Written evidence submitted by Professor
Edward Acton, Chair of the Universities UK Working Group (SV45)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There is mounting concern among universities over
the changes to the Student Immigration System proposed by UKBA
in its current Consultation. Universities UK asked me to chair
a group to protect Higher Education interests in the matter.
The key question I pose here is whether the government
intends to promote or reduce UK recruitment of bone fide non-EU
students in Higher Education. The answer might seem obvious, so
forthright are No 10, the Foreign Office and BIS on the matter
and so vast are the economic, financial and cultural benefits
to universities and the country. But close study of the consultation
paper reveals that UKBA is set on a course which, if not altered,
will savagely cut legitimate HE recruitment.
This is partially obscured by the Consultation's
intermittent focus on visa abuse. But the proposals for tackling
abuse will do much less to eliminate it than alternative proposals
I put forward. On the other hand, what UKBA's proposals would
do is drastically reduce thoroughly legitimate HE recruitment.
Gravest would be the impact on pre-university pathway courses,
costing universities c £1 billion in fee income alone. The
measures would amount to a "hostile act" against Britain's
universities.
If the goal is drastic cuts in sub-degree provision
while protecting universities, it would be much more effective
to frame policy explicitly in those terms and I suggest the steps
to be taken.
UKBA's determination to cut non-EU student recruitment,
I explain, is based on thoroughly unreliable data used in the
Migration Advisory Committee's (MAC) November 2010 report, Limits
on Tier 1 and Tier 2. MAC considered itself obliged by the
Home Office to rely on data collected by the International Passenger
Survey (IPS), even though MAC itself is deeply unflattering about
the reliability of those figures. On that basis it arrived the
level of cuts it recommended to Tiers 1 and 2; the same logic
applied to the student route points to cuts which would involve
halving non-EU HE recruitment even if all other Tier 4 recruitment
were banned.
MAC's disquiet over IPS's implausibly low outflow
figures led it to make its own outflow estimates. These would
reduce by half the overall non-EU net migration figure on which
all MAC's (and UKBA's) visa-reduction recommendations are based.
MAC's November report left unresolved whether the IPS or its own
estimate of student outflow is more accurate and thus UKBA has
continued to rely on IPS figures.
I indicate a way to establish beyond reasonable doubt
which estimate is more accurate, using the meticulous data collected
by the HE Statistical Agency, the Home Office's visa records,
and eBorders passenger flight mandate data. If successful, the
government will have developed a superior data source for policy
in this area.
I end by outlining the dire consequences of leaving
the discrepancy unchecked and allowing policy to continue on its
current trajectory.
1. To promote or restrict recruitment of legitimate
international HE students?
The key question for universities is whether the
government intends to promote or restrict our recruitment of bone
fide non-EU students in HE. On the need to root out remaining
abuse, to eliminate all bogus use of Tier 4 and any illegal overstaying,
we are at one. Indeed, UUK's own proposals on this are more rigorous
than those of UKBA. But what is not clear is whether the government
wishes to cut recruitment of thoroughly legitimate international
HE students.
The answer might seem obvious. The Prime Minister
has recently underlined Britain's welcome to legitimate overseas
applicants, the Home Secretary appears to do so in her introduction
to the Consultation, and both Vince Cable and David Willetts have
been entirely supportive.
Anything else would certainly be surprising. Higher
Education is now a major British export in a market set to grow
rapidly. In 2008-09, as the Home Secretary points out, the combination
of International fee income and personal off-campus expenditure
by international HE students already approached £5 billion.
This has become a vital income stream for universities and, indeed,
for the wider economy. In a tricky funding period, most universities
plan to expand international numbers in the immediate future.
The ability to do so reflects and enhances the reputation of UK
HE internationally: it is a Performance Indicator in international
league tables. Culturally, the international student presence
is a key to ensuring our Home students prepare for and excel in
a global graduate market. In STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering
and Mathematics) fields, many courses are only made viable by
a substantial proportion of enrolments from outside the UK and
EU. The UK's international alumni provide a healthy anglophile
network among public and private decision-makers in every one
of our trading partners.
