Written evidence submitted UK Council
for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) (SV29)
UKCISA
This paper is submitted by the UK Council for International
Student Affairs (UKCISA), the national advisory body serving the
interests of international students and those who work with them.
It has some 550 institutional members including every
UK university, the majority of higher and further education colleges
in the public sector which are active internationally and a range
of private, specialist and representative bodies.
It is governed by a Board of Trustees, chaired by
the former Vice-Chancellor and Principal of the University of
Stirling. Its President is Baroness Usha Prashar.
The submission records UKCISA's views but these are
largely informed by and shared with over 30 education sector organisations
which met on 10 January to consider the government's proposals
(see attached Appendix).
SUMMARY OF
KEY POINTS
- The government is not only proposing to introduce
further measures to eradicate abuse but also, we understand, to
reduce by a significant margin, the total number of international
students coming to the UK as a contribution to reducing net migration.
- We support any properly targeted measures to
ensure students coming to the UK are genuine but cannot support
the second objective—which we note does not appear in the
Coalition Agreement. It would, we believe, be damaging to a highly
successful industry after a decade of government support for increased
recruitment, undermine that investment and result in a very substantial
loss of UK earnings, jobs and international reputation.
- The majority of the proposals are, we fear, as
likely to discourage well qualified students from coming to the
UK (the "brightest and the best") as they are to discourage
abuse.
- It is unfortunate that the government has chosen
to use the concept of "migrant" (which technically includes
students in the UK for more than 12 months). These individuals,
only temporarily resident, paying their full costs and having
no recourse to public funds have, we would argue, minimal impact
on public services.
- It is difficult to see therefore how a possibly
substantial reduction in their number can create any advantage
for the UK whilst jeopardising millions in income.
- Much of the data used to justify the proposals
is, we believe, inaccurate or misleading and largely pre-dates
the impact of major rule changes introduced last year when the
system was significantly tightened.
- We would therefore recommend, as the Committee
did in its earlier report, that effort would be far better focused
on additional compliance and enforcement of colleges which remain
suspect—and measures to strengthen quality controls and
accreditation—rather than yet further technical amendments
to the rules so soon after the substantial changes made only in
March, April and July 2010.
- If the system could place greater trust in the
newly established Highly Trusted Sponsor (HTS) scheme and their
students, this would enable UKBA to target its resources more
effectively on identifying and dealing with any abuse. The scheme
needs however to be reviewed, in association with sector bodies,
to improve criteria, guidance, confidence and transparency.
VALUE OF
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS
1. The Committee will already know the various
estimates and elements of the value of international students
to the UK. The figure, in financial terms is often put at some
£5 billion but this is largely for public sector higher education
alone. When earnings from the private sector are added (including
language teaching), independent schools and consultancy, estimates
increase towards £10 billion. These figures are widely documented
and accepted both within the sector and by government (including
the Home Office).
2. Amongst a number of other benefits we note
that many of the main source countries for student recruitment
are also the UK's key trading partners (China, India, the USA)
and the potential damage of weakening links with these regions
if numbers were significantly reduced.
STUDENTS AND
NET MIGRATION
3. UKCISA recognises the government's commitment
to reduce net migration but believes that students, being temporary
and not "economic migrants", should be considered within
a separate category and outside the technical margins for assessing
net migration.
- Non-EU international students pay the full cost
of their education in the UK, cover (and have to prove they can
cover) the full cost of their maintenance in the UK, have only
very limited rights to work with a prohibition on filling permanent
vacancies, have "no recourse to public funds" and can
therefore not claim state benefits or housing etc and have visas
only for a limited purpose and for a limited period.
- Students are also, of all the categories of "migrant",
least likely to be accompanied by dependants and least likely
to move to settlement.[22]
4. It is difficult to see, therefore, what burden
legitimate international students might be perceived to put on
the state and why any ceiling or reduction in their numbers would
create any advantage to the UK.
HOME OFFICE
STATISTICS, ANALYSIS
AND COMMENTARY
5. Home Office statistics, statements and "research
reports" produced over the last few months have on occasions
been partial, confusing and at times misleading and do not, we
believe, provide a sound evidence base on which to make some of
the wide ranging—and even radical—changes proposed.
- The much quoted figure of 489,000 students entering
the UK in 2009 masks—as the Consultation footnote points
out—the inclusion of 198,000 "student visitors"
(those coming for less than six months), a category which was
only introduced in 2007 and who would largely, prior to that,
have been counted not as students but "ordinary visitors".
The figure is therefore inflated.
- A figure of 139,000 is often quoted as "student
net migration"—or students 76% of total net migration—which
we believe is misleading. Many students leaving the UK are not
logged at all and, as the Migration Advisory Committee report
points out (page 67) "Students will come to the UK for reason
of formal study, but once they graduate may leave the UK for work-related
reasons and be counted in the work-related outflow".
