Session 2010-11
Publications on the internet
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE
|
|
1. |
This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others. |
|
2. |
Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings. |
|
3. |
Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant. |
|
4. |
Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee. |
Oral Evidence
Taken before the Home Affairs Committee
on Tuesday 8 February 2011
Members present:
Keith Vaz (Chair)
Nicola Blackwood
Mr James Clappison
Dr Julian Huppert
Steve McCabe
Alun Michael
Bridget Phillipson
Mark Reckless
Mr David Winnick
________________
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Martin Doel, Chief Executive, Association of Colleges, and John Mountford, International Director, Association of Colleges, gave evidence.
Q125 Chair: Order, order. This is the Select Committee’s second evidence session on the issue of student visas. We welcome to the dais Mr Mountford and Mr Doel. The interests of Members of this Committee are noted in the Register of Members’ Interests. Could I add that my wife is a solicitor and a part-time judge and deals with immigration cases. Is there anyone else who wishes to declare a specialist interest?
Thank you for giving evidence to us today. I am sure you have followed the Committee’s proceedings and the evidence that was given last week, so some of the questions that Members of the Committee may put to you may come directly as a result of evidence that we have received.
Perhaps I could start with you, Mr Doel. The Government rightly is very concerned about the issue of bogus colleges and I am sure you have seen a copy of the Committee’s report into bogus colleges. Do you think that enough is being done to deal with this issue?
Martin Doel: We share the Government’s concern and clearly we gave evidence previously-
Chair: Sorry, you will need to speak up.
Martin Doel: We share that concern, not least in terms of the reputation of bona fide colleges that are members of the Association of Colleges, and made representations over a considerable period about the need to protect the title "college" and were, therefore, very thankful to the Committee for its recommendation in that regard. Work continues to be done with the department towards protecting the title "college" but clearly there are difficulties around the ubiquity of that title. But as I say, conversations still continue, particularly around the conjunction of words, perhaps around general further education college as a distinguishing facet. We are hopeful that some progress may be made in that regard.
Q126 Chair: In terms of what has happened over the last year, are you satisfied with the action that is being taken by the UK Border Agency to try and find out where these colleges are and close them down?
Martin Doel: I think we are increasingly satisfied by the determined action being taken by the UKBA and also the increasing focus on institutional level checks that actually will enable that to happen.
Q127 Chair: Do you still know of bogus colleges that exist in this country that are operating, taking in students, colleges that basically are abusing the system?
Martin Doel: We receive occasional reports from our members in that situation. I cannot say that I have received a report lately about a particular college.
Q128 Chair: In the last year or so-so this covers two Governments-how many complaints have you received about a bogus college?
Martin Doel: No more than five, but then I would not expect the Association of Colleges to be a prime focus for those complaints being received. Clearly, the action we would take in those circumstances is to pass on the complaint directly to the UK Border Agency. I am aware also that our sister organisation in Scotland has received some complaints in this regard because obviously we have relationships with those organisations.
Q129 Chair: Do you think abuse is a major issue in this sector or do you think we are coming to terms with dealing with it by unannounced inspections and the new register of sponsors?
Martin Doel: I think it was a very significant problem but one that is now beginning to be addressed. The scale of the remaining problem is very difficult for me to establish from where I sit, but as much as the actuality here, I am also very concerned about the reputational issue. I am very grateful latterly for this Committee and also the Government itself making the distinction between bona fide colleges, members of the Association of Colleges, and the bogus colleges. That distinction I think has been very helpful indeed in terms of promoting the reputation of good colleges delivering a good service to international students.
Q130 Chair: So you would still like to see the previous Committee’s recommendation to protect the word "college" enshrined in legislation?
Martin Doel: I think that would be a very helpful development indeed and that is a position shared by colleges in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England.
Q131 Chair: Thank you. Mr Mountford, you will be getting questions, but if you feel you need to chip in at any time please feel free to do so.
John Mountford: Sure.
Chair: Mr Clappison has a question for you.
Q132 Mr Clappison: Perhaps I could ask Mr Mountford if he could just tell us a little bit about his sector, what it does for international students and how many of them there are studying in publicly funded colleges.
John Mountford: Indeed. We offer a range of different programmes for international students. The majority would be doing what we define as level 3 courses. So that is courses that potentially could lead on to university or would be vocational programmes in their own right. Within the sector we have around 20,000 to 30,000 international students studying in FE and sixth form colleges.
Q133 Mr Clappison: What type of subjects would they be studying typically at level 3?
John Mountford: Well, A-levels obviously are a major source for international students coming to our colleges, but not simply A-levels; all vocational programmes in a whole range of different areas, and not just standard courses in business and computers, which obviously are important, but also in specialist areas as well. I think that is a key point that the colleges we represent do have this huge range and a lot of-
Chair: Mr Mountford, you will need to speak up.
John Mountford: Sorry. We do have this large range of curriculum offer for international students and we feel it is incredibly important for our members that they can continue to offer these courses in areas like air traffic control, for example, in Blackpool College or fisheries at Grimsby College, and that they are allowed to continue to offer these programmes.
Q134 Alun Michael: There is a comment in your submission that you are disappointed that so many poor private education providers have managed to register as Tier 4 sponsors. What are the problems with the current system of accreditation? Why is that happening?
John Mountford: I am happy to pick that up. As Martin’s initial point, we are encouraged that there is this increased focus on highly trusted sponsors, there is this increased focus on the quality of-
Alun Michael: Sorry, that is not the question.
John Mountford: Yes, but still we do feel that there is increased need to-
Alun Michael: No, I know what you feel. I want to know what the problem is.
John Mountford: Well, we would feel that the problem in a sense is the accreditation of colleges and that in our sector we have-
Q135 Alun Michael: Yes, I understand that; that is what you said. What is the problem? Why is it happening?
John Mountford: Well, there needs to be a more consistent approach to accrediting providers.
Q136 Alun Michael: Who needs to do what?
John Mountford: We have Ofsted in our sector, for example, which is a very robust approach to accrediting the quality of educational establishments, and we hope-
Q137 Alun Michael: That is fine. What is the problem?
John Mountford: Well, that there should be an equal level of accreditation across the board for anyone who is sponsoring a student.
Q138 Alun Michael: Yes, so who should do what?
John Mountford: Well, I guess that is something the Government could pick up to make sure that there is a good quality of accreditor or-
Alun Michael: I am sorry-
Martin Doel: I think we would have concern that the colleges are-
Q139 Alun Michael: Sorry, we know what your concern is. I am asking you what needs to be done.
Martin Doel: I would say I think there needs to be more resource devoted to a more intrusive and more proactive accreditation of private training providers-
Q140 Alun Michael: By whom?
Martin Doel: It would need to be either by Ofsted on contract to Government, which would obviously have consequences for income to Ofsted in order to do this because Ofsted is not funded in order to do that currently, or some other body would need to be established in order to do that. I would find it hard to say that the UK Border Agency would be competent to do this if they were looking at the quality of the education provision within those institutions. Currently, there is not any independent verification of the standards that are being achieved in those institutions.
Q141 Alun Michael: Are you suggesting that there should be a single body that does this all?
Martin Doel: I would not be prescriptive, I think, in order to say how this should be done, but I do think there needs to be an independent verification.
Alun Michael: You are not in a position to be prescriptive, but you are in a position to be clearer as to what you are recommending.
Chair: Mr Doel, I think it would be very helpful if after the session you could just do the Committee a little note as to how you think the system could be improved. Members of the Committee did go to Brighton yesterday and, indeed, in evidence that we have heard previously there is concern about the number of bodies that do accreditation. I think what Mr Michael would like to know is do you think there are too many bodies involved? Should there be one body? What would be very helpful to the Committee is if we had your views as to whether or not that should happen.
Q142 Alun Michael: What my question was directed at was asking for specific proposals rather than a vague, "Somebody ought to do something about it".
Martin Doel: We have not considered the specific proposal previously. I would be happy to go away and make the proposal. All I would say in terms of the specific proposal, I would like to see the same functionality that applies to colleges be applied to those other further education colleges, regular-
Q143 Alun Michael: The devil is in the detail. We need to know from you how you would do that.
Martin Doel: Yes, that is fine, happy to do that.
Q144 Steve McCabe: I do not want to prolong your argument over this, but I just want to check. Is that because you want to check the quality of the educational output of these establishments or is it because you want it to act as a deterrent for them attracting foreign students?
Martin Doel: I think both. It serves both purposes. By establishing the quality of the provision we maintain the reputation of further education within the UK and, therefore, the ability to attract students to all institutions but on the basis of a strong reputation. So it achieves that outcome for our colleges by regulating, if you like, the unregulated sector because it begins to portray a UK offer that is strong and maintained across the world. So, that I think is the dual benefit of doing it in that way.
Q145 Alun Michael: Sorry, can I just come back to something you said, the unregulated sector? Isn’t the issue between weak accreditation and regulation and strong accreditation and regulation? Are you saying that there is a part of the sector that is not regulated at all?
Martin Doel: The distinction between regulation and accreditation is a neat one at points. In terms of regulation, we would say our colleges are regulated by a government agency empowered directly from Government and overseen by this Parliament. I am not sure that all the other accreditation organisations are similarly overseen.
Q146 Alun Michael: Just one final point. In an earlier answer, you talked about the issue beginning to be addressed. I was under the impression that quite a lot had been done subsequent to the Committee’s earlier report on this issue. Are you saying that not enough has been done?
John Mountford: I think the progress is very encouraging and we hope to see that continued. There definitely has been a clampdown on bad practice.
Q147 Alun Michael: What bit of that has not gone far enough? Is it just the accreditation issue?
John Mountford: I think that is the key issue that we need to get a tight grip on the people who are sponsoring students and that needs consistent standards for all sectors doing sponsoring.
Q148 Alun Michael: I think at the end of the day you need to be clear about what it is you are recommending and perhaps that can be covered in the Chairman’s note.
Chair: If you could send us a little note that would be very helpful.
John Mountford: Sure.
Q149 Chair: Can I just go back to you, Mr Mountford? In terms of countries, the origin countries, is it still China, India and Pakistan as the top three countries?
John Mountford: Well, China and India certainly are the top two, and after those two countries there is quite a range of different nationalities coming to study in colleges, including places like Korea, Japan, Turkey and also Pakistan.
Q150 Chair: We were very interested in our visit yesterday to find out that a number of English language schools had offices abroad. Is that also the case with those associated with your organisation?
John Mountford: A lot of colleges would work with representatives abroad, so agents who would represent them and help them to recruit students. Not a huge number would have a permanent base internationally.
Chair: I will come back to agents a little later.
John Mountford: Sure.
Q151 Mr Winnick: Your organisation obviously has an interest in the status quo. Would that be correct? There is no shame in it.
John Mountford: No, I would not necessarily say that was the case. I think of all the sectors we get hit hardest by bogus providers because our courses can get easily confused. So for all the sectors, we are probably the keenest for the UK to get its house in order, if you like, because it will protect good practitioners like further education colleges and it will protect genuine students, which must be good for all of us.
Q152 Mr Winnick: Your paper that you circulated refers to international students bringing in around £42 million worth of income to the college. £42 million over what period of time?
John Mountford: That would be an annual fee.
Q153 Mr Winnick: An annual fee. Clearly, any restriction that the Government is indicating, for reasons good or otherwise, would adversely affect that income, wouldn’t it?
John Mountford: Yes, if that was a restriction-the number of students who could study. I think we need to make the point that a lot of those students would also continue on to universities, for example, as well, so that is just the first stage of their contribution to UK education.
Q154 Mr Winnick: What particular concerns do you have regarding the Government’s consultation paper? Are you opposed in general or to certain aspects?
John Mountford: The general theme of the paper is encouraging because it seems to be focusing on highly trusted sponsors, the fact that we need to get the quality of the institution right. But, of course, the first question, for example, was about should we increase the minimum level from level 3 to university level, which immediately raises concerns. A lot of our-
Q155 Chair: Because?
John Mountford: Well, because we represent colleges that specialise in providing programmes at level 3. Also, we had some concerns about the suggestion that students should return home before they progress from one programme to another. We feel that if a student has finished a programme with a highly trusted sponsor there should not be any hindrance to them going on to study at another highly trusted sponsor.
Q156 Mr Winnick: You think it is unnecessary, bureaucratic?
John Mountford: It is an unnecessary bureaucratic step and I think already there is a lot of pressure on the immigration services to get visas processed, and to add extra weight on to that I think would be counterproductive.
Q157 Chair: Mr Doel, you indicated you wished to speak?
Martin Doel: No, only-it has moved on somewhat-to endorse the greatest concern from colleges would be the threat to apply a blanket restriction according to level of qualification. The qualifications that colleges deliver at level 3 and below are recognised as being world class. Many countries seek out those qualifications and it would be unnecessary and unhelpful to preclude that level of study within the country. Given that, highly trusted status provides a way of managing the system more effectively.
Q158 Mr Winnick: Are you really telling this Committee that in the general atmosphere of reducing immigration you are more or less the innocent party, that there is no particular reason why students should be targeted in this way?
John Mountford: All we can say is that the colleges we represent are genuine educational establishments. They are accredited by Ofsted, for example. For them to be-to restrict their ability to recruit genuine students who want to come and study at genuine educational providers, to make a contribution to UK college life from a financial and a cultural point of view, would be a great shame.
Q159 Nicola Blackwood: Could I just ask what percentage of FE students are international students?
John Mountford: It is not a huge proportion. It is probably somewhere between 5% and 10%.
Q160 Nicola Blackwood: Are you expecting that percentage to increase for any reason?
John Mountford: Not necessarily, no.
Q161 Nicola Blackwood: What is your view of the rules governing the international foundation year or other pathway courses? Do you think that they should be governed and accredited and regulated in the same way as FE courses?
John Mountford: I think all courses should be regulated, absolutely.
Q162 Nicola Blackwood: No, I am not asking that. I am saying should they be regulated in the same way? Do you think that there is a problem with the way in which the international foundation course and other pathway courses are currently being regulated?
John Mountford: Most foundation year courses would be regulated by the university the students are going on to, and we would trust our university partners to do that appropriately. It is a part of the educational sector that is not-that regulation would not come from the college. It would normally come from the university who is receiving the student.