2. University unease
A cursory reading of the Home Secretary's introduction
and the Consultation's language might give the impression that
where student migrants are concerned, all that is envisaged is
the elimination of abuse. "We need to ensure that the number
of international students coming to the UK is broadly in balance
with the number leaving." (Consultation, 2.9) If this
were the consistent approach it would follow that, provided they
leave promptly, a strong flow of legitimate international students
is thoroughly healthy. There would be active government support
for education's rapid climb among Britain's export sectors and
in particular for the magnetic power of our Higher Education,
in which the UK punches vastly above its weight - only one in
a hundred of the world's population but one in seven of the world's
top 200 universities. While in the UK, non-EU students do not
acquire any settlement rights; by law they have limited access
to UK benefits; when their Tier 4 visa expires they are required
to leave the country, bar that small proportion to whom UKBA deliberately
chooses to grant an alternative visa; those in HE pay non-EU fees
precisely on the grounds that their primary home is outside the
EU. This common-sense approach lies four-square with the interests
of British commerce, the balance of payments, an export-led recovery
and, it seems, the aspirations of No 10, HMT, BIS and the Foreign
Office. It encourages a continued rise in British recruitment
of genuine students, unconcerned that when recruitment is on an
upward trajectory there will be an increase in "net migration"
of a distinctive and thoroughly desirable kind - just as there
will be net emigration in years when recruitment drops. Visa compliant
international students are, as it were, lifted out of "net
migration" and warmly welcomed not least for lavishing foreign
currency on British goods and services.
Even Migration Watch appears to endorse the value
of genuine student migrants, remarking last month that "It
is important to realise that genuine students are not an immigration
problem; most return at the end of their courses (to be replaced
by others)."
But close study of the Consultation's proposals shows
that UKBA's approach to temporary student migrants precisely parallels
non-student migrants - if their course keeps them in Britain for
more than a year they are part of the problem. The underlying
analysis on which UKBA is basing its policy indicates that the
real purpose is to cut numbers as such, even if this means cutting
recruitment of non-EU students who are thoroughly genuine and
fully compliant.
3. Tackling Abuse
Given that the real purpose is to squeeze out abuse,
the most effective measures would be (a) to stiffen sharply the
accreditation rules so that all institutions sponsoring student
visa applications bring their compliance record much closer to
the standard of those granted Highly Trusted Sponsor (HTS) status
and in particular to the standard of universities where, according
to the UKBA's December paper on Overseas Students, noncompliance
averages at most 2%; (b) to make significant deposits obligatory
for Tier 4 visa applicants; (c) to consider seriously making private
health insurance obligatory for all; and (d) to use improved UKBA
systems (and eBorders appears to have the capacity) to ensure
that all sponsors are given swift data on when students they have
sponsored enter the country, leave the country or are granted
a non-Tier 4 visa. These steps would do more to eliminate abuse
than the Consultation proposals. They would enable HTS to monitor
with full precision the visa compliance of those they sponsor.
4. Pre-University Pathway Courses
Instead of effective steps to squeeze remaining abuse
right out, the proposals in the Consultation would not only fail
to address abuse from high-risk countries (predominant among which
are countries where English is one of the official languages)
but would also directly hit legitimate recruitment, including
HE recruitment.
Indeed, if implemented in their current form, the
changes proposed would amount to a hostile act against British
universities, those "jewels in our economic crown" as
Ministers so well describe them.
The greatest threat is the impact the UKBA's proposals
would have on pre-university pathway courses (a set of courses
quite distinct from sub-degree awards), which provide pre-university
preparation for large cohorts of international students who would
not otherwise come to the UK. The issue is epitomised by the proposal
to raise the minimum English language competence required for
UK entry to study to a level known as B2. A B2 speaker of English
is instantly recognisable to most British people: it is the level
of English spoken by educated people in Northern Europe and by
good high school graduates in some parts of the Commonwealth.