- The fact that two in every five students coming
to the UK are studying at sub degree level—announced by
the Home Office as something of a disclosure—is of no surprise
to the education sector (or education departments) and reflects
merely that UK institutions offer a ladder of world class qualifications
at various levels.
- This fact is critical as various estimates from
Universities UK and British Council suggest that some 40% of students
entering higher education are recruited from sub degree courses
in the UK. If this "pipeline" was restricted—as
appears to be suggested—and preference given to degree students
only, the impact could be very substantial indeed.
- Drawing conclusions about possible abuse in the
private sector by comparing compliance in a relatively small number
of private colleges under investigation with universities with
Highly Trusted status does not seem to be methodologically sound
or helpful.
- The 2009 Labour Force Survey (Para 7.2) suggesting
students extensively work more than their permitted hours has
also never before been cited as giving any reliable insight into
this issue. (On closer examination it appears that out of a sample
of over 100,000 respondents, just 31 non-EEA full-time students
were found to be working more than 22 hours per week).
6. Running through the government's Consultation
document—and associated "research"—are two
concepts which most in the education sector would dispute. Firstly
that sub degree programmes (including English language tuition)
are "of less value" to the individual and to the UK
than degree programmes and above. Secondly, that following the
major tightening of the rules in 2010, there is still widespread
abuse.
2010 TIGHTENING OF
THE RULES
7. The full controls of Tier 4 were only implemented
in late February 2010 with the introduction of the secure online
CAS (Certificate of Acceptance for Studies) system and mandatory
reporting on arrival and attendance. Data prior to this, when
a paper based system was in use (and open to abuse), is both unreliable
and unrepresentative.
8. The other changes introduced later in the
year—and following the then Prime Minister's Review of Tier
4—included:
- Restrictions on level 3 courses and those with
work placements;
- The establishment of the Highly Trusted Sponsor
scheme with robust criteria;
- Secure, mandatory English Language tests (for
non degree students);
- Raising the minimum levels of English to B1;
and
- Restrictions on dependants and work entitlements.
9. After multiple changes the system is now working
reasonably well and needs most a period of stability for students,
institutions and indeed for the UKBA whose staff often find it
difficult to keep up with continual changes and where resources
are already fully stretched.
DETAILED COMMENTS
ON KEY
PROPOSALS
10. The vast majority of the measures proposed
appear to be relatively blunt instruments (such as raising still
further the minimum level of English, forcing all students to
go home to apply for extensions, withdrawing all work entitlements
for dependents, limiting part-time work for all students and the
closure of the Post-Study work scheme). They are as likely to
discourage the "brightest and the best" from coming
to the UK in the future as they are to eradicate remaining areas
of abuse.
LEVELS OF
ENGLISH
11. The raising of the minimum standard of English
from B1 to B2 (approximately "A" level) will substantially
damage recruitment from apparently low risk countries such as
Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia but have far less impact
on those presented as higher risk (largely English medium) countries
such as India, Pakistan and Nigeria.
- A spokesman for one of the four major organisations
recruiting students for university access and foundation programmes
(INTO University Partnerships) was recently quoted as saying that
70% of the 20,000 students they bring to the UK annually would
be rejected on that basis with the loss of £120 million in
fees alone. Applying this more widely to others offering similar
courses would bring the loss to £250 million.
- There is also very substantial opposition from
institutions—including top universities—to measures
which undermine their autonomy to make appropriate admissions
decisions. At the very least exemptions should be made for HTS
and government sponsored students.
RETURNING HOME
TO APPLY
12. We recognise the government's ambition to
break the psychological link between periods of Leave but to force
students to close their affairs in the UK (banks, accommodation,
luggage etc) and to return home to re-apply is plainly impractical.
It would merely result in both a massive loss of "business"
and an inability of the UKBA overseas to process so many new requests
in a tight summer period.
13. "Progression" within the UK system
from "A" levels to degree or degree to postgraduate
studies etc is one of the key attractions.
DEPENDANTS
14. The proposal to withdraw rights to be accompanied
by dependants—for students studying for less that 12 months—will
affect only a small number as only one in 10 students is accompanied
but will have a disproportionate impact on more mature students
and women from the Arab or Islamic world where it is unacceptable
for women to live away from their spouses.
WORK ENTITLEMENTS
FOR DEPENDANTS
15. Very few of the "brightest and the best"
applying to leading universities for especially postgraduate and
research programmes (sometimes lasting three or four years) would
come to the UK if their often well qualified partners were forbidden
to work.
PART-TIME
WORK DURING
STUDIES
16. The proposal to restrict part-time work for
the students themselves, during the working week, to campus employment
only but then any hours during the week-ends would be more confusing
to employers (with both "campus" and "week-ends"
difficult to define. It would be preferable to retain the current
rules of 20 hours per week during term time—for degree students
and above—and 10 hours for others.
