Written evidence submitted by the University
of East Anglia (UEA) (SV47)
1. KEY POINTS
- Genuine students coming to the UK are an essential
multibillion pound source of overseas earnings. In 2008 universities
alone generated some £5 billion of income through tuition
fees and other spending by students in the local economies. On
completing their courses and returning to their own countries,
students spread the influence of the UK in both business and government
sectors. Students are not economic migrants or a drain on UK resources.
Reducing legitimate student inflows into the UK will do extensive
damage to the economy with the loss of thousands of jobs.
- The statistical evidence for net migration taken
from the International Passenger Survey is extremely unreliable.
There is considerable evidence (including the Migration Advisory
Committee's own report) that outflows of students are understated
leading to exaggerations of both net migration and the contribution
to that of those coming to study in the UK.
- Study at undergraduate and postgraduate levels
are key attractors of overseas students (with over 50% of visas
being issued to university students). It is of considerable importance
that the pre-sessional courses which provide English language
and academic preparation for degree programmes (pathway programmes)
are protected. They are an essential market sector in the recruitment
of overseas students, and could be materially damaged by UKBA
proposals to raise the threshold for English competence for all
Tier 4 students, and to limit pre-sessional courses to 3 months.
Such programmes should be exempt from a language threshold, from
insistence on secure English language testing and any curtailment
of pre-sessional course length where provided by Highly Trusted
Sponsors (particularly in the university sector) and the associate
colleges for which they vouch.
- UKBA should seek to weed out abuse, but not at
the expense of legitimate students coming to study. Providers
with low standards of compliance should be targeted.
2. INTRODUCTION
UKBA has issued the Consultation document (The Student
Migration System) which seeks Inter alia to:
- reduce net migration arising from Tier 4 (the
study route); and
- reduce further abuse of the Tier 4 system.
We, of course, support the objective of minimising
abuse of the system by those seeking employment, rather than genuinely
coming to study, but measures taken should not discourage or impact
upon legitimate students entering the UK. We have grave concerns
about an approach which seeks to reduce net migration through
limiting student inflows as this would significantly damage one
of the UK's most important export earners.
3. NET MIGRATION
While many students may meet the definition of a
migrant (those changing their country of residence for more than
one year), they are not economic migrants, they contribute significant
overseas earning to the UK economy, they are not a drain on UK
resources and the vast majority return home at the end of their
courses. In 2008/2009 international (ie non-EU) students in public
sector higher education alone contributed some £2.2 billion
in tuition fees and a further £2.8 billion in accommodation
and other personal expenses (UUK report The Impact of Universities
on the UK Economy). The UKBA Research Report 43 The Migrant
Journey, shows that after five years only a small percentage
(10%) of those who entered as students in 2004 remained in the
country in work. Migration Watch UK which represents concerns
over the scale of immigration, states in its own analysis that
"it is important to realise that genuine students are not
an immigration problem; most return at the end of their courses
...". With overseas students bringing so many benefits to
the UK it is a market to be grown, and as such it is desirable
that there are more overseas students entering the country in
any year compared to those who have finished their courses exiting
to return home.
The Consultation claims that, in 2009, the student
route accounted for approximately 139,000 of a total net (non-EU)
migration of 184,000. This is largely based on the International
Passenger Survey (IPS) which surveys 0.2% of travellers, and is
therefore subject to significant sampling errors as a consequence.
Importantly, the Migration Advisory Committee Report "Limits
on Migration" observes that the outflow of students completing
their course and returning home as measured by the IPS is materially
less than their own estimates. The statistical evidence is highly
questionable and is likely to significantly over-state net migration
and the contribution of the student route. However, if the logic
of the Migration Advisory Committee Report is carried through
in seeking to reduce net migration to "tens of thousands"
you would reduce inflows of students by some 88,000 and prepare
for extensive harm to the UK economy, to the financial security
of all universities and for the loss of thousands of jobs. However,
the Consultation itself leaves us in the dark on many of the issues
with no clear assessment of the reductions being targeted, or
of the costs, benefits and impacts of these proposals.
4. THE FOCUS
OF THE
INQUIRY
Whether the cuts should be limited to certain
types of courses (e.g. pre-degree level). The education routes
through which students come to the UK to study at degree level
From the standpoint of the economy, it is questionable
whether reductions should be targeted at student migration at
all. Rather, targeting those providers where a high level of non-compliance
with visa regulations can be demonstrated would weed out abuse
and impact on net migration.