Q163 Nicola Blackwood: So when you speak about other organisations whose educational quality is poor and is dragging down your reputation, you are not really talking about pathway courses or international foundation year courses?
John Mountford: It depends on the provider and it depends on the institution regulating that provider.
Q164 Nicola Blackwood: Do you think that you would avoid that problem if there was a consistent regulation such as a stable accreditation system that you felt more confident in and the public would feel more confident in?
John Mountford: I think that would be a very sensible suggestion, yes.
Q165 Nicola Blackwood: Do you think that all of these organisations, for example, should be linked to a higher educational establishment?
John Mountford: All the courses going on to a foundation year, to higher education?
Nicola Blackwood: Yes. So pathway courses, they would go on to higher education.
John Mountford: By definition they would have to go on to somebody who was delivering higher education programmes.
Q166 Nicola Blackwood: But they are not necessarily linked. You have independent colleges that have an agreement perhaps with a university but you do not necessarily have that close relationship?
John Mountford: I think there would have to be a very close examination of the quality of those providers. I would not like to say every independent HE provider does not do a good job because I cannot possibly say that, but what I would say is that the control of those providers would have to be tight and would have to reflect the same standards that every other provider has to prove.
Q167 Nicola Blackwood: Do you think at the same time as regulation of the provider there is also this weak link, it seems to me, with the agents and representatives and establishing the veracity of those agents for colleges in the UK can be very difficult. Do you think that there should be an accreditation system for agents who recruit international students?
John Mountford: I think everything that we can do to support our partners domestically or internationally to make sure they are informed, and representing us properly, must be a good thing. But I think one of the advantages of the highly trusted sponsor system is that the criteria are extremely tight. So if colleges or universities or private providers are working with agents who are not doing a good job, who are not representing them properly, who are misrepresenting them to students, that would be quickly found out because they would be falling short of the criteria. So one of the advantages of the highly trusted system is that it makes colleges, universities and schools take a very active approach to working with people and representing them. If we do not get it right, we are going to be damaged later on.
Q168 Nicola Blackwood: But don’t you think it would relieve the burden and the risk if you knew that you were engaging with an accredited agent?
Martin Doel: Additional regulation here in terms of the accreditation of agencies seems to me an entirely helpful thing for colleges to be able to recognise those that they can most immediately trust and use to protect their own reputation. So, using incountry resources in order to do that seems to me to be an entirely helpful thing.
Q169 Chair: As Nicola Blackwood has said, in a sense this could be done quite easily. We have embassies abroad in places like India and China. They are still there, I understand. You have British Council offices there. So the checking out of these agents is something that could be done quite easily.
Martin Doel: "Using" is sometimes an emotive word, the additional intelligence that would flow to colleges would be very helpful to me both in a commercial sense and to prevent my own reputation being damaged by recruiting from a poor agent. So I think every college would welcome the more information they can achieve and the more reliable information they can achieve on the agents that may be providing students to them.
Chair: Indeed.
Q170 Mark Reckless: What do you think that the impact generally of the proposed changes may be on the reputation of UK education overseas?
Martin Doel: John may add more from actually having gone to a number of countries here, but I accompanied a number of outbound visits recently. The concern is that it would create the impression that the UK is not open for business in this area and that it is a very difficult place to access training and, therefore, that many students may be driven away from otherwise finding the right course with the right provider in this country. So, it is creating an overall impression of the UK that we then will have to work hard both in terms of the reputation of the quality of what we provide and also in terms of the right student being able to find the right course here.
Q171 Mark Reckless: Might it also increase the perception that the UK is not a soft touch for people really wanting to come here to work but actually purporting to be in study?
Martin Doel: I acknowledge there is a very fine balance to be struck here and clearly that balance needs to be observed at all points. At stages I think it can dip into that impression that it is very difficult to come here and to access that training. At other times, yes, I think we need to have the benefit of strong control. I think the balance is a tightrope to be walked here. We are very conscious.
The other thing I think would be very helpful in this area would be to have more reliable data to indicate reliable trends here. We have been conducting surveys of our members to have better data on international student recruitment at colleges, but we have only just established our own databases in order to do this. So establishing trend data is quite difficult for us to do. I am not sure that anyone else has really strong data here. I think that would be a useful thing to drive, to understand what the consequences are for reputation and the impression we are creating.
Q172 Nicola Blackwood: How do you gather data about reputation and impression?
Martin Doel: First of all, I think you can see the data on recruitment, that is an indication about the effectiveness of your recruitment or otherwise and if it is falling or it is rising. I think there is also room to just ask some student surveys of the impression of people that do come here-more difficult to reach those that choose not to come here, selfevidently-to understand from the impression of recruited students how difficult they found it to come to the UK and what impressions were created about it when they came here. It would be a useful thing to-
Q173 Chair: If they do not come here because they perceive there to be obstacles, where would they go? Which other countries are our main competitors as far as students-
Martin Doel: The main competitors I would identify, and John may add to this, particularly as many of the students who wish to come to study in the UK obviously welcome the use of the English language, so other English languagebased providers represent-
Q174 Chair: For example?
Martin Doel: Australia, Canada, less so the United States because the community colleges I do not think are as focused at international student recruitment as perhaps some of the universities are in the US, but particularly Canada and Australia. The Netherlands also is very active in this field. On a different note, because I think they have a very different vocational system, Germany is a very powerful competitor in many parts of the world.
Q175 Chair: Just one other point in answer to something that Nicola Blackwood mentioned, is there more you can do to help UKBA deal with the issue of bogus colleges or bogus students? Is there more information you can give them? At the event that we held yesterday in Brighton some very interesting examples were being given about the way in which colleges could help; for example, at the end of the course notifying UKBA that the course is over. Are there any practical steps you can take in order to crack down on abuse?
John Mountford: I would answer your question by saying that in our sector we have a lot of good practice that could be used as an example of how to manage a college and especially how to manage student monitoring, things like attendance, retention, achievement and so on, which are critical parts of what the UKBA are looking to do. So I think from a practical point of view if UKBA wants to spend time in further education colleges looking at the systems we have in place, which could then be used throughout the sector, then I think that would be useful.
Martin Doel: If I can take that, I think the association would see itself having a very strong rule about promoting best practice among members, and actually the liaison we have with the UKBA officers now is very strong and consistent and we would continue to work in that way and look to do that. We have also introduced an international charter for colleges. This is, if you like, almost going beyond highly trusted status, and colleges subjecting themselves to further examination and peer review, to best practice delivery around the quality of their provision to international students. So we would be looking to continue to support that direction of travel. As to actually whistle-blowing on poor colleges in the locale, then I think perhaps, yes, we may think about what we can do to make members’ voice heard with the UKBA, but I think the key thing is if they are working with the UKBA around UK highly trusted status, one would expect there to be quite close links already with their relevant-
Q176 Chair: I think the Government is also concerned about students coming here and working. I think the Minister, who will give evidence later, talked about PhD students working on the tills at Tesco, for example. Is there anything that you can do in order to help that situation?
Martin Doel: We have had conversations with UKBA about what is reasonable to expect an educational institution to do in order to check on the whereabouts of their students. College students are very closely tracked in terms of keeping registers on them, which would not happen in a university. So it is a much more tightly controlled day, but even they will not be able to tell whether the student is working 15 hours a week rather than 10 hours in the absolute detail. Clearly, colleges will see themselves as having responsibility. If it became known to them that a student was abusing the terms on which they were here, they would draw it to the attention of the UKBA and they would want to do that particularly to protect their status as highly trusted institutions.
Q177 Chair: Mr Doel and Mr Mountford, thank you very much for coming in to give evidence to us today. What would be extremely helpful is if you could supply us with that note as to how you think the system can improve.
Sorry, one last question. What is the average fee that is paid? I know there are different courses, but on average how much does one of your international students pay?
John Mountford: It is about £5,500 per year.
Q178 Chair: For a year?
John Mountford: For a year.
Q179 Chair: The total amount of income is how much to the British economy from your perspective? We know the global amount.
John Mountford: Well, as we said earlier, it is £42 million in fees, but we would have to at least double that to capture all the money they have spent in the community and so on.
Q180 Chair: In terms of local jobs?
John Mountford: The number of jobs linked to that?
Chair: In your colleges?
Martin Doel: It would be very hard to make an estimate because many of the students would actually join an existing college group rather than being taught separately. So to make an estimate of how many jobs would be lost if we were unable to recruit would be a difficult thing to do. I would be very happy, together with the note we are going to provide, to give some reasonable estimate. If I was to invent a figure today, that is exactly what would be done. We have not considered that from that perspective, but happy to do so.
Chair: Sure. Just when I said it is near the end, Nicola Blackwood has a quick question to ask you.
Q181 Nicola Blackwood: How many of your students come in on Tier 4 and how many on a student visitor visa, if any?
John Mountford: From February, when it began, to October there were 9,000 students issued a Tier 4 student visa. So, on that basis, we would estimate about 12,000 a year.
Q182 Nicola Blackwood: 12,000 a year on the student visitor visa?
John Mountford: Yes. If we work out that the average student would stay for one and a half or two years, say, on an Alevel programme, about 24,000 would be on Tier 4 visas.
Q183 Nicola Blackwood: But how many on the visitor visa, sorry?
John Mountford: I do not have that figure to hand.
Q184 Nicola Blackwood: Could you send that to us?
John Mountford: Of course, yes.
Q185 Chair: We are eager to complete this inquiry as soon as possible. You do not have a date, do you, when the Government intends to publish its results of its consultation?
John Mountford: We have only been given approximate-
Q186 Chair: What was the approximate date?
John Mountford: April, I believe.
Chair: Excellent, thank you very much. We look forward to receiving your note. Thank you. Could I call to the dais Dominic Scott and Aaron Porter, please?
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Dominic Scott, Chief Executive, UKCISA, and Aaron Porter, President, NUS, gave evidence.
Q187 Chair: Mr Scott and Mr Porter. Mr Porter, your members are usually trying to get into this building and here you are.
Aaron Porter: I have even put a suit on.
Q188 Chair: The Select Committee has invited you to come in here. Maybe it is insurance for future years to have you give evidence to us today, but you are most welcome.
You have followed the evidence session so far, so you know what we are talking about and I do not have to give you a long introduction. Can I apologise at the start that Members of this Committee are also serving on the Police Bill Committee so they have to dash out to vote. They then return after the vote is over. It is no reflection on the quality of your evidence; it is just parliamentary business. Perhaps I could start with you, Mr Scott. What are the benefits for this country of overseas students coming to study in the United Kingdom?
Dominic Scott: I think, if I have time, they are probably fivefold.
Chair: As briefly as possible.
Dominic Scott: I will make them headlines. You start with the income, and I think that is very well documented: £6 billion is a modest estimate. The British Council has the most reliable figure broken down by sector. Income also means jobs and means employment; the number of people who are employed in the education sector is very substantial indeed. Perhaps Aaron might like to talk about the benefits to British students of having an international global dimension on campuses, which is fundamentally important. I spent 20 years before my current job with British Council working overseas, and so reputation is one of the huge benefits to the UK. I know that in particular British business schools, who have huge investment in this area with 4,500 students doing MBAs alone, see that as-in terms of business links around the world-tremendously important. There is a cultural and intellectual dimension, and finally there is the way in which international students maintain some of the less popular courses in the UK: stem cell courses. So we have an intellectual capital, we have an economic investment, and we have foreign policy and business links. The whole package comes together.
Q189 Chair: Mr Porter, you, of course, studied at one of the finest universities in the world.
Aaron Porter: Great City.
Q190 Chair: Can you tell me in your travels you must come across quite a lot of students. I am not talking about the demonstrations, I am talking about studying. Have you met many bogus students?
Aaron Porter: I personally have not come across any students that I am aware of that have introduced themselves as being bogus to me, no.
Q191 Chair: Would you have come across any institutions and organisations that promote bogus colleges or where you can see abuse in the education system?
Aaron Porter: Not that I am aware of. However, I think it is important to look at the evidence in terms of the number of institutions, particularly at college level, that have had their status withdrawn. I think the figures are from 12,000 down to 2,300. So I am confident that the reforms brought in in April have ensured that the system is a great deal more robust now. I do think we need to spend some time to consider what the impacts of those changes have been.
Q192 Chair: Tell us if you would about the costs and benefits of international students. Why do we need all these international students coming here?
Aaron Porter: I think it is worth restating the fact that international student recruitment, rather than displacing home recruitment, actually funds the expansion of home recruitment in UK universities, particularly in vulnerable subjects like science, technology, engineering and maths, but also at postgraduate level where the extortionate fees for international students certainly subsidise the provision for home students. So, while there remains to be a cap on home recruitment, actually if international student recruitment were to be reduced it would almost certainly lead to an even greater pressure on the BIS budget and would probably lead to an even greater cut to home student numbers over the coming years. I think it is also worth restating that the international reputation that international students brings to the UK also means that it brings an advantage to the UK system, which is important.
Q193 Chair: Is there evidence that having arrived here and paid their fees, when it comes to working some of these international students are displacing British students from getting jobs?
Aaron Porter: I think the evidence in this area is sketchy and certainly I think it would be important to get a definitive answer in this area. It is also important to relate-in regards to post-study work it is a fixed time period of two years. So even if the evidence were to suggest that there was some form of displacement, it at least is time bound, although-
Q194 Chair: Yes, we will come on to that later, but specifically the 20 hours that they can work-
Aaron Porter: Part-time work.
Chair: The part-time work, do you know many PhD students working on the tills at Tesco in Leicester?
Aaron Porter: It is true to say that there are some, but the main reason for this or the two main reasons for this, one, in terms of competitiveness to get jobs in and around the university, it is incredibly competitive and, therefore, there is a challenge in terms of those students being able to be facilitated by their institution. Indeed, it would not be able to facilitate all of those students. But also it is a mark of the economic climate in which we are in, which is fiercely competitive. My instinct is that it is the students that are most organised and most prepared on entry and starting a university course, irrespective of whether they are a home student or an international student, that tend to get the jobs. I have to say I think that if all students were very well prepared, it is those that tend to show innovation that get the employment.
Q195 Chair: I will come to you in one second, unless it is specifically on the point?
Dominic Scott: It is. I would just like to remind the Committee that on the question of part time jobs, international students are not allowed to take any permanent vacancies. They are only allowed to take casual jobs. So there is no actual conflict or displacement with permanent jobs and permanent vacancies.