POST-STUDY
WORK
17. The threatened abolition of the Post-Study
Work scheme is generating particularly bitter and intense opposition
from students already in the UK. They believe this would be a
substantial breach of trust and that they would have been seriously
misled if applied to any who had already invested many thousands
of pounds on UK degree courses (or above) with the prospect and
on the understanding of being able to stay on for work experience
to cement the value of their UK degrees in the eyes of employers
overseas.
- We note that the Migration Advisory Committee,
in an earlier report, said they had found "no evidence of
job displacement" of UK graduates and so it is difficult
to see the urgent need for change.
- If amendments are made we believe therefore that
they should not be introduced until January 2012 at the earliest
to protect those currently on one year or the final year of courses.
- The general view amongst the sector—and
we understand in business—is that PSW/work experience is
professionally essential in some subject areas (such as architecture)
and that some form of PSW must be retained in the longer term
for those with postgraduate qualifications who would not have
the earnings to gain sufficient points for Tier 2.
SIMPLER PROCEDURES
18. The proposal for a simplification of application
processes in low risk countries appears entirely sensible. There
would however be objections and concerns—in terms of foreign
policy and a risk of racial stereotyping—if it appeared
that all individuals from particular countries were being seen
as high risk.
19. It would, we believe, be preferable to support
the second option of introducing a fast track and simplified process
for students with offers from Highly Trusted Sponsors.
20. This approach could then be extended more
widely and also used for students in the UK who apply for short
extensions in order to complete their current courses—who
currently have to undergo a process which is more complex, more
expensive and lengthier than when they first applied overseas.
This could create substantial economies for both students and
the Home Office.
21. There may also be much potential in looking
again at simpler procedures for those students who had already
paid substantial deposits to UK institutions.
IMPROVED ACCREDITATION
22. The second area which we would support would
be for greater consistency amongst accreditation bodies (five
of whom are licensed by the UKBA). At an earlier stage Ofsted
chaired a "Consistency and Standards Group" which ensured
processes and standards were aligned—and to a degree enforced—but
no formal meetings have been held in the last 12 months.
23. This function should be re-introduced or
alternative arrangements made but under the direction of both
the UKBA who have expertise in compliance and the Education Departments—and
their devolved equivalents and specialist agencies—who have
expertise in matters of educational standards.
OVERALL IMPACT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
24. Taken as a whole, we believe that the measures
proposed if implemented, would make the UK a far less attractive
destination for legitimate international students and undermine
the global success of this major export industry.
25. They would, therefore, in a technical sense,
help to achieve the government's target of a reduction in overall
net migration (within these definitions) but at very real cost
to the UK and could jeopardise years of investment at a time when
UK universities and colleges need income most.
26. We would recommend, as the Committee did
in its earlier report that if eradicating abuse is the main objective,
priority should be given to further efforts to minimise remaining
areas of abuse through tighter inspection, enforcement and compliance
of those institutions at the margins, where real risk exists,
rather than yet more technical rule changes enforced on all.
27. We would recommend that if the UK wishes
to continue to welcome well qualified students in large numbers,
procedures for the majority of applicants should be simplified,
freeing up resources which could then be better focused on areas
of risk.
28. Finally we would recommend that if substantial
changes are to be implemented, they do not come into force until
1 November 2011 as large numbers of (well qualified) students
have already accepted offers, on the basis of the current rules,
for courses commencing this academic year.
29. We would also encourage the Committee to
enquire whether the government has, in any way, set a numerical
target or limit on the number of student visas to be issued in
the future or undertaken internal modelling based on a set figure
and if so, what it is—as none is mentioned in the Consultation.
30. We would also then encourage the Committee
to ensure that a full Impact Assessment is undertaken on those
numbers—not just on migration numbers but on UK jobs, income
and reputation—and made publically available for proper
scrutiny and debate prior to any rule changes.
January 2010
APPENDIX
REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING UKCISA MEETING
ON 10 JANUARY 2010 TO DISCUSS THE UKBA "STUDENT IMMIGRATION
SYSTEM" CONSULTATION
Accreditation Service for International Colleges
Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services
Association of Business Executives UK
Association of Colleges
Association of Independent Higher Education Providers
Association of MBAs
British Accreditation Council
British Association of Lecturers in English for Academic
Purposes
British Council
British Universities International Liaison Association
Cambridge ESOL
Conservatoires UK
English UK
ETS Global, UK
Federation of Awarding Bodies
GuildHE
Immigration Law Practitioners Association
INTO University Partnerships
National Association of Student Employment Services
National Union of Students
Navitas UK
Northern Consortium UK
Pearson Language Tests
Study Group UK
Study UK
UCAS
UKCISA Policy Committee
UK NARIC
UNITE—accommodation providers
Universities Migration and Law Network
Universities UK (UUK)
22 The Migrant Journey, Home
Office Research Report 43, rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/horr43c.pdf Back
| 