It is more seldom achieved in Southern Europe and almost never
in East Asia. To make this the minimum for entry to the UK is
incompatible with the interests of Britain's universities and
Britain's economy. Upwards of 40% of the international students
at our universities come via a pre-university pathway course;
upwards of 70% of recruits to those courses would be barred by
this change. Implement it and HE fee income would swiftly fall
by c£1 billion, and a great deal more when university income
derived from pathway provision itself is added. Pre-university
pathway courses, which are typically delivered on campus either
by universities themselves or in close partnership with private
providers, are a necessary link in the chain of university recruitment.
This is especially true of undergraduate recruitment to the UK
from non-Commonwealth countries, where the norm is to leave school
only having completed the equivalent of AS level. For recruitment
from countries where English is not one of the official languages,
combining academic preparation with intensive English language
tuition from native speakers is essential. Sever the link and
the damage inflicted on our universities will be severe.
Almost as damaging in its present form is the proposal
to shorten drastically the permitted length of pre-sessional courses.
Only a little less harmful is the proposal to insist on English
language testing by a short-list of "secure" English
language Tests (SELTs), despite their unavailability in much of
the market, the drawbacks to each of the testing systems available,
the invasion of university autonomy involved and the apparent
trampling over devolved powers.
There is a third set of proposals which, while less
directly destructive, are deeply discouraging to British recruitment
and guarantee competitive disadvantage - to end the recently introduced
possibility of time-limited leave to seek post-study work after
graduation, to limit the right of international students to take
part-time jobs (an ugly taste of apartheid and not easily administered)
and to restrict dependants accompanying Tier 4 students. The message
of these unattractive proposals is that the UK's attitude is unwelcoming
even towards legitimate international students. Unsurprisingly,
the British Council warns that the impact of the current Consultation
(like those of the last government) is already proving grim.
5. Protecting universities
Looked at closely, the UKBA proposals turn out to
be better designed to cut recruitment rather than abuse. Yet the
government remains insistent that it does not wish to damage university
recruitment. If that is the case, and the government's wish is
to effect drastic reductions in sub-degree provision but genuinely
to protect universities, it would be much more effective to frame
policy explicitly in those terms and take the following steps:
- (a) Exempt pre-university pathway programmes
from the changes proposed, from the proposed B2 English language
criteria, insistence on SELT testing , the curtailing of pre-sessional
course length and as many of the other restrictions as feasible.
Grant this exemption.
- EITHER to a new category of strictly
defined pre-university pathway course,
- OR to those institutions on which
the UKBA has accorded and continues to accord HTS status (or to
a new HTS subset comprising HE institutions and the pre-university
pathway providers they endorse and vouch for).
- (b) In doing so, actively demonstrate and
publicise across the world that students recruited to British
HE and pre-degree pathway courses by these carefully monitored
and genuinely trusted HTS institutions are warmly welcome. That
way, the current damage to HE recruitment efforts can be halted
and reversed and the threat to the financial stability of UK universities
removed. That way the Home Secretary's express wish can be delivered
for "a visa system which encourages the entry of genuine
students coming to study legitimate courses." (Consultation,
1.6)
The present proposals do no such thing. In contrast
to the Coalition's May agreement, which focused specifically on
reducing economic migration and said nothing of cutting
genuine students, they treat students as no more attractive than
worker migrants and send legitimate students a raft of deeply
off-putting messages. Yet whereas the Migration Advisory Committee
(MAC) was asked to undertake meticulous weighing of the economic
and social pros and cons of economic migration, there has been
no equivalent assessment of temporary student migration: perhaps
because here the pros so obviously and massively predominate.
6. Does Parliament have confidence in the
International Passenger Survey (IPS) as a robust guide to "Net
Migration"?