Q196 Mark Reckless: You observed that the domestic students are subsidised by international students.
Chair: Sorry, Mr Reckless, could you speak up for the purposes of-
Mark Reckless: With domestic students subsidised by international students, you then describe the fees charged by the presumably willing sellers of the universities to the presumably willing foreign student buyers as "extortionate". On what basis do you use that language?
Aaron Porter: Obviously, I am not here to get into a particular debate about tuition fees, but it is worth remarking that in our research the average fee paid by the students who responded was £25,000 per year. Of course, that is widely variable depending on the level of the course and also the subject studied. An international student studying an MBA might well expect to pay £50,000 or £60,000 a year. Other programmes may be as little as £7,000 or £8,000. I am prepared to withdraw the word "extortionate" but I am just kind of looking at the data.
Q197 Mr Winnick: Mr Porter, as far as the National Union of Students are concerned, Ministers-am I not right-would almost certainly say you are not in the business as an organisation in wanting to see the number of students reduced?
Aaron Porter: That is correct. I would like to see all those that have the ability and aspiration-
Q198 Mr Winnick: I should have qualified that: students from abroad reduced?
Aaron Porter: I see no reason why there needs to be a reduction in student numbers from outside of the EU coming to study in the UK for the reasons that I believe it adds to the academic community, it adds to the cultural community, and it thirdly, and perhaps importantly for this Committee, helps to fund places for home students.
Q199 Mr Winnick: So, if you like, to be the devil’s advocate, any proposals from Government to reduce students coming to study in the United Kingdom almost certainly-and perhaps I do not have to qualify with the word "almost"-would meet with NUS opposition?
Aaron Porter: That is not necessarily the case. I want to see a system where there can be confidence in counting in and counting out of the students. I do not want to see a system where there is a huge bleeding of students that come in to study in the country and then find themselves remaining in the country if that is not what the criteria is for their studying in the UK. So I want to see a robust system. I believe that we have made significant progress in delivering a robust system.
But in terms of student numbers specifically on your question, I would be in opposition to a system that saw a reduction in the numbers of students studying in the UK. I would just perhaps end by saying that I am unconvinced by the rationale of the inclusion of students, being a transient population that almost in its entirety comes in and out of the country, in net migration figures.
Q200 Mr Winnick: To either of you, you know, of course, that there is a sort of atmosphere even more so at a time of growing unemployment, the recession and what has happened in the country at large, about immigration, which was quite clear in the general election and what followed. Do you think that students are being targeted wrongly because of this atmosphere that is developing and will no doubt continue as long as the present economic climate is what it is, Mr Scott?
Dominic Scott: A question to me? I have certainly rehearsed in my paper why I think they are a totally irrelevant target. I think the Financial Times put it more crisply in an article yesterday when they said, "They eat, they drink, they spend money, they do not drive down wages or weigh heavily on public services". I think if we are looking at where real public concern is, it is about impact on public services. International students are entirely irrelevant to that debate. So I think I can quite understand the immigration concern, but I think we have the wrong targets and the wrong mechanism here to deal with the concern.
Q201 Mr Winnick: Presumably that article was not written by Migrant Watch. Mr Porter?
Aaron Porter: I have nothing to add on that. I think that is a perfectly adequate answer.
Q202 Mr Winnick: In the NUS paper, on page 4 you say, "Proposals to enforce a return to the country of origin in order to apply for a different course make no sense." We know what the Government intends to do, that if a student wants to go on a different course, goes back to his own country, applies to the High Commission or Embassy as the case may be if it is a Commonwealth country, some would say, "Well, what is wrong with that? You have come for a particular course. You have completed that course. You want to go to a different course. Go back and apply and then it will be considered on the basis of evidence of what you have done in the UK and whether you are a genuine student or not".
Aaron Porter: Let me start by recognising the importance, as I say, of being able to count in and count out student numbers, and so safeguards in order to facilitate that I accept are important. But I do think the lengths of going back to your own country when, for instance, 44% of non-EU students that study at HE have been recruited from an FE college, when you are talking about the sizeable numbers of progression either from foundation or other courses in colleges on to university and then for some students from undergraduate level to a masters or to a research degree, it seems excessive to force that person to go back to their country of origin, not least because of problems with timing in terms of when you might be clear about when you can go back-for example, because of when your final exam might be-and trying to book a flight, as many students would have to do. So there is a financial implication. I think there is a logistical implication and we need to find a way to facilitate that student still being able to check in officially in this country, especially in instances where a student is particularly keen on progressing within this country. Forcing them to go back to their country of origin seems excessive.
Q203 Mr Winnick: Mr Scott, same view?
Dominic Scott: Yes. There is certainly an operational difficulty that the timescale between getting your examination results, getting your firm offer from your new sponsor and then having to go home and process and sit in the queue just would not work for the system. We have a mismatch between a UKBA requirement and educational systems. But, more importantly, what we are saying is that a student who has been here legitimately and has satisfied and passed their course, is now somehow suspect, has to close their bank account, end their lease and accommodation, pack all their bags and go home and start again at the back of the queue. I think it is not a sensible way to progress. They have already shown themselves to be legitimate students and I think we ought to enable them to progress through our system as generally we have done in the past.
Q204 Mr Winnick: Why do you think Ministers are rather keen on doing so if according to both of you it seems illogical for the reasons stated?
Dominic Scott: I quite understand and I think the phrase is a psychological break. I quite understand that there may be ways in which we do a psychological break, but to force people and the carbon footprint of sending 50,000 students home during a peak time in the summer seems totally unproductive.
Q205 Dr Huppert: A couple of questions that follow up from some of Mr Winnick’s questions. One is there is a suggestion that a lot of people we encounter have an interest in keeping the student numbers going. Rather remarkably, we have been rather unsuccessful at finding any organisations or people, with one exception, who are against the idea of having student numbers. Are you aware of any other organisations that might take a position that is different from your own in that sense?
Aaron Porter: Perhaps the UK Independence Party, I am not sure.
Q206 Dr Huppert: Because we are struggling to find them. Can I then turn to this question, which has been touched on several times, of whether students do count as immigrants? Do you have an idea of how one should define an immigrant for the purpose of issuing visas and counting them?
Dominic Scott: Shall I take that initially? Two points on statistics. I think many countries have not used the concept of migrant; they have used the concept of settlement. Australia uses the concept of settlement. It is permanent settlement that triggers the migration statistics, and that is what they look at. I think it would be far more sensible for the UK to look at settlement, look at ways of breaking links to settlement, and controlling settlement rather than migration.
Q207 Chair: That I think is the Government’s aim.
Dominic Scott: That I think would be good, but we have the concept at the moment of migrant, which is anyone here for more than 12 months, which brings students into the whole debate, while if we moved it to settlement we could take this transient population out of that dimension and say it is the settlement that is the sensitivity.
Q208 Dr Huppert: How does Australia measure that? How does it establish that? Would it be something that Britain could easily transition to?
Dominic Scott: Yes, I think it could. We have looked at the Australian system with points in the first place. I think we could look again at the Australian system whereby what they are looking is, of course, to encourage migration into the country but, therefore, they control settlement very carefully. I think there are a lot of lessons to be learnt there.
Q209 Chair: Mr Scott, the Australians were following a very similar course as far as students were concerned a few years ago and now they have changed their mind to see how they can allow more students in. So is it a good idea to follow what Australia has done?
Dominic Scott: I think Australia has the most sophisticated intelligence on student movement of any country in the world. They will be able to tell you how many students came last month into the country. For the UK, we are quite often six months or a year behind. Australia has some of the most sophisticated systems in the world.
Q210 Chair: You are tempting the Select Committee on an overseas visit.
Dominic Scott: An away day, I think, an away day to Australia, excellent idea.
Chair: We will have to resist; we do not have the money.
Q211 Dr Huppert: Indeed. It is very tempting to go but I think it would not be appropriate. How do they measure such information? What do they have that we do not that allows them to know those figures?
Dominic Scott: They have a far closer industry and government relationship, and I think this is possibly a fundamental point. At the moment, over the last couple of years, UKBA, Home Office and the education sector have kept a wide berth of each other and they have bounced proposals. There has not been real joint working. In Australia they have complete close industry and they see it as a government priority. Their Home Office and their immigration authorities work with their sector bodies. You see them jointly at conferences, jointly taking the same line with the same objectives. Here we seem to have two different objectives at play and we have to find a way of breaking that and getting the two parts to work together.
Chair: Nicola Blackwood has a quick supplementary.
Q212 Nicola Blackwood: Sorry, just a quick one. I was quite interested in your comments about a difference between somebody coming in for a short time and somebody coming in permanently to settle. In this country, what would you consider the point at which settlement occurred? Because if you come in to do a pathway course you are probably here for one year; then an undergraduate course, that is another three years; then a Masters, that is one or two years. If you then stayed to do a doctorate, you are moving up to nine or 10 years, so at what point does a temporary transient resident become a permanent resident, especially given that if you had that length of study you are quite likely to then try and work in the UK and probably settle? So where would you draw the line?
Dominic Scott: Can I make one very brief point and then give it to Aaron, to say I am no expert in settlement; however, I do think that if you have been in this country for 10 years, spending probably £15,000 a year on your education, the small numbers of people who have made that sort of investment are not actually or should not be of concern to the UK public.
Q213 Chair: We do not have figures, though, about the 10 years?
Dominic Scott: About how many last?
Q214 Nicola Blackwood: How many last for that long in our education system?
Dominic Scott: No, but it is a tiny proportion. We know they last six or seven years and come in through the-
Chair: We can certainly ask the Minister.
Dominic Scott: But up to 10 would be tiny.
Q215 Chair: We can certainly ask the Minister. He is coming in and he ought to know the answer. Mr Porter, do you want to add anything?
Aaron Porter: I would just add that is still a succession of time-bound permits to be in the country. I would echo Dominic insofar as that it is a very small number of people that would last such a small period of time. But I think if we are talking about a period of more than two years outside of any timebound provision, then I think we are in the territory of settlement rather than migration.
Q216 Alun Michael: One of the problems is at the edges. The issue of bogus colleges was touched on earlier-leave that on one side. The question has come up last week from English UK and the British Council and again today in evidence of inconsistency of standards or the question of whether standards are consistent. The issue of accreditation of schools offering courses to international students becomes quite crucial in order to make sure that we draw the line. Do you believe there are problems with the current accreditation system?
Aaron Porter: It is my belief that the fact that it is so widespread leads to problems. I think we certainly need to see a rationalisation of the system as it stands.
Q217 Alun Michael: Would you agree, Mr Scott?
Dominic Scott: I would. At the moment, there are four licensed accreditation bodies. I happen to be on the Executive Council of one of them; I therefore have an interest. The part of the jigsaw that has been missing is Government oversight of consistency and standards. I think you heard before that the original architecture had Ofsted convening a consistency and standards board that oversaw the various accreditation bodies. That has not met for the last year and so it is a part of the jigsaw that needs to be brought back in to ensure those consistency and standards.
Q218 Alun Michael: It is surely in everybody’s interest that there should be clarity, for reputational reasons as well as for certainty, that the quality of accreditation is absolutely clear. So could I ask perhaps Mr Porter first, should we move to a situation where there is one body that does accreditation at a consistent level, albeit with oversight from any Government body?
Aaron Porter: My instinct is that that would seem a more sensible way of doing things. I would need to be convinced why there should be more than one and I am not aware of any reasons as to why that is, partly because I do not have any operational detail on that. Equally, I have not been made aware of reasons as to why there is more than one.
Alun Michael: Thank you. Mr Scott?
Dominic Scott: Can I just repeat a point that has been made in part by other witnesses? The question I am asking myself is what is the problem or where is the problem. If you go back four years, we had 12,000 colleges on the DIUS register. At the beginning of the pointsbased system this was reduced-
Q219 Alun Michael: Yes, but forgive me, the Committee did a report on the question of bogus colleges and those problems, and a lot has happened since then. Can we just focus on the situation we have now where, with the four bodies that have been referred to, there appears to be some evidence and certainly concerns that the level of accreditation is not consistent. So how do we deal with that, today’s problem?
Dominic Scott: I would still maintain that down to 2,300 colleges we have a much tighter system.
Alun Michael: Sure, I understand that.
Dominic Scott: I have seen myself very little evidence of the difficulty of the standards. There is one issue and one issue alone that I have heard, and that is that a college can lose its accreditation from one agency and gain it with another. That needs to be plugged, but I do not myself know of any other substantial problems that have been identified.
Q220 Alun Michael: But if it is possible to lose accreditation from one accrediting body and gain it with another, that seems in itself to be evidence of inconsistency.
Dominic Scott: I entirely agree, but it has only happened in a small number of cases.
Alun Michael: But it has happened.
Dominic Scott: I do not think it necessarily means you need to amalgamate the two bodies.
Q221 Alun Michael: It does not necessarily, but wouldn’t you accept that that reputational damage from however minute a number is something that is causing problems for the student body as a whole?
Dominic Scott: I do not know of any reputational damage. I know it has given problems to the UKBA but I do not know of any international reputational damage.
Q222 Alun Michael: Well, there is reputational damage that we are hearing in the evidence of this Committee.
Dominic Scott: I have not seen it.
Alun Michael: Mr Porter?
Aaron Porter: Well, I am keen to consider solutions as to how we overcome inconsistency that does materialise. Again, I am looking for reasons as to why there needs to be more than one body and I would be keen if people have that thought that they should put that forward during this process.
Q223 Nicola Blackwood: Just following on slightly from that, do you come into contact with students who have been recruited by agents?
Aaron Porter: From time to time, yes.
Q224 Nicola Blackwood: Do you think that they would feel more secure if they were approached by an accredited agent?
Aaron Porter: Yes, there are question marks about the validity of that authentication process and I suspect some kind of authenticity would be helpful, yes.
Q225 Nicola Blackwood: Could I move on to the post-study work route and the proposed closure? You have expressed this as a particular problem and that you have received comments from students saying that this was one of the significant reasons why they came. You have quoted certain courses that require work experience as part of it. Now, I understand the Government is not planning to entirely remove those kinds of courses; they are just going to change the study to work ratio slightly. What sort of impact do you think this is going to have and what sort of evidence do you have to back those concerns up?
