Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
are in agreement with the Government that any cap on student visas
would be unnecessary and undesirable. Any cap could seriously
damage the UK's higher education industry and international reputation.
We fully support the Government in seeking to eliminate bogus
colleges and deterring bogus students from even attempting to
enter the UK. Our predecessor Committee produced a Report on bogus
colleges in the last Parliament and we note the Minister's suggestion
that the UK Border Agency has become more effective in closing
them. (Paragraph 6)
Safeguarding the UK knowledge economy
2. We
seek assurances from the Government that any proposed changes
to the student visa regime are examined for their impact on the
viability and success
of UK business schools.
(Paragraph 22)
3. We urge the Government
to safeguard the UK knowledge economy when introducing any proposed
changes to the student immigration system. We hope that, in the
near future, we will reach a point where we are able to recruit
the majority of the required skills from the domestic market but
at present, we must rely on international students in order to
ensure our international competitiveness. (Paragraph 24)
International student market
4. The
international student market is estimated to be worth £40
billion to the UK economy. Education is a growth market and the
UK is the second most popular destination in the world for international
students. Some of the world's leading institutions are based in
the UK and we have a history of hosting international students
who go on to promote Britain abroad. There is a highly competitive
world market in attracting international students and as well
as facing competition from English-speaking countries, many non-Anglophone
countries are now providing higher education courses in English.
The past experiences of the USA and Australia in reforming their
visa systems highlight the sensitivity of the international market
in education to countries' student visa regimes, and it would
be wise for the UK to bear this very much in mind. (Paragraph
32)
Government proposals
Language level
5. We
strongly recommend that the Government does not increase the minimum
language level for Highly Trusted Sponsors at any course level.
However, if the Government does implement the proposal of increasing
the minimum language requirement for the Tier 4 general student
visa then it should work with pathway providers to ensure that
the student visitor visa is suitable for their courses. We therefore
recommend that the student visitor visa is extended to 18 months,
that English language and pathway students are entitled to use
the route and that the extension is made permanent to ensure certainty
for providers in this very important part of the higher education
sector. However, if the student visitor route is expanded to accommodate
pathway courses, we accept the need for close monitoring of the
route. (Paragraph 40)
Secure English language tests
6. There
thus appears to be scope for confusion not only about which secure
English language tests would be appropriate but also about the
standard required. The Government must clarify these issues before
introducing any change to language requirements. (Paragraph 41)
Academic progression
7. In
many instances doctoral students are originally registered for
a Masters degree and formally transfer only late in the first
year. We therefore recommend that academic progression be required
but that an exception be made available for those who can provide
good reasons for studying for a second Masters degree.
(Paragraph 42)
Requiring the student to return home to apply
for a new visa
8. We
agree that students should not be allowed to accumulate visa after
visa, merely to prolong their stay in the UK and we therefore
understand the rationale of requiring a student to return to their
home country in order to apply for a visa for a new course. However,
given the practicalities involved and the financial implications
for both the student and the UK Border Agency we consider the
Government's proposal too onerous and likely to lead to a decline
in the retention rate for the high quality students the UK's research
facilities most desire. We note that applicants for other visas
do not necessarily have to return to their home country in order
to apply for a new or extended visa. We are not convinced of the
need to change the status quo. However, if the Home Office is
determined to make a change, we suggest that it investigate the
possibility of requiring that any new or extended visa be validated
at a UK port of entry, although we regard this as an undesirable
and bureaucratic approach. (Paragraph 48)
The Post Study Work route
9. We
understand the reasoning behind the proposal to close the Post
Study Work route but its importance in terms of attracting international
students and its use as a method of gaining work experience for
certain degrees should not be underestimated. We would ideally
suggest that the system be maintained, in the light of the use
of post-study work options to attract the best students by our
main competitors in the higher education sector. However, if it
is to be reformed, we recommend that the Government give careful
consideration to either a) introducing a six month visa to look
for work with the possibility of an extension of 18 months if
the applicant has received the offer of skilled work or is a director
of a company which has two full-time equivalent employees; b)
limiting the number of institutions whose qualifications entitle
the holder to post study work; and c) given concerns about maintaining
UK competitiveness in STEM research, exempt STEM graduates from
new restrictions until the domestic market is sufficiently robust.
