study—
Sir Andrew Green:
Exactly right.
Chair: —because
you yourself learnt Arabic when you were in Lebanon.
Sir Andrew Green:
I did indeed.
Chair: You are a very
distinguished Arabist, you have held many diplomatic positions.
The Committee went yesterday to a language school in Brighton,
where we met people from Lebanon and Syria and Saudi Arabia, very
wealthy individuals who were coming to this country to learn a
language in the country where the language is spoken. So you did
the same thing.
Sir Andrew Green:
Yes.
Chair: So to be very,
very clear, MigrationWatch is concerned with issues of abuse,
bogus applications, bogus students and bogus colleges and not
genuine people?
Sir Andrew Green:
Exactly, and overstayers.
Chair: Of course, we will
come on to overstayers.
Sir Andrew Green:
Absolutely.
Chair: That is very, very
clear.
Sir Andrew Green:
Exactly so.
Chair: Excellent.
Sir Andrew Green:
To answer your specific question, Chairman, as to the definition
of a student, because that is quite central.
Chair: Yes, please.
Sir Andrew Green:
As you know, the definition of a migrant is someone who is here
for a year or more. Now, there are three reasons why we have to
maintain that. One is that that is the international definition
set down by the United Nations, and as this is an international
issue, it is obvious that you need an international and agreed
criterion. Secondly, there is the question of the Government's
credibility. I think any Government that said, "Oh well,
we are just going to change the definition" would find their
credibility out of the door, as over cost of living and unemployment
and so on. Thirdly, and this is quite crucial, an amazing proportion
of migrants, incoming migrants, are in fact students. So if you
took them out of the definition, you would have an enormous impact,
apparently, on the numbers.
Q245 Chair: But if you
break that link between someone coming to study, as you have acknowledged,
as your whole career has shown, you were able to go to a country
like Lebanon and learn Arabic, you break the link between coming
to study—which is what the witnesses have said to us—and
settlement. You would be happy with that?
Sir Andrew Green:
We support that, both in terms of students and of work visas,
that there shouldn't be an automatic move on to settlement, but
that is a later stage in the process, if you like. If you look
at the migration point, can I just outline in a couple of sentences
the broad picture, which is this—
Chair: We have individual
questions. If you could stick to the questions, other colleagues
will—
Sir Andrew Green:
I understand that, but it is directly relevant to your question
just then.
Chair: Okay, if it is
about student migrants, as migrants.
Sir Andrew Green:
Yes. We issue about 2 million visas a year, as you know. The International
Passenger Survey interviews a small proportion of those and
it is grossed up. They ask people whether they are going to come
for a year or more. If they say yes, they are migrants. That gives
you a figure of about 500,000 people arriving every year saying
that they are migrants. Now, of those—and this is the point—of
those, 200,000 are coming because they are students, and indeed,
last year it was 300,000. So the inflow in terms of students is
huge.
Q246 Chair: Sure. Now,
sticking to this point, how many of those 200,000 does your organisation
believe are bogus students?
Sir Andrew Green:
A significant proportion.
Chair: So over 50%?
Sir Andrew Green:
Oh no, no. The major difficulty—
Chair: What is the kind
of rough percentage?
Sir Andrew Green:
If I had to guess, I would say 20%, 25%.
Chair: So a quarter of
the students coming into this country are bogus?
Sir Andrew Green:
No. Either bogus or at risk of over-staying, which has the same
effect on net migration, of course.
Chair: Sure. That is very
helpful.
Sir Andrew Green:
You were talking earlier about Australia. The big difference with
Australia is they do have a system that counts individuals in
and individuals out.
Chair: Yes. Well, we are
coming to that now.
Sir Andrew Green:
You have done a report on that.
Chair: Yes, we are coming
straight to that now, e-borders.
Q247 Mr Winnick: If there
are genuine students, Mr Green, Mr Mehmet, you are quite satisfied
about their coming to the United Kingdom, as I understand it?
Sir Andrew Green:
I entirely support it. It is in their interests, in our interests.
I agree exactly with what Mr Scott said earlier. That is not the
issue.
Q248 Mr Winnick: The
issue is bogus students?
Sir Andrew Green:
Bogus students and people who stay on, and just to make the point
that even if the college is genuine, they can still receive applications
from bogus students.
Q249 Mr Winnick: Did
you take the view that as far as bogus colleges are concerned,
action has been taken both by the previous Government and the
present Administration?
Sir Andrew Green:
Some action has been taken, clearly not enough. Well, you will
hear from the Minister. He made a speech only a week or so ago,
in which he pointed out that something like 90,000 students arrived
last year to colleges that are not in the highly trusted sponsor
category. So the scope for abuse—his words—is enormous.