Aaron Porter: First, in an environment where the relationship between education and employment is becoming increasingly important, the consideration of the opportunity to get some kind of work experience either within the course or immediately afterwards is of growing consideration to all prospective students, and international students are the same in that regard. The research that we provided the Committee with indicates that in the region of just over 70% of respondents-and the sample size that we have is around 8,500 current non-EU students-said that post-study work was of huge importance to them in choosing the UK. In an international marketplace, we consider and the evidence from students is that the provision for PSW gives a competitive advantage to the UK over some of our other competitor countries that, if removed, could potentially seriously damage the UK’s reputation as a destination.
Q226 Nicola Blackwood: Can I ask how many students responded to the survey?
Aaron Porter: 8,500.
Q227 Nicola Blackwood: As I see it, there are two different kinds of post-study work. There is some post-study work that is required to fulfil the training element of your course; so architecture, barrister, and so on. But then there are other courses like English where it is less clear what relationship the post-study work route has to that qualification.
Aaron Porter: Yes, that is right. This is both anecdotal and from the evidence. Lots of international students simply cite that the opportunity to have worked for a fixed period of time in the UK is helpful for them when they go back to their country of origin. That helps to make the overall UK offer somewhat more advantageous compared to other competitor countries. Then you are right to say that in some courses it is vital for the completion and the robustness of the academic qualification.
Q228 Nicola Blackwood: So do you think one year would be sufficient or do you think two years is necessary?
Aaron Porter: I would be open-minded to looking at one year.
Q229 Nicola Blackwood: Did you have any comments, Mr Scott?
Dominic Scott: Firstly, the Migration Advisory Committee, when it looked at this 18 months ago, came up with the phrase that they had seen no evidence of job displacement with British graduates, and I think that still holds true. Secondly, they looked at reducing to one year as one of the options and they concluded that many employers would not wish to take on someone just for one year because it would not be worth training them, recruiting them and bringing them on, thinking that it was only for such a short time. So I can see one year might be a compromise but it is not going to be attractive to employers and, therefore, it is not going to work particularly well for students.
Q230 Nicola Blackwood: That is what the competitor countries do. There is another question. There still will be the Tiers 1 and 2 route for people to apply for jobs but they have to have a job offer, whereas if you want to just stay on the post-study work route, the implication is that you can do anything. Some evidence that has been provided implies that we are talking about working on the tills at Tesco type work when you have a PhD graduate or a Masters graduate who you would not expect to be working in that kind of role. Now, that kind of work experience surely is not beneficial to the student returning to their country?
Aaron Porter: I would agree. That kind of experience is something that does not seem that the UK being a destination for that work is being particularly distinctive. But it is worth saying that the current economic conditions are meaning that is probably a little more prevalent now than it would have been a few years ago. I hope and I am sure that in years to come the volume of that problem should subside.
Dominic Scott: Of course, to control that, one of the options that has been discussed is linking post-study work to Tier 2. Now, that again would be a reasonable compromise. The downside of that is there are huge numbers of SMEs around the country who would not register themselves as employers under Tier 2 and go through the process of getting a CoS, and I have had substantial evidence given to me recently by the Association of Business Schools saying Tier 2 is completely inappropriate for the brightest and the best and it would not work. So I think there is a real difficulty on that.
Q231 Nicola Blackwood: All right. Could I ask about another issue, which is this on campus working requirement? I have received comments that this would not work for several reasons. One is what exactly is a campus, and in the context of Oxford University that is quite confusing. The second issue is, with a lot of research students, they would frequently do remote consultancy work. If you are talking about a STEM student who is backing up a biotech SME or something, that is clearly a positive relationship. Have you had any response from your students on these issues?
Aaron Porter: I have had similar kind of question marks around the practicability of imposing such a requirement. I think that the only way I can imagine it being overcome is to more broadly relate it to some benefit to academic study or an education environment. But again, those are similarly fluffy but I suspect a little better than simply saying "on campus", which for obvious reasons for an institution like the OU, even in a city like your own or Cambridge, it is difficult to pin down what the campus is and where the boundaries are.
Q232 Mark Reckless: Mr Porter, you said the post-study work route gave UK higher education an important competitive advantage against other countries. We would not usually support an industry by giving it a subsidy against its foreign competitors. Why do you think it is any more acceptable for us to prop up higher education by saying, "Oh, well, we will let your graduates stay on and work afterwards and compete with our own graduates"?
Aaron Porter: I would not consider it a subsidy insofar as we are propping up HE in that the benefits that come with this competitive advantage far outweigh any subsidy that might be linked to a two-year post-study work. The financial benefits that international students bring I will not go over, but also in terms of ensuring that the UK is regarded and is able to maintain the level of recruitment. One of the metrics that is associated with UKHE in terms of allowing it to describe itself as the second best system of UKHE in the world-unless you are in Oxford or Cambridge which would, I am sure, describe themselves as the best system of HE in the world-is the fact that they cite the number of international students coming in. I consider that to be important in terms of allowing us to protect that as a claim for the UK.
Q233 Steve McCabe: Isn’t it one of the few legal subsidies that we could give to industries that we are rather keen to promote, like pharmaceuticals or chemical engineering or green energy, areas where we are hoping to as Government policy try and get a competitive lead? What we seem to be doing is closing down the opportunity to attract some of the brightest and best talents who might actually advance our industry.
Aaron Porter: I agree. It is worth saying that the skills mix of those that come from outside of the EU happen to fit quite neatly with where our own home skills shortages are, particularly in the industries that you have cited. I suspect that if we are serious about stimulating economic growth and stimulating certain industries we would not want to be simultaneously taking away some of the very skills that we need to ensure that those industries remain internationally competitive and hopefully grow over the next few years.
Q234 Bridget Phillipson: On the issue of your graduates working in Tesco on the tills, presumably a lot of these people, the international students who come to the UK, are-because of the fees involved-often amongst the most affluent in their own countries. Presumably they would just seek to return home if all they could find to do work-wise was work on the tills. Is that-
Aaron Porter: That is why. I mean, there are very, very few examples of those that have graduated and as an example of post-study work are working on the tills in Tesco. That’s not to say that those that are currently studying are indeed doing that work, and I think it is important to distinguish that difference.
Dominic Scott: Can I just add on that very briefly that there is a market mechanism here with post-study work, and there is quite extensive reports of students who apply for Post-study work, but don’t stay that long, because if they don’t get a good job in the UK, they prefer to go back to Bangalore and Hyderabad, where the opportunities are. So the market is working there. If there are lots of jobs available, they will contribute to jobs and expertise in the UK economy. If they are not there, they will go home, they move.
Q235 Chair: In other words, they are not prepared to work at Tesco, they are probably rich enough to buy it?
Dominic Scott: Exactly. That is our concern, that it is at that high level of post-graduates that we are concerned that these measures, especially about bringing dependants and dependants working, it is going to hit that high level of post-graduate recruitment.
Q236 Dr Huppert: That is exactly what I was hoping to ask about first, Chair, about dependants, because there are two changes that we have not particularly touched on. One is that students coming for less than 12 months will not be allowed to bring any dependants and the other is that their dependants would not be allowed to work at all. Do you have any comments on those two, what effect they would have in Britain, and also on attractiveness for students?
Aaron Porter: Well, I suspect the initial implications are relatively obvious, but I will spell them out. It will make the UK seem a much less welcoming place for those students. I also think it doesn’t properly consider the nature and the background of lots of those students, particularly on research degrees, who tend to be-for obvious reasons-much older and often with a family. Now, I accept some of the safeguards that need to be placed around it, but I think this has gone far too far and will ultimately preclude many students we wouldn’t just want for financial reasons, we would want for academic reasons in our institutions, not just for their own research, but also to an extent to add to the academic community in our institutions, and to a small extent, teaching for under-graduate students, particularly in STEM subjects.
Dominic Scott: Just to add that two in five people doing a PhD in this country are non-EU people. They come for three to four years at least, sometimes at a minimum. The likelihood of them coming without their families is slight. I think we would do huge damage to the research infrastructure.
Q237 Dr Huppert: As somebody who used to recruit them, I agree. But can I then just briefly ask to try to capture overall with these changes-because there is an economic dimension, there is an academic dimension, there is also a foreign policy dimension-what effect do you think these changes would have on Britain’s standing internationally?
Aaron Porter: It has often been described by previous witnesses that it would move the UK to a description of, "We are not open for business" and that that equally translates to how we might be perceived from a foreign policy point of view. I love the fact that I was able to go to a city like Leicester, which was so diverse, and I think that that was great for the country, that was great for me personally, and I think that was great for the community in which I was able to live-
Mr Winnick: And the MP.
Aaron Porter: -and obviously for a great MP. So I lived in Leicester South. But yes, so for those reasons, I think that could have a dangerous impact.
Q238 Mark Reckless: But also in terms of the fact that currently a number of leading people in other countries have studied in Britain, and historically that has been another export, do you think the loss of that would have an effect on us?
Dominic Scott: Can I pick up on it, just to say that what is fascinating is that our foreign policy priority countries are precisely the countries where we recruit most students. If you look at China, look at India and look at USA, they are at the top.
Chair: Are they the top three?
Dominic Scott: They will be the top three, so they align entirely with our foreign policy objectives and our key strategic partners, so anything that damaged that clearly has implications far more widely.
Can I make two other brief points on that?
Chair: Could you make it as brief as possible? We are over-running.
Dominic Scott: I will make it very brief. Institutions are battling with the recent changes. I have figures here that Oxford University had 100 visa refusals this year. Now, these are not dodgy students, so those people had to reapply and go through. We have a system where it is pretty tight on systems.
A final remark, that I received a report from British Council India this week to say that the effect of merely these discussions has reduced attendance at their education exhibitions by a third in Hyderabad and two-thirds in Bangalore. Already this generic message about the UK beginning to turn its back on international students is getting across and doing damage.
Chair: We will be hearing from the Foreign Office Minister next week on this issue.
Q239 Bridget Phillipson: Just to echo that comment, in discussions I have had with my local university, Sunderland, who recruit a lot of students from China, they have already expressed concern that numbers are starting to drop, that students there are concerned, particularly post-graduate students, so just to echo the comment there.
Q240 Mr Clappison: Just a very brief question on a completely unrelated subject. It is very brief-[Interruption.] Well, it is tuition fees, in a way. It is to Mr Porter-and thank you for your evidence today-but I have recently read reports that you were heckled and attacked at a tuition fees protest, which you quite legitimately had been leading. What was all that about?
Aaron Porter: Yes, you are right. It was unrelated. There have been some criticisms that I have not been radical enough-I suspect that is not an opinion shared in this room. There have been some suggestions that I have been too radical-I’m sure that is an opinion that is probably not shared in this room. There were a group of protesters that felt that they wanted to show their anger at me at having not run enough of a robust campaign against the Government.
Mr Clappison: It was an internal political thing then?
Aaron Porter: Yes, that is right.
Mr Clappison: That is fine.
Q241 Mr Winnick: Can I just ask, Mr Porter, there were reports in the press that you were subject-and perhaps there was no foundation, but it is serious matter if it was-to racist taunts, that you were subject to anti-Semitic insults. Is that true?
Aaron Porter: Some of the comments toward me were of an anti-Semitic nature. There were suggestions that I was a Tory and a Jew, and I can confirm that I am neither of those things.
Mr Winnick: Well, one is inexcusable and the other is not.
Chair: Anyway, Mr Porter and Mr Scott, thank you very much for giving evidence today. We will be producing our report very shortly. Anything else you want to add, please write to us. Thank you very much.
Could I call to the dais Sir Andrew Green and Mr Alper Mehmet.
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Sir Andrew Green KCMG, Chairman, MigrationWatch UK, and Mr Alper Mehmet, Member, Advisory Council, MigrationWatch UK, gave evidence.
Q242 Chair: Sir Andrew, Mr Mehmet, you are old stagers at this Committee, so you know the format, so I will not go through it again, and you have been sitting in at the evidence. Thank you very much for coming to give evidence. The Committee always is very keen to hear from MigrationWatch. Could I start with this issue of when is a migrant not a migrant? You have heard the evidence. I am sure you have followed this issue in the press as well.
Sir Andrew Green: I have indeed, Mr Chairman. We are-as one of your Members mentioned-a lone voice, but we do speak for, I think, about 77% of the population.
Q243 Chair: Indeed. Specifically on the issue of students, there is a feeling-and I know this is not a definition of this Government, but it is an EU definition-that a student is a migrant if they stay over 12 months. All the evidence that we have received indicates that a student-what you and I would regard as being a student-is somebody who comes to this country for a short period of time to complete a course, and when that course is over, unless they stay 10 years, which of course the time limit for applying for indefinite leave, they have to return at the end of their course. Do you think that that is a correct definition of what a student is?
Sir Andrew Green: Just before I answer that, Chairman, can I make it clear to the Committee that we do not support cuts in students for the sake of cuts. We do not believe that is the purpose of this exercise. We would not support it if it was. The whole purpose of this exercise is to tackle bogus students, because they add to net migration. Both bogus students and genuine students who overstay add to net migration and if we don’t get net migration down, our population will hit 70 million in 20 years’ time. That is a racing certainty. So I would like to invite the Committee, as they examine this subject, to bear well in mind that the only way this very difficult issue can be addressed is to bear down on every route of migration within that.
Chair: We understand that, but can I just concentrate on-
Sir Andrew Green: Yes.
Q244 Chair: Within that, you mentioned, quite rightly, what you were after is bogus students and bogus colleges.
Sir Andrew Green: Yes, exactly.
Chair: Not genuine people who wish to come into this country to study-
Sir Andrew Green: Exactly right.
Chair: -because you yourself learnt Arabic when you were in Lebanon.
Sir Andrew Green: I did indeed.
Chair: You are a very distinguished Arabist, you have held many diplomatic positions. The Committee went yesterday to a language school in Brighton, where we met people from Lebanon and Syria and Saudi Arabia, very wealthy individuals who were coming to this country to learn a language in the country where the language is spoken. So you did the same thing.
Sir Andrew Green: Yes.
Chair: So to be very, very clear, MigrationWatch is concerned with issues of abuse, bogus applications, bogus students and bogus colleges and not genuine people?
Sir Andrew Green: Exactly, and overstayers.
Chair: Of course, we will come on to overstayers.
Sir Andrew Green: Absolutely.