(Paragraph 58)
10. We recommend that
any changes to the Post-Study Work route be implemented for students
arriving in the new academic year, and do not affect those students
who already have visas; they had a legitimate expectation that
the post-study work route would be available to them after their
studies. We also recommend that the route is examined for its
impact on UK employment rates by the Migration Advisory Committee
on an annual basis. We further recommend an examination which
includes scrutinising the number of institutions whose students
are eligible to apply for a Post-Study Work visa. (Paragraph
59)
Term time work
11. As
the Labour Force Survey is a snapshot and does not in itself prove
endemic abuse of the system, we believe that reform of the system
should be based on clear evidence in order to ensure that changes
will be effective and not give rise to unintended consequences.
We recommend that work is undertaken urgently to quantify and
clarify the scale of any abuse and the extent to which overseas
students simply work to support themselves during their course
of study, as happens with UK students in the USA and other countries,
for example. (Paragraph 62)
12. We agree that
the system by which students are allowed to undertake paid employment
off-campus ought to be more closely regulated in order to prevent
abuse. Nevertheless, while intended to be clear and prescriptive,
in fact the proposal to limit the ability of international students
to work off-campus is likely to lead to anomalies and unintended
consequences. We recommend that the UK Border Agency publish clearer
definitions of both campus and term-time, and write to us before
any change is implemented. Within these definitions, it would
be better to replace the phrase 'term-time' with a maximum number
of weeks per year, based on a realistic assessment of the needs
of genuine students and generous enough to cater for different
university requirements. We also recommend that students should
not be restricted in undertaking work which relates to their degree.
(Paragraph 65)
Work placements
13. We
urge the UK Border Agency to ensure that if introduced, the proposal
to increase the study to work ratio will not affect the clinical
placements necessary for healthcare professionals and those in
related disciplines. We also suggest it undertakes a separate
study to ensure that such a ratio will not adversely affect any
other key professions. (Paragraph 67)
Dependants
14. Instead
of prohibiting dependants based just on the length of course,
we recommend that the level of the course be also taken into account.
We recommend that those doing courses of under 12 months at Masters
level or above be allowed to be accompanied by dependants, and
agree with the Government that those doing courses over 12 months
should be allowed to be accompanied by dependants. (Paragraph
69)
15. In light of the
volume of evidence received we ask the Government to clarify what
a dependant would and would not be able to do under the new rules.
For instance, could they volunteer at a museum or in a school?
We also recommend that, if the Government allows the dependants
of international students to work only if they qualify in their
own right under Tier 1 or 2, it should undertake a review of the
impact within a year of the proposed changes being implemented,
although it would be better to delay implementation until the
situation has been researched more carefully and more robust proposals
subjected to proper scrutiny. (Paragraph 71)
High risk/low risk
16. We
note the assurances of the Minister that the introduction of differential
requirements based on nationality will not harm diplomatic relations.
However, given the fact that the Race Relations Act would need
to be amended, we encourage the Government to take legal advice
to ensure that such a decision will not be subject to legal or
parliamentary challenge. The Government should work with relevant
government authorities abroad to discourage fraud and with Highly
Trusted Sponsors to make the system both simpler and more robust.