However, if there are to be greater reductions, it
is accepted by the government that undergraduate and postgraduate
education are key sectors to protect. To this must be added the
pre-degree courses (or pathway programmes) which are an important
preparation for many students. Pathway programmes, which can be
up to a year in length and provide both intensive academic English
study and subject preparation for students who have come from
education systems which provide one year less in formal education
than the UK, enable students to reach a point where they can integrate
effectively into study programmes with UK students at undergraduate
or postgraduate level. It has been estimated that some 40% of
the international entry to universities now comes through pathway
programmes of various kinds, often provided by universities either
directly or in partnership with others. These programmes will
often bring students from a proficiency level in English below
B2 up to the level generally required for degree programmes. Raising
the English language threshold for student entry to B2 and limiting
the length of pre-sessional courses to three months would exclude
the UK from an entire segment of the market for degree students
who will turn to our competitors in the US, Canada and Australia.
A number of universities, including UEA, have made multi-million
pound investments in the development of high quality facilities
offering high quality teaching and pastoral care. Any damage to
this market could prove catastrophic.
The impact different levels of cuts might have
on the various sectors
The UKBA report Students in the Immigration System
notes that 50% of confirmation of acceptance for studies at 31
August 2010, had been granted by universities. If reductions in
inflows are targeted at levels higher than 50%, as widely reported
following the publication of the Migration Advisory Committee
Report, then clearly this sector would be damaged.
The impact, if any, that reductions in student
visas might have on the UK standing in the world
Those who have successfully studied in the UK, and
benefited from their experience, return to their own countries
and often progress to senior roles in business or civic society
and look to the UK as a supplier of products and services and
extend the influence of the UK abroad. If students are either
not allowed, or are deterred from coming to the UK as a consequence
of changes to the visa system, that impact is diminished.
There is significant anecdotal evidence that prospective
students are concerned that the complex and constant changing
of visa rules (this is the second major review in just over 12
months), and the nature of the current consultation is beginning
to paint a picture that (contrary to the Prime Minister's recent
statements) the UK is not welcoming of overseas students.
Prospective restrictions on part time work, requirements for securing
English language testing (which can be costly and difficult to
access) and having to return home to apply for visas to progress
to further study, make it increasingly difficult for students
to progress through UK higher education.
Whether cuts in student visas would have an effect
on the decisions of highly qualified graduates to conduct research
or to take up teaching posts in the UK
The overall impression in the UK is not "open
for business" will undoubtedly deter some of the brightest
and the best from undertaking postgraduate study in the UK, and
subsequently research and teaching posts. However, it is difficult
to assess the extent of any impact. It is certainly the case that
recently announced restrictions on Tier 1 and Tier 2 (work) visas
will reduce the opportunities for highly qualifying graduates
to take up employment in the UK.
Whether the post study route should be continued
The post study work route was introduced to increase
the competitiveness of the UK in attracting undergraduate and
postgraduate students. It seems inevitable that withdrawing the
route will have an adverse affect, though the extent is difficult
to quantify. The UKBA study The Migrant Journey would suggest
that the post study route provides the opportunity to gain valuable
experience as a springboard for returning home, as the study showed
only 10% of students in employment in the UK five years after
commencing their courses.
5. ABUSE
Making a significant deposit obligatory for students
coming to study in the UK and making private health insurance
obligatory for all will achieve more than raising thresholds for
secure testing of applicants to B2. As the UKBA consultation makes
clear many of the concerns around abuse are centred on regions
where standards of English are traditionally high and changing
thresholds are likely to be ineffective. A significant improvement
in the UKBA systems which ensure a swift flow of data between
UK and sponsors so that there is clarity when students enter the
country, leave the country for a granted non-Tier 4 visa, would
enable Highly Trusted Sponsors and UKBA to work together to ensure
that abuse is rapidly identified and swiftly dealt with.
6. REFERENCES
- UKBA—the Student Migration System.
- www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/consultations/students/student-consultation.pdf?view=Binary;
- The Migration Advisory Committee—Limits
on Migration.
- www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/workingwithus/mac/mac-limits-t1-t2/report.pdf?view=Binary;
- UKBA—Overseas Students in the Migration
System, Types of Institution and Levels of Study.
- www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/aboutus/reports/pbs-tier-4/overseas-students-report.pdf?view=Binary;
- Home Office Research Report 43—The Migrant
Journey
- rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/horr43c.pdf.
January 2011
| 