In terms of the national interest, policy-making
and due process, what makes the situation so disturbing is that
the UKBA's determination to cut non-EU student recruitment is
based on thoroughly unreliable data.
The detailed policy is based on the work of MAC,
whose major report, Limits on Tier 1 and Tier 2, was published
in November 2010. MAC has taken as its remit the aim of cutting
"net migration" to "tens of thousands" during
this parliament. It has taken it to be government policy that
in assessing the scale and make-up of current net migration, and
in identifying the steps needed to reduce future net migration
to "tens of thousands", it is obliged to rely on the
data collected by the International Passenger Survey (IPS). MAC's
own opinion of this data is not flattering.
It notes that the IPS was not established to measure
net migration. It notes that it has been known to significantly
undercount outflows in the past, and strongly suggests this is
continuing to happen. It regrets the very small sample used (1
in 500 passengers entering and leaving). It spells out graphically
the very low level of confidence that can be placed in the accuracy
of the net migration figures IPS yields. Its own estimate of non-EU
outflow for 2008 (Limit on Tier 1 and 2, p.301), drawing
on the UKBA's recent study The Migrant Journey, suggests
a non-EU net migration figure less than half that of the IPS.
It observes that the Annual Population Survey for 2009 puts net
migration of non-EEA nationals at 53,000, a fraction of the IPS
non-EU estimate of 184,000. It regrets that because IPS has never
asked those departing their original reason for entry or the visa
route that brought them to the UK, it does not provide the data
needed to disaggregate the contribution made by the three migrant
routes—work, study and dependants. Yet it is on this desperately
fragile and in key respects, I suggest below, demonstrably false
data that MAC has based the calculations which threaten to wreak
such havoc.
MAC spelt out its approach when recommending the
level of cuts to be made to inward migration via the work route.
It took the IPS figure for total net migration in 2009 (196,000)
and set as the target over the next 4 years that this be reduced
to 50,000, i.e. a reduction of 146,000. Since 12,000 of the 196,000
are attributable to British, EU and other minor factors not susceptible
to visa control, it concluded that the necessary 146,000 reduction
must be borne by the three routes (work, study, dependants) responsible
for the remaining 184,000. MAC then decided that the reduction
to be borne by each of those routes should be in proportion to
its contribution to net migration recorded by IPS. Because IPS
outflow figures are so unsatisfactory, MAC decided it will have
to assume that each route contributes to net migration in the
same ratio as it contributes to inflow (however counter-intuitive,
given that students typically stay markedly shorter than economic
migrants).
The proportions given are:
| Work | 20%
|
| Study | 60% (Tier 4) |
| Family | 20%, (13% of which are connected to Tier 4 migrants)
|
From this flowed MAC's recommendation last month that inflow via
the work route should be cut by 20% of 146,000, ie 29,200, by
the end of this parliament.
The direct corollary is that inflow via Tier 4 should be cut by
60% of 146,000, ie 88,000, by the end of this parliament. On 2009
IPS figures, this means cutting the inflow of non-EU students
from 163,000 to 75,000.
According to the Higher Education Statistical Agency (HESA) figures
for 2009-10, first year course enrolments of non-EU full-time
students in HE alone were 140,000. I should emphasise that this
includes some but not all pre-university pathway numbers and that
a small percentage are graduates already in the UK progressing
to a higher degree.
Thus even if recruitment at all other levels was banned outright,
non-EU recruitment to HE would have to be slashed by almost 50%
to meet UKBA'S target. If this juggernaut is left to run as programmed,
it will smash into the UK's "economic crown jewels".
Every other country in the world is delighted to nurture and expand
a trade surplus in HE. The US and Australia are currently vigorously
nursing self-inflicted wounds arising from poorly targeted measures
against abuse and negative perceptions by prospective international
students. Both, of course, relish the prospect of Britain being
misled by IPS into actively surrendering market share.
