Written evidence submitted by the Aldwych
Group (SV34)
The Aldwych Group is the collective name for the
Students' Unions of the Russell Group of Universities in the United
Kingdom. It was established in 1994, as a watchdog in response
to the creation of the Russell Group. Our members include the
Students' Unions of:
University of Birmingham
University of Bristol
University of Cambridge
Cardiff University
University of Edinburgh
University of Glasgow
Imperial College London
King's College London
University of Leeds
University of Liverpool
London School of Economics & Political Science
University of Manchester
Newcastle University
University of Nottingham
University of Oxford
Queen's University Belfast
University of Sheffield
University of Southampton
University College London
University of Warwick
Much of our report is adapted from a document that
we authored and circulated to the Russell Group on the 24 September
2010 in response to a speech made by Damian Green. We have attached
this report as supplementary material.[35]
We hope that our submission demonstrates that the student movement
is vehemently opposed to these changes and sides with the views
of the Russell Group. We also hope that the Home Office can create
a fair system that does not punish our students harshly and continues
to make the Russell Group attractive to the best and brightest
students regardless of nationality.
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 The Aldwych Group is the group of the 20
Students' Unions of the members of the Russell Group Universities
in the United Kingdom. Our institutions have some of the highest
proportion of non-EU students in the UK. For example, more than
40% of the student population of LSE are from non-EU countries,
whilst Imperial has more than 35%. Therefore, our institutions
will be significantly impacted by these changes.
1.2 The proposed changes are of major concern
since international students bring immense benefits to all students,
our institutions and our local economies. International students
contribute upward to £8 billion in tuition fees alone and
more in additional expenditure to local economies for food, accommodation,
travel and entertainment. (The most recent estimate is a total
contribution of £12.5 billion) In addition, they bring cultural
diversity, broaden the experience of British students, provide
returns in terms of economic and diplomatic ties and help produce
world-class research for the UK. The additional income from overseas
tuition fees allows our institutions to recruit more home/EU students
and provides additional investment in the facilities available
for all students. Therefore, they are net contributors.
1.3 The desire to curb net migration, in its
recommended form, directly contradicts the strategy of the Russell
Group to attract the best students regardless of nationality and
to become the leading international institutions of Higher Education.
Potential changes, both in reality and in their uncertainty, will
have both direct and indirect damaging impacts on international
students and the international reputation of the UK Higher Education
sector as a whole.
1.4 We, as elected representatives of our respective
student bodies, are therefore against the current proposals. They
risk destroying the global diversity of our respective universities,
the economic position of the UK and the international competitiveness
of UK Universities.
1.5 We believe that illegitimate immigration
through the student route should be tackled. However- it is not
known why the government is currently targeting legitimate immigration
harshly within its proposals, especially since the Russell Group,
as Highly Trusted Sponsors, have consistently shown to legitimately
recruit the best and brightest international students to study
in the United Kingdom. The Russell Group should be exempt from
the majority of these proposals given how complex and thorough
the visa system for international students wishing to study at
our institutions currently is.
1.6 In particular, the proposal to remove the
Post-Study Work Visa is causing a great deal of stress for our
current international student populations and has already been
causing problems for future recruitment. The PSWV is vital for
the reputation of the UK Higher Education industry and to for
its ability to compete in the international market. As a minimum,
current international students should not be affected and the
PSWV should still exist in some form or transitional measures
should be put in place. We note that there is no evidence of international
students taking jobs from UK students and such a change has no
economic rationale.
2.0 THE CURRENT
VISA SYSTEM
2.1 The committee should note that between 2007
and 2010, various measures have been added to the wide-range of
measures already in place in the UK visa system. This has made
it increasingly complex and difficult for international students
wishing to study in UK Universities.
2.2 The administration fees for international
students applying to the UK have risen substantially between 2007
and 2010. In 2007, Biometrics were introduced and must now be
taken at both visa and visa extension stages. International students
are now issued with an identification card. In 2009, the Points
based system was introduced, resulting in a much longer and complex
application process.
2.3 In 2009, institutions were now required to
monitor international students and report any illegal activity.
In 2010, measures were introduced where applicants "were
required to speak English near-GCSE level, and those on short
courses were no longer allowed to bring dependants." At one
point, student visas from certain regions were suspended and Russell
Group institutions continue to have issues securing visas for
legitimate students from certain countries.
2.4 There is now a more rigorously-vetted list
of approved education providers, "which aimed to prevent
bogus colleges." International Students already have to prove
that they can maintain themselves financially here in the UK as
well as register with the police on arrival, on receiving their
identification card and upon change of address.
2.5 These changes have already brought concern
from the international student community as to how welcome they
are in the United Kingdom given the already substantially high
fees they pay. It also questions as to how the system could be
tightened further. A recent UKCISA report found that the visa
system was becoming increasingly complex resulting in "overwhelming
negative feedback" which could have a "negative impact
on the UK's reputation." Juxtaposing the current
system with the proposed system, there is no doubt that this will
have an impact on recruitment and the "UK's standing in the
world."
2.6 These measures, coupled with public attitude
toward immigration- have created an alarming attitude towards
international students. We would like to caution the Government
about the message it is likely to send with these changes and
the rhetoric it uses, as there may be both direct and indirect
consequences of these actions which may jeopardise the welfare
of our students. The misconceptions and misinformation of international
students has contributed heavily towards public perception and
little has done to educate the public of the aforementioned benefits
they currently provide.