(Paragraph 75)
Accreditation
17. We
fully support the Government's intention to introduce stricter
accreditation procedures and welcome the desire to work with the
departments responsible for education to introduce a comprehensive
accreditation system. We believe it is important that accreditation
ought to be equally reliant on the levels of compliance and the
quality of education provided. We also recommend that this accreditation
be provided by one body to avoid the current confusion. (Paragraph
77)
18. It would—to
put it mildly—be inconsistent to introduce stricter accreditation
procedures without re-approving at least one accreditation body,
be it an existing body or a newly-created one. We are seeking
urgent clarification on this issue and expect the Government to
close any gap in regulation immediately and to improve the efficiency
of its accreditation systems. We also expect that, in future,
approval will not be allowed to lapse. (Paragraph 79)
Further recommendations
19. We
believe that it is essential that enough flexibility is introduced
to allow Entry Clearance Managers discretion in exceptional cases
where appropriate. This will also allow an Entry Clearance Manager
to recommend refusal where a student is clearly bogus. Such changes
would allow genuine students to come in and prevent the bogus
students from entering, something the Points Based System does
not allow
for. (Paragraph
80)
20. Whilst we accept
that the majority of educational agents are legitimate business
people, the importance of the role within student immigration
means that UK Border Agency ought to investigate options for tightening
up the system. These options do not necessarily have to include
further regulation but instead publicising available schemes such
as the Partner Agency Scheme to Tier 4 sponsors. (Paragraph
83)
21. We are not convinced
that a substantial deposit ought to be requested of every international
student but recommend that the UK Border Agency commission some
research, looking at the positives and negatives of having such
a requirement. We are concerned that the implementation of such
a system would result in only the wealthy being able to study
in the UK, although we note that the cost of studying here would
already be prohibitive to poorer students. (Paragraph 84)
Impact assessment
22. We
believe that any changes in student immigration policy ought to
be accompanied by a publicly-available impact assessment. As we
noted in our Report on the Immigration Cap: "There has been
a consistent tendency, under both current and previous Governments,
to rush through complex changes to the immigration system... Such
unnecessary haste leads to poor decision-making". We welcome
the Minister's commitment to the publication of an impact assessment
when the policy is announced. We also recommend that the student
immigration system be reviewed on a regular but infrequent basis—for
instance, once a Parliament—in order to ensure that the
system is suitable for requirements. (Paragraph 88)
The International Passenger Survey
23. Any
policy which is based on flawed data has the potential to create
significant unintended consequences. We are broadly supportive
of the Government's policy of reducing immigration, but we believe
that policy decisions ought to be based on the best possible information.
We therefore urge the Government, as a matter of priority, to
investigate whether a more reliable system of data collection
than the International Passenger Survey can be used upon which
to base immigration policy. (Paragraph 93)
Exit checks
24. We
suggest the Government make the introduction of exit checks a
priority. We recommend that the Government deliver a timetable
for the reintroduction of exit checks as soon as possible. (Paragraph
94)
Future viability of Tier 4
25. We
welcome the Government's assurance that the UK Border Agency will
be able to cope with the changes in the student immigration system.
We regularly receive updates from the UK Border Agency as to their
work and we will ensure that scrutiny of the student immigration
system becomes a regular feature of our scrutiny of the agency.
(Paragraph 97)
26. The consultation
proposals ought to have been developed jointly by the Home Office,
the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office. If this had been done, a number of the
problems with them that we have identified probably would have
been avoided. (Paragraph 98)
Conclusions
27. The
review of the student immigration system is part of a concerted
effort by the Government to reduce net migration figures. The
Government has stated that it does not wish to target legitimate
students but, at the same time, we would caution against measures
which could be detrimental to a thriving, successful industry.
The export of education is not only economically beneficial to
this country but also vital to the UK's international relations.
(Paragraph 99)
28. Although the UN
requires students to be included in migration figures, we are
not persuaded that students are in fact migrants. Only if a student
or former student seeks settlement—or the length of time
they have spent in the country is excessive—should their
status in the UK be regarded as that of a migrant rather than
a student visitor. This is not to soften the approach to reducing
immigration numbers but to recognise that not all students remain
permanently, that those who do make a significant contribution
to the economy, and that students who come to this country benefit
us economically—through the payment of fees and wider spending—as
well as contributing significantly to strengthening and enhancing
Britain's place in the world. (Paragraph 100)
29. Government policy
ought to be evidence-based. We are concerned that a policy based
on flawed evidence could damage the UK education sector and could
have wider implications. We strongly urge the Government to examine
the data which it currently uses to extrapolate migration figures.
Whilst we are aware that it cannot do so in time to coincide with
this policy announcement, we are convinced that it ought to be
a priority for the near-future. (Paragraph 101)
| 