Q250 Mr Winnick: As for
the Government's proposal that a student, having completed one
course, if he wants to do another course should return home—well,
you have heard the evidence, you were sitting at the back, of
those who told us this would be very impractical—do I take
it that MigrationWatch are in favour of that?
Sir Andrew Green:
I don't have a strong view on that. I think that that is very
much a matter for discussion and negotiation between the academic
world and the UKBA. It is not for us.
Q251 Mr Winnick: As far
as e-borders are concerned, what action further do you want to
see taken?
Sir Andrew Green:
Well, as you know—you did a report, I believe—it will
be four or five years before we have that, and until then, we
are wide open. The same speech that I mentioned referred to applications
in New Delhi, of which 35% included bogus documents. So they are
clearly bogus applications.
To answer your question more specifically, I would
have to say this, that the points-based system for students is
a terrible shambles. It has posed serious difficulties for the
UKBA, and I suspect also for the colleges. The reason is this:
the reason is that the points-based system has turned on its head
the system that we had before.
Q252 Chair: Which was
direct interviews?
Sir Andrew Green:
Which was—yes, but the key—
Chair: This question for
the entry clearance officers.
Sir Andrew Green:
I am coming to that. Exactly, yes. Exactly, because the whole
issue was—and still should be—is this a genuine student,
in the sense that he intends to return home? Now, under the present
system, that question is not even addressed, let alone tested,
and we believe therefore that the points-based system has blown
a hole in our immigration system. We saw last year a 30% increase
in students in one year. We saw in your own question, Mr Chairman,
you asked about—
Chair: Bangladesh.
Sir Andrew Green:
Bangladesh. We had a fivefold increase in applications.
Q253 Chair: Yes, but
Sir Andrew, surely there will be clever people sitting in the
UKBA who would know by February of any given year that the number
of visas issued to Bangladesh had gone up from 3,000 to 17,000.
You do not have to wait for the end of the year for that, do you?
What you are talking about is not a policy change. You are talking
about better administration, e-borders, plus a much stricter way
in which people enter the country.
Sir Andrew Green:
Well, we are five years from e-borders. Certainly the Home Office
will know from their management information about this kind of
thing. That is why they had to suspend the issue of visas in the
subcontinent. But just to, if I may, Chairman, for a second elaborate
this—
Chair: Yes, but not for
too long, because lots of other colleagues want to come in. They
are all going to ask you questions, so if you can make it very,
very brief.
Sir Andrew Green:
Well, I hope I have made it clear that this is absolutely central,
that unless we move to a situation where in countries "at
risk" we have at least the option of an interview--
Chair: Yes, we are coming
on to that.
Q254 Dr Huppert: I was
very interested to look at some of your submissions and the issue
of evidence. There seemed to be a number of things here which
seemed to take a large number of estimates, subtract a few and
multiply by some others, which of course gives huge errors, and
a lot of the numbers that you give about earnings and so forth
and fees differ markedly from what we have had in evidence from
other people who work in the sectors. But can I focus on this
issue of numbers of bogus students, because I think there is general
agreement that that is the thing, the only thing, that we are
really concerned about at the moment. You said moments ago to
the Chair that roughly 50,000 students were bogus.
Sir Andrew Green:
It could be as many as that, yes.
Q255 Dr Huppert: Your
submission comes up with the number of 32,000 based on a paper
on your website, which cites a Home Office paper, which as far
as I can tell—and I possibly am misreading it—has
different figures in that. Can you explain to me where you get
this figure of bogus students and how would we be targeting them?
What evidence do you have that there are anything like 50,000
of them?
Sir Andrew Green:
Well, I was asked by the Chairman for a top-of-the-head estimate
and I gave him one, and that is out of 270,000, 50,000 is of the
order of what, 20%. I think that is not an unreasonable estimate.
Of course we are getting more information as we go along and the
speech that I have referred to twice already gave us information
that was not available at the time. There has been Home Office
research that has shown a high degree of irregularity in the applications.
I don't think we will get anywhere by arguing about percentages.
What I am really talking about is the system and I think I have
demonstrated that it is seriously weak.
Q256 Dr Huppert: But
I think that numbers do matter, because I think this Committee
likes to have some evidence. You said 50,000. Your paper here,
your submission to us said 32,000 students in higher education
per year. If I look at the university section on your original
paper, it has 3,000. There is a huge discrepancy here, and 3,000
bogus students in higher education is a very different order of
problem to 32,000 or to 50,000.
Sir Andrew Green:
Yes. Well, you are taking different paragraphs of it, which will
just confuse—
Dr Huppert: Well, they
refer to each other as source data, so—
Sir Andrew Green:
I am afraid you will confuse the Committee and confuse everybody
else. What I am saying to you, the essential point is that as
an order of magnitude, there is substantial abuse of the student
system. That is not in doubt. I don't think anybody doubts that,
and we are suggesting a way in which that could be addressed.
It is as simple as that.