3.0 THE IMPACT
THAT REDUCTIONS
IN STUDENT
VISAS MIGHT
HAVE ON
THE UK'S
STANDING IN
THE WORLD
3.1 The proposed changes directly and indirectly
have an impact for the international demand of UK further and
Higher Education and will undoubtedly undermine the UK as a "world
leader in Higher Education." This is not to mention the impact
for the international competitiveness of UK industry.
3.2 The UK is already in "danger of seeing
its market share slip" as other countries have begun to penetrate
the international market and recruit more international students.
This has not been "helped by the recent tightening of its
border controls." There is a serious risk that further measures
will exacerbate the international standing of a UK education and
discourage international students from choosing to come to the
UK.
3.3 Striking parallels can be drawn with the
current situation in Australia. Australia recently tightened it's
"visa rules." The recent changes have been found to
be "too heavy-handed and are hitting legitimate students."
It also had an "election campaign in which international
students were caught up in the political debate over cutting overseas
migration." The Group of Eight leading universities has recently
warned "that a crippling downturn in international student
numbers would imperil them."
3.4 The results of the government changes have
been staggering and have thrown the Australian education industry
into crisis. Commencements "across the sector have been down
7.4% for the year" and "could approach 15% by year's
end" with incredible drops in numbers applying from China
and India. Enrolment in language courses has fallen by 20% and
could drop to 40% which is "alarming for universities since
English language courses are a pathway to higher education."
Moreover, visas granted to students "applying from overseas
has fallen by 25% between 2009 and 2010." This could cause
a potential £7 billion collapse in university revenues by
2015. Tony Pollock, the head of the international student recruitment
agency in Australia said "it is government policy that is
making the difference and that is to do with the visa restrictions,
the tightening of the skilled migration environment and the way
in which the story between international student activity and
net migration has got confused in the public debate." The
UK is at risk at following the same footsteps with the current
government's tone.
3.5 In addition, the UK will likely lose a huge
part of its market share to its competitors, who are attempting
to attract additional international students via incentives. Canada
offers its skilled international graduates permanent residence
after a single year of work. New Zealand is reforming its immigration
system to be able to attract more international students. Europe
and Asia are looking to penetrate the market. Caution must be
given because any changes made are likely to be more difficult
to reverse and will have a long-term impact with no short-term
solutions.
3.6 There is already evidence on the internet
and various other forms of digital media of international students
recommending for their peers to apply to other countries due to
the Home Office's proposed changes. The affect of these changes
on recruitment should not be underestimated given that simply
the uncertainty has been off-putting. In addition, some of our
Students' Unions have conducted surveys in which they asked whether
the PSWV was a factor in their application to the UK- with incredibly
strong results indicating that it most definitely was.
4.0 WHETHER THE
POST STUDY
ROUTE SHOULD
BE CONTINUED
4.1 We believe that the Post Study route should
be continued. Firstly, the MAC found no evidence that foreign
students are taking jobs from UK students. In fact, international
students fill many of the countries' skill gaps and help boost
the UK's international competitiveness. Therefore, we argue that
the removal of the Post-Study route will actually lead to further
job losses both in the immediate and long term.
4.2 In addition, a potential change to the post-study
work visa may send a message to international students that they
were not welcome in the UK. This contradicts sharply with the
PMI which wanted to make it easier for "talented international
students to combine work and study here." The PSW Visa has
been and continues to be the backbone for the scale of international
recruitment that universities maintain. Any change will make the
UK significantly less attractive in the international market for
education.
4.3 As a minimum, students already studying in the
United Kingdom should not be impacted. These students have already
invested heavily in their choice to study in the United Kingdom
and it would be both unfair for their welfare and damaging to
the international reputation of the United Kingdom to make any
changes with such short-notice.
5.0 OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Overall, we believe that the HTS scheme has
worked robustly for our institutions and these far-reaching changes
should not apply to students at Russell Group institutions. As
mentioned before, such changes that broadly target all students
would certainly undermine the international competitiveness and
research-output of the UK's leading universities.
5.2 In addition, the Russell Group attract a
significant amount of international students from private sub-degree
institutions within the UK. We would once again caution the approach
of the Home Office to have proposals that are broad and would
instead opt for proposals which target specific institutions and
students prone to illegitimate behaviour.
5.3 We are against the proposal of the SELT.
We do not believe that the UKBA should advise on academic issues,
especially for the Russell Group. Furthermore, the UKBA has showed
no evidence that students are lacking in English proficiency.
5.4 We do not believe that evidence should be
shown of academic progression as we find this proposal unnecessarily
harsh- especially for students who wish to switch particular subjects
or disciplines.
5.5 We believe that the proposal that students
must return home for any extension is incredibly harsh, would
have a huge environmental impact in terms of increased carbon
emissions and sets an unfair precedent for international students.
5.6 We have made our view of the removal of the
PSWV quite clear. As a minimum, there should be a transition period
for those already studying in the UK, but we advise against its
removal- given the negative impact it will likely have on recruitment
and its long-term economic impact.
5.7 The proposal to limit student's entitlements
to work and sponsor dependents also seems exceptionally harsh-
given that many of our doctoral and MBA students come to the UK
with their families.
January 2011
35 Not printed. Back
| 