Chair: That is very, very clear.
Sir Andrew Green: Exactly so.
Chair: Excellent.
Sir Andrew Green: To answer your specific question, Chairman, as to the definition of a student, because that is quite central.
Chair: Yes, please.
Sir Andrew Green: As you know, it is defined as someone-sorry, the definition of a migrant is someone who is here for a year or more. Now, there are three reasons why we have to maintain that. One is that that is the international definition set down by the United Nations, and as this is an international issue, it is obvious that you need an international and agreed criterion. Secondly, there is the question of the Government’s credibility. I think any Government that said, "Oh well, we are just going to change the definition" would be out of the door, as they were over cost of living and unemployment and so on. Thirdly, and this is quite crucial, an amazing proportion of migrants, incoming migrants, are in fact students. So if you took them out of the definition, you would have an enormous impact apparently on the numbers.
Q245 Chair: But if you break that link between someone coming to study, as you have acknowledged, as your whole career has shown, you were able to go to a country like Lebanon and learn Arabic, you break the link between coming to study-which is what the witnesses have said to us-and settlement. You would be happy with that?
Sir Andrew Green: We support that, both in terms of students and of work visas, that there shouldn’t be an automatic move on to settlement, but that is a later stage in the process, if you like. If you look at the migration point, can I just outline in a couple of sentences the broad picture, which is this-
Chair: We have individual questions. If you could stick to the questions, other colleagues will-
Sir Andrew Green: I understand that, but it is directly relevant to your question just then.
Chair: Okay, if it is about student migrants, as migrants.
Sir Andrew Green: Yes. We issue about 2 million visas a year, as you know. The International Passenger Survey interviews a small proportion of those and it is grossed up. They ask people whether they are going to come for a year or more. If they say yes, they are migrants. That gives you a figure of about 500,000 people arriving every year saying that they are migrants. Now, of those-and this is the point-of those, 200,000 are coming because they are students, and indeed, last year it was 300,000. So the inflow in terms of students is huge.
Q246 Chair: Sure. Now, sticking to this point, how many of those 200,000 does your organisation believe are bogus students?
Sir Andrew Green: A significant proportion.
Chair: So over 50%?
Sir Andrew Green: Oh no, no. The major difficulty-
Chair: What is the kind of rough percentage?
Sir Andrew Green: If I had to guess, I would say 20%, 25%.
Chair: So a quarter of the students coming into this country are bogus?
Sir Andrew Green: No. Either bogus or at risk of over-staying, which has the same effect on migration, of course.
Chair: Sure. That is very helpful.
Sir Andrew Green: You were talking earlier about Australia. The big difference with Australia is they do have a system that counts individuals in and individuals out.
Chair: Yes. Well, we are coming to that now.
Sir Andrew Green: You have done a report on that.
Chair: Yes, we are coming straight to that now, e-borders.
Q247 Mr Winnick: If there are genuine students, Mr Green, Mr Mehmet, you are quite satisfied about their coming to the United Kingdom, as I understand it?
Sir Andrew Green: I entirely support it. It is in their interests, in our interests. I agree exactly with what Mr Scott said earlier. That is not the issue.
Q248 Mr Winnick: The issue is bogus students?
Sir Andrew Green: Bogus students and people who stay on, and just to make the point that even if the college is genuine, they can still receive applications from bogus students.
Q249 Mr Winnick: Did you take the view that as far as bogus colleges are concerned, action has been taken both by the previous Government and the present Administration?
Sir Andrew Green: Some action has been taken, clearly not enough. Well, you will hear from the Minister. He had a speech only a week or so ago, in which he pointed out that something like 90,000 students arrived last year to colleges that are not in the highly trusted sponsor group. So the scope for abuse-his words-is enormous.
Q250 Mr Winnick: As for the Government’s proposal that a student, having completed one course, if he wants to do another course should return home-well, you have heard the evidence, you were sitting at the back, of those who told us this would be very impractical-do I take it that MigrationWatch are in favour of that?
Sir Andrew Green: I don’t have a strong view on that. I think that that is very much a matter of discussion and negotiation between the academic world and the UKBA. It is not for us.
Q251 Mr Winnick: As far as e-borders are concerned, what action further do you want to see taken?
Sir Andrew Green: Well, as you know-you did a report, I believe-it will be four or five years before we have that, and until then, we are wide open. The same speech that I mentioned referred to applications in New Delhi, of which 25% included bogus documents. So they are clearly bogus applications.
To answer your question more specifically, I would have to say this, that the points-based system for students is a terrible shambles. It has posed serious difficulties for the UKBA, and I suspect also for the colleges. The reason is this: the reason is that the points-based system has turned on its head the system that we had before.
Q252 Chair: Which was direct interviews?
Sir Andrew Green: Which was-yes, but the key-
Chair: This question for the entry clearance officers.
Sir Andrew Green: I am coming to that. Exactly, yes. Exactly, because the whole issue was-and still should be-is this a genuine student, in the sense that he intends to return home? Now, under the present system, that question is not even addressed, let alone tested, and we believe therefore that the points-based system has blown a hole in our immigration system. We saw last year a 30% increase in students in one year. We saw in your own question, Mr Chairman, you asked about-
Chair: Bangladesh.
Sir Andrew Green: Bangladesh. We had a fivefold increase in applications.
Q253 Chair: Yes, but Sir Andrew, surely there will be clever people sitting in the UKBA who would know by February of any given year that the number of visas issued to Bangladesh had gone up from 3,000 to 17,000. You do not have to wait for the end of the year for that, do you? What you are talking about is not a policy change. You are talking about better administration, e-borders, plus a much stricter way in which people enter the country.
Sir Andrew Green: Well, we are five years from e-borders. Certainly the Home Office will know from their management information about this kind of thing. That is why they had to suspend the issue of visas in the subcontinent. But just to, if I may, Chairman, for a second elaborate this-
Chair: Yes, but not for too long, because lots of other colleagues want to come in. They are all going to ask you questions, so if you can make it very, very brief.
Sir Andrew Green: Well, I hope I have made it clear that this is absolutely central, that unless we move to a situation where in countries "at risk" we have at least the option of an interview--
Chair: Yes, we are coming on to that.
Q254 Dr Huppert: I was very interested to look at some of your submissions and the issue of evidence. There seemed to be a number of things here which seemed to take a large number of estimates, subtract a few and multiply by some others, which of course gives huge errors, and a lot of the numbers that you give about earnings and so forth and fees differ markedly from what we have had in evidence from other people who work in the sectors. But can I focus on this issue of numbers of bogus students, because I think there is general agreement that that is the thing, the only thing, that we are really concerned about at the moment. You said moments ago to the Chair that roughly 50,000 students were bogus.
Sir Andrew Green: It could be as many as that, yes.
Q255 Dr Huppert: Your submission comes up with the number of 32,000 based on a paper on your website, which cites a Home Office paper, which as far as I can tell-and I possibly am misreading it-has different figures in that. Can you explain to me where you get this figure of bogus students and how would we be targeting them? What evidence do you have that there are anything like 50,000 of them?
Sir Andrew Green: Well, I was asked by the Chairman for a top-of-the-head estimate and I gave him one, and that is out of 270,000, 50,000 is of the order of what, 20%. I think that is not an unreasonable estimate. Of course we are getting more information as we go along and the speech that I have referred to twice already gave us information that was not available at the time. There has been Home Office research that has shown a high degree of irregularity in the applications. I don’t think we will get anywhere by arguing about percentages. What I am really talking about is the system and I think I have demonstrated that it is seriously weak.
Q256 Dr Huppert: But I think that numbers do matter, because I think this Committee likes to have some evidence. You said 50,000. Your paper here, your submission to us said 32,000 students in higher education per year. If I look at the university section on your original paper, it has 3,000. There is a huge discrepancy here, and 3,000 bogus students in higher education is a very different order of problem to 32,000 or to 50,000.
Sir Andrew Green: Yes. Well, you are taking different paragraphs of it, which will just confuse-
Dr Huppert: Well, they refer to each other as source data, so-
Sir Andrew Green: I am afraid you will confuse the Committee and confuse everybody else. What I am saying to you, the essential point is that as an order of magnitude, there is substantial abuse of the student system. That is not in doubt. I don’t think anybody doubts that, and we are suggesting a way in which that could be addressed. It is as simple as that.
Q257 Dr Huppert: Just one last question: your briefing paper on the cost of bogus students, which you refer to in your submission-point 2 on page 3 of your submission-has universities, non-compliant numbers 2,895. Now, I don’t quite understand where those figures come from, but those are figures that you have supplied.
Sir Andrew Green: They came from the Home Office. Dr Huppert: 2,895.
Mr Clappison: Will you let the witness answer your question, please?
Dr Huppert: 2,895 is a very, very different-
Chair: Order, Mr Clappison. I am chairing this meeting.
Sir Andrew Green: Well, you see, you are trying to pick out the odd figure and put it out of context. The number you quoted was for higher education-the universities, I think you quoted-not for the whole student body, which is 270,000. Secondly, the percentage of university students, the 2% figure that you are talking about, that is a self-declared figure by five universities who were seeking higher trusted sponsor status. So let’s not get lost in the detail. You are going down a rabbit hole, frankly. There is a broad issue of serious policy here, and that is what I hope the Committee will address.
Q258 Chair: Sir Andrew, what I think would be helpful in view of the fact that there is a dispute about figures is if we could write to you-
Sir Andrew Green: Yes, sure.
Chair: -and you could then write back and comment on it.
Sir Andrew Green: Absolutely.
Q259 Mr Clappison: You mentioned as well the question of overstayers as well as people who came here as bogus students in the first place. Do you think more could be done to enforce the rules on overstayers and students whose visas had expired and they continue to stay in the country?
Sir Andrew Green: Well, it is very hard because we don’t know that they have not left, for a start. Even if we did know they had not left-and e-borders, Mr Chairman, would only tell you that, it wouldn’t tell you where they are. So you come back to the question, unless you check that these people are genuine before they come, you have a problem, and a problem multiplied by the problems of removal. We may come to that, but the difficulties of removal are enormous. So our suggestion is to take every measure you can to prevent bogus students or people who intend to overstay coming in the first place.
Q260 Mr Clappison: The point you are making there is the loss of discretion which there was for immigration officers overseas when the points-based system was introduced, because their discretion could be overridden.
Sir Andrew Green: Another important point: they no longer have discretion. I hope that is understood by the Committee, Chairman.
Chair: Indeed. It is a point we have made many times and luckily the head of policy is coming in and perhaps he can explain why the loss of discretion occurred.
Sir Andrew Green: Good question.
Chair: This is a very good point.
Q261 Nicola Blackwood: It is specifically on your point about stopping bogus students at source, and we have heard evidence that there can be problems with agents which are used by higher and further education institutions, and would you support an accreditation system for agents in particular to try and weed that out at that point?
Sir Andrew Green: It would do no harm. Of course, they will simply appoint their brother as the agent, so it is a very difficult thing to control, that. It is worth pointing out that every single person in the chain, as we now have it, has a financial interest in granting the visa-obviously the institution itself and the agent on the ground-and nobody does not.
Chair: I think you have made that point.
Q262 Mark Reckless: The 32,000 figure for students overstaying or intending to overstay, I am not sure whether the difference between that and the 50,000 is because some people come bogus, do not study but then leave before they overstay, certainly either now or in writing it would be helpful to clarify that, in reaction to what Dr Huppert said. I note that when you talk about 32,000, 25,000 are at private sort of institutions. I am not sure how many of those have been cut out when we have moved from 12,000 to 2,300, but I wonder is the way to drive down on the visas potentially through the accreditation process or do we need to target the visas directly?
Sir Andrew Green: I will leave the numbers, but-
Mr Mehmet: Chairman, I should say-
Chair: You have been before. If you wish to chip in, please-
Mr Mehmet: I certainly shall, sir.
Chair: -do not hesitate. Yes, Andrew.
Sir Andrew Green: I will leave aside the numbers. We will write about that, if you would like it, but the essential point is you have to deal with this at the point of application abroad before they arrive, otherwise you have lost it.
Q263 Chair: Before they arrive?
Sir Andrew Green: Before they arrive, otherwise you have lost it. Once they are here-
Mr Mehmet: Perhaps I could comment on that, sir.
Chair: Yes, Mr Mehmet.
Mr Mehmet: The points-based system introduced the system whereby you acquired a certain number of points if you had a letter of acceptance.
Chair: Indeed. I think we understand that, as we wrote the report on this. We know the points. Tell us what is wrong with it.
Mr Mehmet: It was simply to emphasise the point that as a former immigration officer and entry clearance officer, that loss of discretion is crucial in determining the future intentions of an individual who is applying.
Q264 Chair: So bringing that back into the system would be very positive to tackling the issues of bogus colleges?
Mr Mehmet: If not in its entirety, certainly to a certain extent it would be a huge benefit.
Q265 Chair: There is nothing wrong with a student in Delhi or Mumbai being able to have a face-to-face interview with an ECO rather than arriving at Heathrow Airport, where they are asked questions-they are granted admission, aren’t they, because once they have their visa, they have their visa.
Sir Andrew Green: Exactly, yes.
Chair: So this would help the system of shaking out who are bogus people.
Sir Andrew Green: Enormously.
Mr Mehmet: Very well put, if I may say so, Chairman.
Q266 Mark Reckless: It seems that you are saying that you are not at all concerned with the numbers of genuine students, if they are not bogus and if there is not a suggestion of inappropriate overstaying. I just wanted to slightly clarify on this, because if you have very large numbers of overseas students here, is it not inevitable, given not least the age group that they come from, that significant numbers of those may settle down, get married, have children and so on, and as such, there will be at least some movement from the student route into the family route?
Sir Andrew Green: Yes, there will. The only way in which genuine students add to net migration is through work or family and the order of magnitude there is quite low. It is of the order of 10%. I won’t give you a precise number, but it is of the order of 10%. So if you had a massive increase in students, you would have a significant increase in net migration, but that is not where the issue today is.
Q267 Nicola Blackwood: Could I just ask you about the post-study work route? Obviously these recommendations are to close it entirely. I understand that that is your preference. However, of our main competitors in recruiting international students, Australia allow six months, Canada allows you to apply for a post-study work permit, providing it is less than the duration of the study, the US allows you to apply for a post-study work permit and Germany also allows you 12 months. I understand France is also considering such a route. Do you think that this is going to cause us a problem in recruiting the best students and maintaining the standard of our educational institutions in this country?