Q257 Dr Huppert: Just
one last question: your briefing paper on the cost of bogus students,
which you refer to in your submission—point 2 on page 3
of your submission—has universities, non-compliant numbers
2,895. Now, I don't quite understand where those figures come
from, but those are figures that you have supplied.
Sir Andrew Green:
They came from the Home Office. Dr Huppert: 2,895.
Mr Clappison: Will you
let the witness answer your question, please?
Dr Huppert: 2,895 is a
very, very different—
Chair: Order, Mr Clappison.
I am chairing this meeting.
Sir Andrew Green:
Well, you see, you are trying to pick out the odd figure and put
it out of context. The number you quoted was for higher education—the
universities, I think you quoted—not for the whole student
body, which is 270,000. Secondly, the percentage of university
students, the 2% figure that you are talking about, that is a
self-declared figure by five universities who were seeking Highly
Trusted Sponsor status. So let's not get lost in the detail. You
are going down a rabbit hole, frankly. There is a broad issue
of serious policy here, and that is what I hope the Committee
will address.
Q258 Chair: Sir Andrew,
what I think would be helpful in view of the fact that there is
a dispute about figures is if we could write to you—
Sir Andrew Green:
Yes, sure.
Chair: —and you
could then write back and comment on it.
Sir Andrew Green:
Absolutely.
Q259 Mr Clappison: You
mentioned as well the question of overstayers as well as people
who came here as bogus students in the first place. Do you think
more could be done to enforce the rules on overstayers and students
whose visas had expired and they continue to stay in the country?
Sir Andrew Green:
Well, it is very hard because we don't know that they have not
left, for a start. Even if we did know they had not left—and
e-borders, Mr Chairman, would only tell you that, it wouldn't
tell you where they are. So you come back to the question, unless
you check that these people are genuine before they come, you
have a problem, and a problem multiplied by the problems of removal.
We may come to that, but the difficulties of removal are enormous.
So our suggestion is to take every measure you can to prevent
bogus students or people who intend to overstay from coming in
the first place.
Q260 Mr Clappison: The
point you are making there is the loss of discretion which there
was for immigration officers overseas when the points-based system
was introduced, because their discretion could be overridden.
Sir Andrew Green:
Another important point: they no longer have discretion. I hope
that is understood by the Committee, Chairman.
Chair: Indeed. It is a
point we have made many times and luckily the head of policy is
coming in and perhaps he can explain why the loss of discretion
occurred.
Sir Andrew Green:
Good question.
Chair: This is a very
good point.
Q261 Nicola Blackwood: It
is specifically on your point about stopping bogus students at
source, and we have heard evidence that there can be problems
with agents which are used by higher and further education institutions,
and would you support an accreditation system for agents in particular
to try and weed that out at that point?
Sir Andrew Green:
It would do no harm. But, of course, they will simply appoint
their brother as the agent, so it is a very difficult thing to
control. It is worth pointing out that every single person in
the chain, as we now have it, has a financial interest in granting
the visa—obviously the institution itself and the agent
on the ground—and nobody does not.
Chair: I think you have
made that point.
Q262 Mark Reckless: The
32,000 figure for students overstaying or intending to overstay,
I am not sure whether the difference between that and the 50,000
is because some people come bogus, do not study but then leave
before they overstay, certainly either now or in writing it would
be helpful to clarify that, in reaction to what Dr Huppert said.
I note that when you talk about 32,000, 25,000 are at private
sort of institutions. I am not sure how many of those have been
cut out when we have moved from 12,000 to 2,300, but I wonder
is the way to drive down on the visas potentially through the
accreditation process or do we need to target the visas directly?
Sir Andrew Green:
I will leave the numbers, but—
Mr Mehmet: Chairman,
I should say—
Chair: You have been before.
If you wish to chip in, please—
Mr Mehmet: I certainly
shall, sir.
Chair: —do not hesitate.
Yes, Andrew.
Sir Andrew Green:
I will leave aside the numbers. We will write about that, if you
would like it, but the essential point is you have to deal with
this at the point of application abroad before they arrive, otherwise
you have lost it.
Q263 Chair: Before they
arrive?
Sir Andrew Green:
Before they arrive, otherwise you have lost it. Once they are
here—
Mr Mehmet: Perhaps
I could comment on that, sir.
Chair: Yes, Mr Mehmet.
Mr Mehmet: The
points-based system introduced the system whereby you acquired
a certain number of points if you had a letter of acceptance.
Chair: Indeed. I think
we understand that, as we wrote the report on this. We know the
points. Tell us what is wrong with it.
Mr Mehmet: It was
simply to emphasise the point that as a former immigration officer
and entry clearance officer, that loss of discretion is crucial
in determining the future intentions of an individual who is applying.
Q264 Chair: So bringing
that back into the system would be very positive to tackling the
issues of bogus colleges?