7. An exercise to cross-check the IPS figures
The stakes are sufficiently high for the country that I would
urge careful cross-checking of IPS data.
In 2008, the IPS estimates that 126,000 non-EU students entered
the country and just 34,000 previously occupied as students departed.
This outflow figure seemed so implausibly low to MAC that it devoted
much of its detailed Appendix B to the matter. Using conservative
estimates of the average student stay, and making generous allowance
for up to 10% securing a work visa after ending their studies,
MAC estimated that the number of those who entered the country
and departed in 2008 was 80,000, not 34,000.
Faced with the yawning gap between the two estimates, MAC identified
only two possible explanations: "First, a proportion of students
may be overstaying their legal right to stay in the UK, or second,
the IPS may potentially undercount outflows of students."
(Limits to Tier 1 and 2, p 300) There the matter was left
hanging and with it the good health of one of Britain's major
exports.
Which is the true explanation? A clear answer emerges from a study
published last month by UKBA itself, Overseas Students in the
Immigration System, based on a sample of 17,000 non-EU students
sponsored for a visa. Using data from eBorders, flight mandate
information supplied by airline carriers and incomparably more
accurate than IPS, it was able to track these students with what
is in relative terms pinpoint precision.
The analysis indicated that noncompliance by university students
was at most 2% and the average among other education bodies at
most 14%. It also indicated that universities are currently responsible
for about 50% of students sponsored and rather more of those who
enter the country, the remainder being sponsored by other educational
institutions. It is possible to track the HE half of the cohort
with some accuracy given the legendary precision of HESA. 102,000
non-EU students completed HE awards in 2009-10. Making allowance
for those who may have secured a visa to work, or progressed to
a higher degree, or been non-compliant with visa-expiry there
remains a figure of c 80,000 who completed their degree, whose
leave to remain expired, and who left the country. This HE figure
is more than twice the total IPS outflow figure—and that
is before adding those among the c 45% of non-EU students studying
outside HE who also left the country.
The conclusion is that noncompliance cannot account for the yawning
discrepancy between MAC's estimate and the IPS figure. MAC's analysis
leaves only one explanation: the IPS (massively) undercounts ex-students
leaving the country.
There is a conclusive way to test the relative veracity of the
IPS and MAC estimates. HESA holds the names and dates of birth
of the 102,000 non-EU completers of 2009-10. I would urge the
Committee to ask the government to commission a brisk but careful
analysis of these 102,000, taking due care with Data Protection.
First, check their names and dates of birth against visa records
to establish which among them had no valid reason to remain by
the end of 2010. Second, take that list—c 80,000? —and
use eBorders records to check how many duly left the country and
how many did not. Having completed the exercise, attempt a similar
exercise, as far as data permits, for non-EU students outside
HE—or extrapolate from the HE exercise. Add the two figures
and compare the sum to the 34,000 proposed by the IPS and the
80,000 proposed by MAC.
Should the MAC estimate prove superior—and it is likely
it will itself prove an understatement—the government will,
to its credit, have developed a much more accurate and authoritative
method of measuring non-EU net migration to replace the IPS. UKBA
has very courteously invited UUK to make a short-term secondment
to work with the Agency in shaping the measures to follow the
consultation. Might the Committee recommend the exercise I propose
as part of that collaboration?
8. The alternative
If the government is determined to be guided by IPS data and to
discourage international HE recruitment, we need certainty about
the matter. We can then drastically curtail the considerable British
resource being spent on seeking to attract international students
by our embassies, by the British Council, by BIS and by every
university. William Hague can rethink his announcement earlier
in January that "as British Ministers fan out across the
world in the months to come we will be promoting British education
as well as our economy as a whole." HMT can build the concomitant
fall in export earnings into its forecasts. HEFCE can revise its
list of "at risk" institutions. Universities can plan
how to cope with the rapid loss of income, shedding of jobs and
singularly ill-timed damage to university cities and regional
economies that will follow.
January 2011
| 