Sir Andrew Green: I think the first thing to say is that we have 20% unemployment among British graduates, and frankly, I think that almost makes the case by itself. Secondly, the Migration Advisory Committee described our present system as among the most generous in the world. Thirdly, we have done some informal inquiries which suggest that the number of foreign students applying for each place is of the order of eight or ten times the number of places, so we are not short of applications. I suppose you could argue that we get slightly less good ones, perhaps. It is hard to say that. It would surprise me if there was any problem with either Oxford or Cambridge in recruiting foreign graduates or under-graduates.
Mr Mehmet: Might I give some specific figures on that, sir. As a result of our very quick research, we found that Bristol University, for example, has already received 122 applications for their BA in architecture next year for 16 places; for chemical engineering, there are 71 applications for 15 places, and for electrical engineering, 70 applicants for 21 places.
Chair: But these are on the current rules.
Mr Mehmet: Under the current rules.
Chair: Yes, that is very, very helpful.
Q268 Nicola Blackwood: Do you accept that for some courses, some form of post-study training is necessary in order to gain the qualification?
Sir Andrew Green: Oh, yes.
Q269 Chair: You are not against that?
Sir Andrew Green: No, no. I mean, that is really for the educational people to talk to, it is not for us. We certainly wouldn’t oppose that.
Chair: Sir Andrew, Mr Mehmet, thank you very much for coming in. Let me just be clear, so you are not misquoted: what you are against are bogus students, not genuine students coming into this country to study. Secondly, you would like to see a break in the cycle between somebody coming to study and someone staying permanently?
Sir Andrew Green: It should not be semi-automatic, yes.
Chair: Thirdly, that you yourself value the fact that people might want to come to England to learn English?
Sir Andrew Green: And fourthly, if I may, the points-based system is a seriously weak system that has turned the process on its head.
Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr Mehmet: Might I add one point, sir?
Chair: Yes.
Mr Mehmet: In 1980, I was an entry clearance officer in Nigeria, when we introduced full fees for overseas students, and everything I have heard this afternoon about being closed for business and being unwelcome was used at that time. There were 88,000 foreign students in this country at that time, going up to the present number.
Q270 Mr Winnick: The Chair asked you a number of questions. In conclusion, just one to reaffirm, that you are not yourself or the organisation is not necessarily in favour, in fact you are neutral, on whether students should have to go back if they want to start a new course?
Sir Andrew Green: I think that is not a matter for us. It is a very detailed point and needs to be worked out with the educational establishment.
Q271 Mr Winnick: But it is not part of your policy in any way?
Sir Andrew Green: It is not for us to say, no.
Mr Winnick: Thank you very much.
Chair: Sir Andrew and Mr Mehmet, thank you so much for coming. I am sure we will call on your services again in the future. Thank you.
Order, could I call the Minister and his officials to the dais, please.
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Damian Green MP, Minister of State for Immigration, Home Office, Glyn Williams, Director of Immigration Policy, and Jeremy Oppenheim, Regional Director, National Lead Temporary Migration , gave evidence.
Q272 Chair: Minister, Mr Oppenheim, Mr Williams, can I first of all start by apologising for keeping you waiting. We thought we were making rapid progress and then it suddenly slowed down. Would you like to just introduce your officials for the purposes of the record?
Damian Green: On my left is Glyn Williams, who is the Director of Immigration Policy, and on my right is Jeremy Oppenheim, who leads for us on temporary migration, which obviously includes students.
Q273 Chair: Thank you for coming. The Committee has heard a great deal of evidence, compelling evidence, which raises concerns about the Government’s proposals over student visas. Members of the Committee will ask about the particular details of this, but can you answer this question about the overall direction of Government policy. There is a feeling that Britain will be closed for business as a result of the Government’s proposals on student visas. You presumably do not agree that that is going to happen, but do you understand why people are saying this in the academic world?
Damian Green: Not if they read the consultation carefully. It is perfectly clear from everything I have said in speeches and, indeed, in private meetings with many of the figures who you will have been having in front of the Committee that of course Britain is open for business. Of course we recognise that the international aspects of our universities in particular are extremely important, both to them and to us as a country, and we want to continue to attract at least our fair share, if not more than our fair share, of the brightest and the best to come to this country, and nothing we are seeking to do in terms of eliminating abuse of the student visa-which has been massively abused over the past few years-or as part of the wider policy of reducing net migration to sustainable levels will have any damaging effect on our great academic institutions.
Q274 Chair: Because I think there is unity, or there appears to be unity, that everybody in this room-or at least as far as the Committee is concerned-and our witnesses are all against bogus colleges and bogus students. What are sought are genuine people coming to study in the United Kingdom. So is the thrust of your policy directed against abuse and bogus students and bogus colleges, or is it also going to affect genuine students who have been coming into this country?
Damian Green: The thrust of the policy is to eliminate abuses in the system, precisely.
Chair: That is it?
Damian Green: I think the biggest misunderstanding that I have found-and I have obviously seen transcripts of last week’s evidence, but I haven’t heard this morning’s evidence-is that people think that the vast bulk of student visas are people coming to university and there is a small amount happening elsewhere, and that’s just factually wrong. 40% of those who come with a student visa are not studying at universities, they are studying courses at below degree level and a subset of that particularly who are private sector colleges are-they are where the problem lies, frankly-
Chair: Indeed.
Damian Green: -because very few of them are regulated by Ofsted, very few of them are highly trusted sponsors. I think the key number-if I say nothing else that sticks with the Committee this morning, this is the key number-is that in the last year we had 91,000 visas issued to that particular sub-sector, so we are not talking about a small number, we are talking about a huge number, where we think the potential abuse is likely to lie.
Q275 Chair: So it is about abuse and bogus colleges that we are concerned with, and you would be upset if you found that a genuine student coming to study in the United Kingdom, whether it is at degree level, or sub-degree level on a pathway to a degree level, was prevented from coming here as a result of the Government’s proposals? It is not your intention?
Damian Green: As long as the genuine student was coming here to study and wasn’t using the student visa to do some studying, while being more interested in a work visa. So there are obviously gradations around the edge.
Chair: Of course.
Damian Green: But the bulk in terms of the sheer numbers will come, I suspect, from people who are not studying genuine courses at genuine institutions.
Q276 Chair: Excellent. Now, I wrote to you last week in preparation for this session and the Committee have just seen a copy of your reply. It appears that you now say that there are 2,313 sponsors on the Tier 4 register. That is correct?
Damian Green: Yes.
Q277 Chair: So students coming to those universities or institutions, they are okay, they are genuine, are they?
Damian Green: Well, the distinction I would draw would be between highly trusted sponsors and not highly trusted sponsors and, if you like, the key element in the consultation is that we say, "If you are not a highly trusted sponsor, you shouldn’t be allowed to bring people in below degree level".
Chair: Sure.
Damian Green: As it happens, we have offered highly trusted sponsorship to every university as a matter of course, and I think three of them haven’t taken it up for their reasons. But we assume for the moment that all universities are highly trusted.
Q278 Chair: But that is how many universities?
Damian Green: It is about 124.
Q279 Chair: You have found out in the last year, since you have been a Minister, 235 educational establishments where the Government has had to take action against them, basically bogus colleges; is that right?
Damian Green: That would be slightly unfair, in that they have had their licences revoked or suspended. Now, if you have had a licence, it is possible to get it back, if you address the problem. So 58 now is the latest number I have seen of licences that have been revoked, but Glyn will have all the figures in detail.
Glyn Williams: Well, firstly universities, there are 155 on the sponsor register.
Q280 Chair: Right, but I am interested in the bogus colleges. How many bogus colleges have we found since 7 May last year?
Damian Green: It is 58 over the past 12 months.
Glyn Williams: We have revoked the licences of 58 and we have suspended the licences of another 240 or so.
Chair: Sorry, you are mumbling, Mr Williams. I think we need it for the record.
Glyn Williams: Apart from the 58 that we revoked, we also suspended the licences of 248.
Jeremy Oppenheim: 237.
Q281 Chair: But we cannot call them bogus colleges, but we can call the 58 bogus colleges. That is right, is it, because if we are talking about abuse in bogus colleges, we must know what they are. How many have we closed down?
Damian Green: 58.
Chair: 58, in the last year.
Damian Green: And of the 237 that have been suspended, it is of course possible that some or all of them will end up having their licences revoked, so that figure will go up. It is a continuous process.
Q282 Chair: You think there are many more floating around, because you keep referring to what you found under the woodwork. I think you said that in your interview with Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics programme, "It is amazing what you find under the woodwork".
Damian Green: I think it was under the-I said I had turned over stones and found unpleasant things.
Chair: Right, sorry.
Damian Green: Some of those unpleasant things are illustrative of colleges where the college is based in London and we found all the students working in west Wales. We found a college that had two lecturers for 940 students and so on. I won’t go into that.
Chair: The Committee welcomes what you have done. This is specifically on bogus colleges, colleagues.
Q283 Dr Huppert: Thank you, and I think all of us are very concerned about the bogus colleges. I am just trying to understand, Minister, your allocation of resources, because a lot of this consultation does not seem to be particularly targeted at bogus colleges. It seems to be targeted at all students. Would it not be more sensible to dedicate more of UKBA’s efforts to finding these bogus colleges which behave as poorly as you say and making sure that we get rid of them, rather than taking a more sort of broadbrush approach?
Damian Green: Well, I don’t agree that we are not making huge efforts to close the bogus colleges, and the figures I have just quoted show that activity is intense and accelerating. The reason why the consultation is so wide-ranging is, if you like, precisely because the student visa under Tier 4 of the points-based system is precisely that. It is a student visa that allows you to come in to read post-graduate physics at Imperial or to do a course that you or I might not recognise as an academic course, particularly if you are in west Wales and the course is in London. So we have to deal with the whole issue of the fact that the student visa itself has been undifferentiated, if you like, or insufficiently differentiated, and if you want-as I hear the Chairman and the whole Committee want to do, as well as Ministers-take a more intelligent approach to who is coming here under the student visa, then you have to look at the whole thing and decide what is working and what is not working.
Q284 Steve McCabe: I just wondered if we could have some idea what proportion of the total sector 58 colleges amounts to?
Chair: What percentage is 58 of the number of colleges?
Damian Green: Well, of the particular sub-sector, which are the private funded colleges, there are 744, so I mean-
Steve McCabe: I am trying to do the math.
Chair: To help those of us who cannot, what is the math, Mr McCabe?
Steve McCabe: I am just working it out, Chairman. I will come back.
Damian Green: Well, by definition, there are 744 that have a licence now, so the 58 would be on top of that.
Chair: Dr Huppert is the scientist. He tells me it is-
Q285 Steve McCabe: Minister, does that indicate that the problem is not quite as great as you think, or does it indicate that the Department are very slow in getting round to dealing with it?
Damian Green: I don’t think it indicates either, really. I think the problem is clearly great, and there are clearly colleges that were and always have been completely bogus. There will be, I am sure, colleges out there that are doing things that you and I and the Committee would disapprove of, but may be doing bits of proper academic work as well. So as we work on with our enforcement, then we will work through the system.
Q286 Mr Clappison: Just a quick question. Are you able to say how long some of these bogus colleges have been in existence?
Chair: Mr Clappison, could you repeat that, because-
Mr Clappison: Yes. These bogus colleges, how long have they been in existence or were they springing up all the time and closing down, or have some of them been running for years with bogus students?
Jeremy Oppenheim: Before the points-based system, there were 4,500 colleges in total on the old DIUS register. We reduced that to the current just over 2,300. Some of those establishments, bogus or otherwise, have been going a long time. Some are new. But very few are new since the points-based system came in because we are incredibly careful about who we accredit and who we then allow to bring in students from outside the European-
Q287 Mr Clappison: But of the 58, some of those had been going for some time?
Jeremy Oppenheim: Yes, some of them had been going for some time.
Q288 Nicola Blackwood: You mentioned that you were very careful about accreditation, but we have received evidence that the number of accreditation bodies can cause confusion and that a college which is refused accreditation by one body can then gain accreditation by another, and that not only is this difficult for colleges, who feel their reputation is under question, but also it leaves a loophole for bogus colleges. Do you have any intention of reforming the accreditation bodies?
Damian Green: Yes, absolutely. Accreditation is one of the things we have been consulting on and it is one of the areas where we have had very sort of positive feedback, and I know you have heard evidence from others saying that the accreditation does need sorting out and I completely agree. When we bring forward proposals as a result of the consultation, accreditation will play a part in that. I agree with all those who have told you that the accreditation system is a mess.
Q289 Nicola Blackwood: There is a second loophole that we have observed, or we have heard about, which is agents abroad who recruit international students, and you can have some very genuine, effective agents and some not so much, and there has been a recommendation of accrediting those agents with British Council or embassy officials in country. What is your opinion about that?
Damian Green: It is an interesting idea. It does slightly entail spreading the tentacles of the British state and the British regulatory system across the world in a way that might be expensive and impractical and not necessarily welcome everywhere. But the distinction is a good one. I was in India a few months ago talking to respectable education agents and they were urging us, they said, "Of course there are huge scams going on, and of course, you know, many of them are run by local agents, and please drive them out of business". Jeremy, you know more of the detail of this and of things that are feasible.
Jeremy Oppenheim: Yes, of course. One of the things that many reputable organisations do-and the universities do this a great deal-is employ the agents directly, so they employ the agents as UK employees who are then posted out abroad, and that is very reassuring and very successful.
Q290 Chair: What I think Ms Blackwood is asking is: with the agents who are not part of the offices of British universities, should we have some regulation?
Jeremy Oppenheim: There are two things I might say. Firstly, regulating outside the United Kingdom is extremely difficult to do. Employment in the United Kingdom is easier.
Secondly, the British Council does help in those areas, and we need to exploit the British Council’s options and opportunities more than we perhaps do at the moment.
Q291 Chair: This is really a question for Mr Oppenheim and Mr Williams, because we cannot hold you, Minister, responsible for the points-based system; that was the predecessor Government. However, one of the points made by MigrationWatch that I tend to agree with is the fact that all discretion was taken away-I know you might find that hard to believe, Minister-from entry clearance officers, and therefore once you get the points under the points-based system, the visa is granted. Isn’t the right way to deal with this an administrative change that would allow an ECO or an ECM to interview the applicant abroad, thus dealing with this problem before the bogus student comes into the country? Mr Williams, you were the Head of Policy under the previous Government, I understand.