Mr Mehmet: If not
in its entirety, certainly to a certain extent it would be a huge
benefit.
Q265 Chair: There is
nothing wrong with a student in Delhi or Mumbai being able to
have a face-to-face interview with an ECO rather than arriving
at Heathrow Airport, where they are asked questions—they
are granted admission, aren't they, because once they have their
visa, they have their visa.
Sir Andrew Green:
Exactly, yes.
Chair: So this would help
the system of shaking out who are bogus people.
Sir Andrew Green:
Enormously.
Mr Mehmet: Very
well put, if I may say so, Chairman.
Q266 Mark Reckless: It
seems that you are saying that you are not at all concerned with
the numbers of genuine students, if they are not bogus and if
there is not a suggestion of inappropriate overstaying. I just
wanted to slightly clarify on this, because if you have very large
numbers of overseas students here, is it not inevitable, given
not least the age group that they come from, that significant
numbers of those may settle down, get married, have children and
so on, and as such, there will be at least some movement from
the student route into the family route?
Sir Andrew Green:
Yes, there will. The only way in which genuine students add to
net migration is through work or family and the order of magnitude
there is quite low. It is of the order of 10%. I won't give you
a precise number, but it is of the order of 10%. So if you had
a massive increase in students, you would have a significant increase
in net migration, but that is not where the issue is today.
Q267 Nicola Blackwood:
Could I just ask you about the post-study work route? Obviously
these recommendations are to close it entirely. I understand that
that is your preference. However, of our main competitors in recruiting
international students, Australia allow six months, Canada allows
you to apply for a post-study work permit, providing it is less
than the duration of the study, the US allows you to apply for
a post-study work permit and Germany also allows you 12 months.
I understand France is also considering such a route. Do you think
that this is going to cause us a problem in recruiting the best
students and maintaining the standard of our educational institutions
in this country?
Sir Andrew Green:
I think the first thing to say is that we have 20% unemployment
among British graduates, and frankly, I think that almost makes
the case by itself. Secondly, the Migration Advisory Committee
described our present system as among the most generous in the
world. Thirdly, we have done some informal inquiries which suggest
that the number of foreign students applying for each place is
of the order of eight or ten times the number of places, so we
are not short of applications. I suppose you could argue that
we get slightly less good ones, perhaps. It is hard to say. It
would surprise me if there was any problem with either Oxford
or Cambridge in recruiting foreign graduates or under-graduates.
Mr Mehmet: Might
I give some specific figures on that, sir. As a result of our
very quick research, we found that Bristol University, for example,
has already received 122 applications for their BA in architecture
next year for 16 places; for chemical engineering, there are 71
applications for 15 places, and for electrical engineering, 70
applicants for 21 places.
Chair: But these are on
the current rules.
Mr Mehmet: Under
the current rules.
Chair: Yes, that is very,
very helpful.
Q268 Nicola Blackwood:
Do you accept that for some courses, some form of post-study training
is necessary in order to gain the qualification?
Sir Andrew Green:
Oh, yes.
Q269 Chair: You are not
against that?
Sir Andrew Green:
No, no. I mean, that is really for the educational people to talk
about, it is not for us. We certainly wouldn't oppose that.
Chair: Sir Andrew, Mr
Mehmet, thank you very much for coming in. Let me just be clear,
so you are not misquoted: what you are against are bogus students,
not genuine students coming into this country to study. Secondly,
you would like to see a break in the cycle between somebody coming
to study and someone staying permanently?
Sir Andrew Green:
It should not be semi-automatic, yes.
Chair: Thirdly, that you
yourself value the fact that people might want to come to England
to learn English?
Sir Andrew Green:
And fourthly, if I may, the points-based system is a seriously
weak system that has turned the process on its head.
Chair: Thank you very
much.
Mr Mehmet: Might
I add one point, sir?
Chair: Yes.
Mr Mehmet: In 1980,
I was an entry clearance officer in Nigeria, when we introduced
full fees for overseas students, and everything I have heard this
afternoon about being closed for business and being unwelcome
was used at that time. There were 88,000 foreign students in this
country at that time, going up to the present number.
Q270 Mr Winnick: The
Chair asked you a number of questions. In conclusion, just one
to reaffirm, that you are not yourself or the organisation is
not necessarily in favour, in fact you are neutral, on whether
students should have to go back if they want to start a new course?
Sir Andrew Green:
I think that is not a matter for us. It is a very detailed point
and needs to be worked out with the educational establishment.
Q271 Mr Winnick: But
it is not part of your policy in any way?
Sir Andrew Green:
It is not for us to say, no.
Mr Winnick: Thank you
very much.
Chair: Sir Andrew and
Mr Mehmet, thank you so much for coming. I am sure we will call
on your services again in the future. Thank you.
Order, could I call the Minister and his officials
to the dais, please.
| 