Glyn Williams: Yes, and I was there when the previous system was in operation too, and we were often heavily criticised by the education sector and by the independent monitor for entry clearance refusals over some of the refusals that we were making on the basis of discretion, and often the education providers would say that the entry clearance officer was substituting his judgment for their academic judgment and was attempting to judge whether somebody was capable of following a course and genuinely intended to come to the UK to study. The agreed system that was put in its place was that that was the job of the education providers and they would choose their own students, and we would have a series of objective tests going to the immigration aspect of it.
Q292 Chair: Basically, you would not consider letting the ECO look at the student himself or herself?
Glyn Williams: It does not fit within the current system that we have.
Mr Clappison: The Committee went to Nigeria in 2007. This point was raised to us by entry clearance officers in Nigeria, and the point that they put was that they knew far more about the local circumstances and conditions, and they sometimes knew more than the universities or educational institutions themselves did. They said there were clear examples, in their experience, where people whom they did not have confidence in had been given permission to come to this country.
Q293 Chair: Finally, perhaps you can help us on this, Mr Oppenheim, before we move past bogus colleges. You were in your post when the number of visas from Bangladesh went up from 3,000 in 2008 to 17,303 in 2009. How was it possible for this huge increase to occur during a year? Surely someone at UKBA would have realised that the number of visas going to Bangladesh had increased almost 50%, well more than 50%-my maths, as I say, is not particularly good-over a year. The point that others have made to this Committee is that UKBA has not really been in control of the administration. You should have spotted this, shouldn’t you?
Jeremy Oppenheim: We did spot it. We spotted it quite early and we did things about it, so we are-
Chair: But 17,000 visas were issued. How is that early?
Jeremy Oppenheim: We spotted it in Bangladesh, Nepal, India and southern China, and we took action in each of those places to do something about it.
Chair: Mr Oppenheim, isn’t that after the visas were issued? Surely you would have known something like this by February.
Jeremy Oppenheim: In some cases, it was after the visa was issued, and in some cases-many, actually-it was well before they were issued. Our missions abroad let us know about those issues and we took action to limit quite significantly the number of visas we were able to issue, certainly in southern China-
Chair: Do you mean it could have been more than 17,000?
Jeremy Oppenheim: No, I am not saying it could have been more than 17,000, Chairman. What I am saying is that as soon as we saw those numbers-and we tracked them every single week-we took action to do something about it.
Chair: Mr McCabe has a final point on bogus colleges.
Q294 Steve McCabe: I should say, Minister, this incident happened two years ago, so I am not trying to pin it on you. I wonder who is responsible for dealing with the bogus students? I say that because we were sent some information by a Mr Lawrence Eke from Hove English Language School yesterday, who claimed that he tried to report four bogus students from Belarus, and he phoned the Nationality Unit of Sussex Police, who told him that it was not their jurisdiction and to contact the Home Office, who told him to contact the UKBA. When he contacted the UKBA, they said that since they had already entered the UK and had not registered at the school, it was not the college’s responsibility but that he should contact the Home Office. Presumably, your officials are taking some steps to try to make sure that as well as closing a relatively small number of bogus colleges, someone is taking responsibility for bogus students once they are identified.
Damian Green: Exactly. I think that tale is illustrative of the sort of thing that has gone on.
Q295 Steve McCabe: What is happening now?
Damian Green: We now have much better checks. We have increasing numbers of biometric residence permits so, if you come here to do a course, it is much easier to know who you are if you try to interact with the benefit system or if you try to work. Employers know that you have to produce a document that will be able to be checked that it belongs to you, and all that kind of thing. The system has been tightened up since that is a not untypical example of the sort of thing that is happening. If you have an entirely unregulated sector, where you not only have bogus colleges but you also have bogus individuals trying to exploit-
Q296 Steve McCabe: Isn’t this about the agencies not accepting any responsibility? It sounds like pass the parcel.
Damian Green: Absolutely. It is not for me to comment particularly on what happened under the previous Administration-otherwise we will get partisan, which is not the point-but absolutely. If people come from overseas to this country, it is the responsibility of the UK Border Agency to check that they are genuine and they are who they say they are and they have the qualifications.
Chair: We will move on to overstayers. We will have a quick question from Ms Phillipson, and then we must move on to other areas.
Q297 Bridget Phillipson: Given the likely reduction in staffing levels at the UKBA, do you still feel that where reports are received, it will be possible for those to be acted on thoroughly?
Damian Green: Yes, for two reasons. In the course of the next few years, we will be moving many more of our basic systems onto something that we would all recognise as modern technology. Essentially, the whole computer revolution has come late to the UKBA, but it is now happening. Also, we will get smarter at differentiating. That is what a lot of this whole student consultation is about.
Q298 Mark Reckless: Minister, I detect something of a dichotomy between what we see in the consultation paper, which has a number of questions but there does seem to be a common theme, at least to me, of decreasing numbers by making coming to the UK less attractive for overseas students, and what you appear to say today in terms that this is focused on bogus colleges and bogus students. Is there not actually a genuine trade-off in that there are some students coming perfectly reasonably to some colleges but they are studying part time and working as well? A fair amount of them stay on afterwards. A lot of them have children and get married, and not very many go back home. Even if there is not an issue of being bogus, may we not want to restrict people coming in order to reduce the amount of net immigration from this source?
Damian Green: I think one of the interesting things is that if all you do is concentrate on the overtly bogus, you actually have quite a significant fall in numbers. By definition, it is quite difficult to say exactly how many people are here illegally or being bogus because they do not show up in the statistics until you find them.
I am surprised you say that about the consultation. I do not agree. It is not meant to be that we are going to make it less welcoming to come here. The whole thrust of the consultation is, precisely because we want more than our fair share of the brightest and the best, we need to have a system that is not so all-encompassing that people can use it as a loophole. That has been the problem. The biggest single loophole in the immigration system has been the student visa system, and what we want to do is drive out all the things that lead to the loopholes. People concentrate on bogus colleges because that is where most things are, but it does also entail asking questions about people who come here. For instance, we are consulting on whether people should be able to bring their dependants with them as a right, and we have looked at what other countries offer, and some of the things that people have complained about, the post-study work route and so on-
Q299 Mr Winnick: In your busy life, Minister, I do not know if you have seen the advertisement in "T he House " magazine, which is an open letter signed by UK business schools. None of them could be classified as bogus colleges: Cranfield School of Management, Birmingham Business School , Bristol Business School , Imperial College Business School , and so on . They are very critical of some aspects of what you are intending. I very briefly quote; they say, "While supporting your objective of ending current abuses, we disagree profoundly with the proposal that all overseas students, regardless of level or course of study, should lose the opportunity to apply for work in the UK and instead be required to leave as soon as they have completed their course . " Have you seen their letter?
Damian Green: I have seen something similar. I cannot remember if I saw it in "The House" magazine, but obviously they have responded to the consultation, or the individual institutions have. Post-study work is, I know, one of the interesting areas. It is one of the reasons you have consultations, as you know. We propose to say, "Let’s scrap it altogether". Other people have said, "No, you must keep it altogether", and one of the interesting aspects of this is international comparisons, because if we are looking at what we do and how we make ourselves attractive, we need to look at what other countries do. The Americans do not offer anything like as generous an offering as that. They offer a small one-year extension directly related to the student’s area of study, so that is nothing like as generous. The Australians offer an 18-month visa for temporary and skilled jobs, so those would be jobs available under Tier 2 in our system. I know that some of the evidence you have heard says that the French are now offering a three-year extension. What the French are offering is a new skills and talent visa, which is not open just to those who study in France. It sounds more to me like our new Tier 1-our exceptionals visa-so we are, if you like, out of line in just saying that you can come here on any kind of student visa and you have an absolute right to look for work for two years afterwards.
We have discovered that there are a significant number of those who have finished their studying who are then not going into the sort of skilled jobs that I imagine graduates of all those distinguished business schools would go to, but more than 50% of them are going to unskilled jobs, so it is clear that has become another of the loopholes.
Q300 Mr Winnick: Do I take it from that answer that the response will be "no" to what they are objecting to?
Damian Green: I think what they are arguing for is that we should not change the system at all.
Mr Winnick: They make it clear they are against abuses.
Damian Green: It is not an abuse. That is the interesting thing. I think this is where, as it were, the subtleties come in. There is bogus and there is not bogus, but there is a range in between, and nobody is abusing the current system if they finish an academic course and sit in this country for two years looking for work or taking unskilled work. That is fine; that is allowed in the current system-
Q301 Chair: These are the graduates who are working on the tills at Tesco that you keep mentioning, the PhDs that you have discovered?
Damian Green: I think one of things we need to address when we announce what is coming out of the consultation is whether that is good for the British labour market and good for the British economy. It seems to me that there are quite strong arguments to say that is not what we want to use the student visa system for. That is probably not what these colleges think they are educating people for.
Q302 Mr Winnick: What would you say, however, Minister, to the feeling, accusation-call it what you like-that in the general desire to reduce immigration, in the atmosphere of the present moment and suchlike, that overseas students are being caught in the firing line?
Damian Green: I do not think that is true. The simplistic thing of, "More immigration is better" or, "All immigration should be stopped altogether", obviously we need to steer a sensible course between those two extremes.
Mr Winnick: Leaving aside the general position, whether immigration should be increased or not, what I am saying to you is that in the general desire of the Government to demonstrate that immigration is being cut, students are in the firing line in the sense that it is going to become much more difficult to study in the United Kingdom.
Damian Green: Genuine students doing genuine studies are absolutely not in the firing line. We want them. To take up the last point you made about students who come here to study in the United Kingdom, that is what I want to see students doing. People who use the student visa to come here and work in the United Kingdom seem to me to be a different issue altogether.
Q303 Chair: The problem is that most of the academic institutions-and almost all the evidence before this Committee so far, including, to be frank, MigrationWatch when they talked about dealing with the abuses of the system-are concerned about genuine students being affected by your proposals. Do you think they are wrong?
Damian Green: Whenever you have change, people are concerned. One of the reasons we have a consultation before we announce is precisely so we can address those concerns.
Q304 Mr Winnick: Just a final question, are you telling us, Minister, that genuine students who want to study in the United Kingdom should have no more difficulty than previously?
Damian Green: Genuine students who are coming to study should have no more difficulties.
Chair: Excellent.
Q305 Nicola Blackwood: Could I just take us back to the post-study work route for a moment? It seems that we are looking at two poles: either keeping it exactly as it is now, in which anything is permitted, or closing it entirely. We have received evidence that some form of post-study work is a recruitment tool so that people can go back to their own countries having a bit of a CV line. We have also received evidence that with some courses you need to do a period of post-study training in order to properly qualify; for example, architecture or law and other courses such as those, and this would prevent that entirely. I wonder if you could comment on those particular aspects.
Damian Green: As you say, we have received a lot of responses to the consultation on this issue. It is clearly one of the important issues.
Chair: 31,000.
Damian Green: Yes, but not specifically on this issue. We have had 31,000 altogether, many of them from individuals, so I am glad we had a consultation. As we are sifting through those, we will develop the policy. You are tempting me down the line of announcing what the policy will be, which the Home Secretary will announce in some weeks’ time, but I do not think that now is the time to do that. Not least because as the Chairman says, we have had 31,000 consultations, we need to give them all a fair look at first before we make our final decision.
Q306 Alun Michael: Can I just ask about the impact of biometric residence permits? Won’t that be effective in ensuring that we know precisely whether students have left as they are supposed to do?
Jeremy Oppenheim: No, is the simple answer. Biometric residence permits, of which we have issued over a third of a million for non-EU citizens to date, will tie down identity and we can reconfirm identity each time we have contact with the student or worker, but no, it will not confirm departure. What confirms departure is the use of e-borders, and the biometric residence permit is only one tool.
Q307 Alun Michael: Won’t it clarify lack of departures, then?
Jeremy Oppenheim: It may do, but what is even more effective-and we do this regularly now-is that we check individual groups of students against the embarkation controls that e-borders offers us.
Q308 Alun Michael: But surely the whole difficulty has been with certainty and being able to identify whether those who are meant to leave have left and the lack of certainty about whether that is the case. Are you saying this will make no difference?
Jeremy Oppenheim: No. It makes it a contribution because it can confirm the identity of a person departing, but so can many passports as well, so it is not the only tool that we use.
Damian Green: The essential use of the biometric residence permit is to stop people interacting in ways they should not be: working and claiming benefits and so on. When e-borders is 100% operational, at that point it would be possible but-
Q309 Alun Michael: The reason I am trying to get at this is that one of the concerns that has been expressed is that there are a number of students that are remaining after the end of their course at the point when they are expected to leave, and there is the suggestion that the estimates are too high because there is not a proper and accurate measurement of "out" as well as "in". I am surprised that there is no thought that this would make a difference to that accuracy.
Damian Green: Specifically the biometric residence permits, as Jeremy has explained, will help, but in the end you need to have a system that counts people out as well as counts people in-
Alun Michael: Understood.
Damian Green: At the moment, e-borders covers between 55% and 60%, and obviously the biggest gap is with the EU, and we are in discussions with the Commission about how to do that.
Q310 Chair: I am sure you have seen the Committee’s report on this. Have we now issued the contract for the replacement for the previous company that was administering e-borders?
Damian Green: It will be issued during the course of this year; it has not been issued yet.
Chair: During the course of this year? I thought we were told the last time by a Minister that it would be done by Christmas. Maybe I have that wrong: I will check my notes.
Q311 Nicola Blackwood: I just wanted to take us back slightly to a student working, and talk about the suggestion that students should work on-campus in the week and off-campus in the weekend. I am not sure what "on-campus" means at a university like Oxford, and it would helpful to have some clarification about whether it means on university property with the university employer.
Chair: Mr Oppenheim, can you help us? What is "on-campus"? Did you go to Oxford?
Jeremy Oppenheim: We used the phrase for the purposes of the consultation because we had heard from places like Manchester, which certainly does not have a clearly defined campus, that the buildings that the university owns would be the group that we are concerned about. It is the university and the environs-
Chair: Sorry, the university and the?
Jeremy Oppenheim: Its environs but it is the buildings-
Chair: Which means what, exactly?
Jeremy Oppenheim: It is the buildings the university controls and owns. The reason for this is that universities have said to us that they use some foreign national students to talk to other incoming students and to help with the relationships with people who have not travelled into the UK before-
Q312 Chair: So the answer to Ms Blackwood is what? What is the definition?
Jeremy Oppenheim: The buildings the university controls; the campus itself.
Q313 Nicola Blackwood: What about research projects funded by the university but which are taking place in non-university-owned properties?
Jeremy Oppenheim: No. In the consultation, we designed it and it was intended to describe those opportunities for work that helped the university do its business. It was not about research and not about working in a WHSmith on the campus.
Q314 Mark Reckless: Minister, you may be aware Professor Acton last week had a proposal to confirm the numbers of students who were overstaying for universities, and thought this would be a very helpful piece of research and said that universities would be happy to pay for it. Would the Home Office accept that offer?
Damian Green: I have had this conversation with Professor Acton as well, and essentially what he is suggesting is actually what Jeremy has just described-sampling. Professor Acton has this perfectly reasonable desire that with e-borders we can get a 100% accurate figure of who is here and who is not. Great, we all want to move towards that, but we all know the history of e-borders and now is not the time to discuss it. It will take us a few years to get there.
Q315 Chair: Are you happy with the suggestion that you do not mind them paying?
Damian Green: I certainly do not mind anyone else paying, but I just think it will not actually get the sort of magic bullet that I think Professor Acton is convinced the Committee would-
Chair: But why stop him, if this is what he wants to do? He wants to be helpful.
Damian Green: I have no desire to stop it.
Q316 Mark Reckless: So you are happy for Professor Acton to do this research and pay for it?
Chair: And send you a copy at the end.
Damian Green: As I say, I am more than happy for him to pay for it.
Q317 Dr Huppert: Thank you. First, Minister, I was delighted to hear that the aim of this is not to drive down legitimate students, because we have struggled to find support for the proposals because there is a perception that that is what would happen. We have heard many concerns from across the sector about the effects. I do not know if you heard earlier that the British Council are saying that attendance at their events is already down just as a result of this consultation.
The Secretary of State for DEFRA made a clear point that her consultation was a genuine consultation. Presumably, you would confirm that this is a genuine consultation and that you will take all of the huge number of views expressed very seriously, and that if they are expressing concern in this way, you would listen very carefully to that.
Damian Green: It depends whether they are valid points or not. You do not need to look outside this Department. We held a consultation on the work-based routes, and points were made and we listened to them, and we produced a policy that was entirely consistent with what we said we were going to do but which was improved by the consultation. That will be the case in this instance as well.
When people say the attendance at an event is down and it is because of the consultation, I would want to see a bit of evidence for that and not because of local advertising problems.
Q318 Dr Huppert: I believe the British Council has that. I would also like to ask about one section, because a lot of the consultation deals with different stages rather separately. We have had a lot of evidence about pathway routes. For example, in Cambridge, one of my three excellent universities, Anglia Ruskin University, has a partnership with Navitas and the Cambridge Ruskin International College where students come in, learn some English at the beginning, learn the skills they need to study and go on to degree level. There is a whole flow-through here that could be lost by changing things right at the very beginning, with a knock-on effect at graduates and beyond. How are you taking account of those issues?
Damian Green: It is precisely on those sorts of issues where the very clear distinction-that I think there is general support for-between highly trusted sponsors and not highly trusted sponsors actually plays a very significant role. We have said that you can bring people in at below degree level if you are a highly trusted sponsor, and I have spoken to universities as well about pathway colleges, and Jeremy spends his life touring universities and talking about this at the moment. That is clearly one of the areas where we are having quite fruitful and constructive discussions.
Q319 Dr Huppert: Have you looked at the experience of the US after 9/11, where they put in greater controls and then saw a massive loss in numbers? It cost money, reputational damage and so forth. Australia is having a lot of internal arguments at the moment about the cuts there from the Rudd Government, and there is a lot of pressure to change that now. Seeing the steps that these places that went through extra restrictions are now having to come to to attract students back again, are you not concerned that Britain could go through exactly the same cycle and we would end up having to boost our economy again by trying to get people back?
Damian Green: Obviously, 9/11 was a total one-off, so things changed after that and decisions were taken in uniquely dramatic circumstances. The Australian example is interesting. The big drop in Australia was Indian students, and what people in India have told me happened was that there were riots in Australia and Indian students were being beaten up, and that is what put Indian students off applying to Australia, and you can’t blame them. Clearly, we do not want anything like that happening here.
Q320 Dr Huppert: I think we agree that we do not want riots. There are a number of other categories that are down in Australia quite significantly. I think 20% is the overall, though it is focused on Indians.
Damian Green: Exactly. Obviously, as I have said several times already, we want genuine students at genuine institutions, and there is nervousness whenever you propose change and we are going through the nervous phase at the moment.
Q321 Bridget Phillipson : Yesterday we visited a language college and met with a number of the students who were studying there, the vast majority of whom had offers at very prestigious universities conditional upon the exams that they will be taking this year. What they were very keen to stress was that many of them came in with a relatively low level of English but with the right support were very quickly able to improve their English, and they were clearly very talented, intelligent and able people who will come and study at degree level. The concern with the consultation is that the changes that are made, if we proceed in terms of sub-degree level changes, may stop those people coming in the first instance, and it is actually only through being in an English-speaking country that you are able to bring your English up to the necessary standard. Also, the way in which we study at universities and in colleges in this country is very different from many of the countries that they have come from, and it is the kind of learning that they undertake while in the UK that allows them to progress onto degree level.
Damian Green: Assuming that the college you were visiting was a highly trusted sponsor, they will still be able to bring people in. Of course, specifically on language schools, one of the changes I have made as a Minister regards the student visa. Previously, the student visitor visa could only operate for up to six months. I had very strong representations from many colleagues as well as the language schools themselves that that was not long enough, particularly for people from east Asia and south-east Asia, so we have changed that to 11 months and that was, broadly speaking, welcomed by the language colleges.
Chair: That was very welcomed in the meeting we had yesterday; it was all the other bits that were not.
Damian Green: Yes, but I am not entirely clear what the other bits are.
Q322 Bridget Phillipson: One of the concerns is around students having to return back to their home country to reapply. For some students it was quicker and cheaper to return to their home country to do so, but it might simply deter others from applying to stay on at British universities. Would it not be a better system to allow some kind of follow-through so that account could be taken of their attendance and legitimacy on the pre-degree course rather than having two separate, stand-alone processes?
Damian Green: The application would clearly take account of how well they had performed on the previous course anyway, so I think-
Bridget Phillipson: The colleges seem to suggest that they would welcome an improvement on that. They did not feel that that was the case.
Damian Green: That is obviously the principle that one would want to apply. That is the whole point of not having entry clearance officers decide, of trying to have an objective system-the points-based system introduced under the previous Government. One of the reasons is that if you can show genuine qualifications, and you have attended a course and passed a reputable exam at the end of it, you can show that, and so you get a tick in that box-
Q323 Bridget Phillipson: The difficulty is that you may not have passed when you are applying. You have to return home pending the outcome of exam results in order to reapply to come back.
Damian Green: It is not beyond the wit of man to organise to pass an exam and mark it and produce the results so that you can then apply for a place, I would have thought. Clearly, there are practical issues.
Bridget Phillipson: It is the timescale, yes.
Damian Green: We will look at them during the consultation.
Q324 Steve McCabe: In terms of language schools, Minister, if you achieve a level of success and a level of performance from your officials that has eluded other Ministers, what contribution will it make to your target of reducing immigration to tens of thousands?
Damian Green: We do not have a specific number put to this, but as I say-
Steve McCabe: You must have an idea, surely.
Damian Green: No, I do not have an idea of a specific number-
Steve McCabe: We have spent a lot of time talking about it if it is minimal, so I am assuming it is significant.
Damian Green: I have already explained to the Committee the size of the potential issue. We have talked about the number of bogus colleges that have been closed; I have explained that in that sector, in which we closed 58 and suspended the licences of a couple of hundred others, in the last year for which we have figures, there were 91,000 certificates granted, so that gives you the overall size.
Chair: The answer is that you do not have an answer at the moment.
Damian Green: And nor will we; we are not going to have a specific target for the number of student visas issued, and if we had suggested that I think the universities would-
Q325 Nicola Blackwood: One of the comments we received yesterday from the language schools and pathway colleges was that they are unhappy with the current situation, where if they have a student who has applied to them and they have offered them a place and that student is proceeding through the visa process, the colleges are not informed whether that student has been granted the visa or has failed the visa. They are not informed by UKBA when that student arrives in the UK, so they do not know until after 10 days of no appearance whether or not there is a problem with that student coming over, and I wonder if there is a way that communication could be tightened up, because that might help a bit.
Jeremy Oppenheim: We are very aware of it, and in the introduction of the points-based system there were a series of compromises we had to make based on cost to be able to have a system that allowed the sort of things that colleges and others want. Part of what the Minister had mentioned was the rollout of a 21st century piece of technology. Very much a part of the specification is to allow colleges and universities to have access to which visas have been issued and when they are actually used, so that is very much a part of what we want to do in the next 18 months.
Q326 Nicola Blackwood: Will that system have a special email address or phone number that students can call to alert UKBA if they have identified a bogus student?
Jeremy Oppenheim: We already have local immigration teams throughout the country with published telephone numbers who will take a call, and the Immigration Inquiry Bureau in Croydon would also take a call. They answered 81% of all the calls in the last week in January. So I think there are systems to allow individuals to report bogus students.
The other thing that will happen in this new system is that individuals will be able to track their own application. One of the great frustrations to date is that you cannot track online the progress of your application. We intend to make sure that is an integral part of our system from later this year onwards.
Chair: I have here the sheet-which I will give you, Minister-from Bellerbys College, which we visited yesterday, which shows the pathway from learning English all the way to university, and the success of those colleges. The point being that you come to England to learn English, just as Sir Andrew Green learned Arabic in Lebanon. The point of coming here is to get those language skills. I am sure that when you were at Balliol and President of the Union you met international students who wanted to come to Britain because they wanted to learn English and be part of the culture, and that is Dr Huppert’s question to you.
Q327 Dr Huppert: Thank you, Chair. We have had quite a lot of evidence highlighting benefits, internationally, from having good relations with countries who send students and from having former students in significant positions of power in those countries, and also the side benefits to other students, to universities and to research of having international students. Have you had conversations with colleagues in the Foreign Office and in BIS about those aspects to do with the consultation of what might happen afterwards, and what were they saying to you?
Damian Green: You are inviting me to repeat private conversations among Ministers-
Chair: Ministers will be coming in for us as well.
Damian Green: In which case, you can ask them. Yes. The short answer to your question of whether we have had conversations is yes, of course, and we are in constant conversation with colleagues across Whitehall, because clearly this has implications for other Departments as well, and everyone here will know there is a clearance system and the consultation is a Government consultation; it is not just a UKBA consultation, and the eventual policy will be a Government policy, not just a UKBA policy.
Q328 Chair: Since you are here, I was at York House last week as a witness in a visitor’s visa case, and there is a list at York House that has all the cases where Home Office presentation officers do not turn up at all. Has there been any progress in trying to get more of these officers turning up at immigration tribunals?
Damian Green: The short answer is yes, in that I share your concern. We may have discussed it previously in this forum that the UKBA should do better at presenting officers, and I do not know if you know the figure off the top of your head-
Q329 Chair: Do you know why a whole list had no presentation officers, having gone through the entire immigration system, if we want to keep people out of the country who are not genuine? Where do the Home Office presentation officers go?
Jeremy Oppenheim: I do not know the specific answer, but if it helps I can say that in some regions, including my own in Yorkshire Humber in the north-east, we achieve nearly 100%-and that does not mean 80%; it means nearly 100%-of representation in both asylum and temporary migration cases. The times we do not appear are often because we are either conceding the case or because we think the papers are strong enough for us not to need to have representation, and that is accepted by the tribunals.
Q330 Chair: Mr Oppenheim, in those cases would it not be a better idea to write to the appellant and tell them? Because I was sitting in a waiting room where there were 36 cases-people who had taken the entire day off-waiting for a case where there was no presentation officer.
Jeremy Oppenheim: We do it when we can, but it is often because the evidence provided by the appellant is provided extremely late. I am very happy to arrange to write to you about York House.
Q331 Chair: That would be great. The final question concerns timetable. You have said you had 31,000 responses; I am sure you are not going to read every one of them, Minister, because you will not have the time to do so. I have just had a letter back from the Home Secretary telling me that there are no firm dates for making an announcement. The Committee is obviously keen to conclude its report and assist the Government on this issue. Is that still the case? Her letter is only dated yesterday. There is no firm date for making an announcement?
Damian Green: Of course it is the case. The Home Secretary wrote this letter yesterday. I am not about to disagree with my boss.
Q332 Chair: What surprises me is that I heard this morning through a leak-and I am sorry to bring up the issue of leaks from the Home Office-that actually you have chosen 16 March as the date of the announcement. Is that simply not correct? Will there be no announcement on 16 March?
Damian Green: I am not saying there will be no announcement; I am simply saying there is no firm date.
Chair: Excellent. So 16 March is wrong.
Damian Green: Hang on, no. I would say there is no firm date, and I have participated in no conversations in which 16 March is mentioned.
Chair: Maybe your two officials could tell you, since they run the show in the Home Office.
Damian Green: No, they do not.
Chair: As officials, do we have a date?
Damian Green: No.
Chair: We have no date.
Damian Green: There is no firm date. That is what the Home Secretary said yesterday.
Chair: All right. 16 March is all we know as-
Damian Green: Could I say in response, I hope the Committee’s report will be a valuable contribution so the sooner it is produced clearly the better all around.
Chair: I think it is very helpful-we had a conversation with the Home Secretary about this-if the Committee is scrutinising, it is always better for the Government to have our report before it publishes its results, and we will work as fast as we possibly can.
Damian Green: Good.
Chair: Minister, Mr Williams, Mr Oppenheim, thank you very much indeed.
|
|
|
| ©Parliamentary copyright | Prepared 18th February 2011 |