House of Lords - International Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) students

International Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) students - Science and Technology Committee Contents

Chapter 3: Key Issues

Government policy objectives

41. The Government are committed to reducing levels of net migration. The Prime Minister, in a speech in March 2013, stated that: "net migration needs to come down radically from hundreds of thousands a year, to just tens of thousands."[65] At the same time, the Government have repeatedly stressed that they welcome international students and, moreover, have stated that: "it is realistic for numbers of international students in higher education to grow by 15-20% over the next five years."[66] These two policies are contradictory and highlight the conflicting policy objectives of different Government departments. The danger is that in trying to reduce net migration, there will be an, albeit unintended, impact on the recruitment of international students, which the Government say they wish to attract.

42. The Home Office is focused on reducing the net migration figures, which include international students, while the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is committed to growing the numbers of international students. The Royal Academy of Engineering was concerned that:

43. This tension could be resolved if international students were removed from the net migration figures. As shown in Table 1, net migration figures comprise the immigration of people from outside the EU, inside the EU and returning British nationals, minus the emigration of people from all of these categories. In 2012/13 non-EU immigration, including students stood at 244,000.

TABLE 1

Immigration, emigration and net migration

	2011/12	2012/13
Immigration	497,000	532,000
Non-EU immigration	269,000	244,000
EU immigration	149,000	209,000
British immigration	79,000	79,000
Emigration	343,000	320,000
Net migration	154,000	212,000

Source: Office for National Statistics.[68]

44. Students make up the majority of non-EU immigrants. In 2012/13 there were nearly 172,000 non-EU entrants to courses at publicly funded UK Higher Education Institutions,[69] although some of these students may have come to the UK in preceding years.

45. In our previous report, we considered in some detail the classification of international students as migrants (paragraphs 237-39) and recommended that: "the Government make a distinction in the immigration statistics between HE students and other immigrants and uses only the latter category to calculate net migration for policy-making purposes." This recommendation was not accepted by the Government.

46. We have not been alone in making such a recommendation. We are one of five House of Commons and Lords select committees to have made this recommendation. In January 2013, the chairs of the five committees wrote to the Prime Minster calling on the Government to remove international students from the net migration target and arguing that, "this degree of consensus between committees of both Houses is unprecedented."[70] We note that last month the number of committees to make this recommendation became six, as the House of Lords Select Committee on Soft Power and the UK's influence, chaired by Lord Howell of Guildford, recommended that the Government "should remove students from net migration targets, and publish data on how previous progress on migration targets would have looked had the Government not counted students in previous years. The Government must work harder to ensure that their efforts to cut migration by those who would not add to the UK's wellbeing do not prevent those whose presence would further the UK's domestic and international interests from seeing the UK as welcoming."[71]

47. The Government have consistently resisted removing students from net migration figures, explaining that they follow the United Nations' definition and stressing that all migrants, students included, will impact on public services:

48. Whilst we look forward to improvements to ONS methodology—it would be highly desirable if it were possible to have a better understanding of students' movements—we remain perplexed by the Home Office's stance. A more nuanced approach to immigration figures would support policies from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills aimed at attracting international students to the UK.

49. During this follow-up inquiry, we have been repeatedly told that the Government should remove international students from the net migration target. The British Council, which "supports the exchange and mobility of students, scholars and academics into and from the UK … plays a leading role in promoting UK HEIs to international students … and presents the UK as an attractive destination to prospective students,"[73] told us:

50. The Russell Group put it to us that:

51. Universities UK explained that: "We are not calling on government to cease reporting these figures to the UN, which they are obliged to do, but rather to exclude students from efforts to drive down net migration."[76] We agree with this view. Government policy is contradictory with policies and departments pulling in different directions. Students, who are generally temporary migrants—most return to their countries of origin soon after completing their studies—should be taken out of the immigration debate. We believe that it would be squarely in the Government's interest to adopt a more nuanced approach to the immigration statistics and as a result a more mature appreciation of how different migrants contribute to the UK.

52. The Government have argued consistently that they should follow the UN's definition of net migration when compiling immigration statistics and the net migration target. They have argued so in the past, however, against a background of rising numbers of international students choosing to study in the UK. This is no longer the case and there is evidence that prospective students are being deterred from coming to study in the UK due to the polarising and occasionally toxic debate over immigration in which international students are unjustly caught up.

53. We recommend that the Government distinguish in the immigration statistics and the net migration target between students—holding Tier 4 visas—and other immigrants. In addition, the Government should treat student numbers separately for immigration policy making purposes.

Tier 4 student visa requirements

54. As described in Chapter 2 of this report, during this Parliament there have been a number of changes to the immigration rules affecting international students. We received evidence that in some cases these changes are deterring international STEM students from applying to study the UK. We also heard from universities that in some cases immigration rules are preventing them from recruiting the best students, who then go on to study in competitor countries. This section of the report sets out some of the evidence we received about issues associated with the Tier 4 student visa requirements.

55. We heard concerns about the increasing costs of Tier 4 visas. The Engineering Professors' Council expressed concern that the costs of a Tier 4 visa are set to increase by 10% each year for the next two years.[77] Others pointed to the relatively high charges for visas in the UK[78] as illustrated in Table 2.

TABLE 2

Comparison of student visa fees in the UK and nine competitor countries

	Cost of basic international student visa[79]
Australia	£317 (AU$535)
UK	£298 (with an increase to £310 in April 2014)
US	£224 (Basic fee $160 and SEVIS administration fee $200)
Denmark	£188 (€224)
New Zealand	£141 (NZ$270)
France	£132 (€99[80] + €58 excise stamp fee)
Sweden	£96 (SEK 1,000)
Ireland	£84 (€100 multiple entry visa)
Canada	£74 (CAD$125)
Germany	£50 (€60)

Source: Russell Group.

56. In 2012, the Home Office introduced credibility interviews, which were intended to counter problems with bogus students. We heard concerns, however, that genuine students were also being adversely affected by such interviews, or were being deterred from applying. Million+ pointed to visas being refused on arbitrary grounds and suggested:

57. The National Union of Students told us that:

58. In 2011, the Government introduced the requirement that students applying for Tier 4 visas must show academic progression. This was intended to prevent students from "staying for years and years by changing courses, often without showing any tangible academic progress."[83] We heard, however, that this requirement was also causing problems for universities wishing to offer places to genuine students:

59. The UK Deans of Science also identified the academic progression rule as a problem, particularly in STEM subjects:

60. The University of Oxford told us:

61. In 2012, the Government introduced a five year limit on the length of a student visa, with exceptions for PhD and longer professional qualification courses. In their evidence, the Government stated that: "those studying the following STEM subjects: architecture; medicine; dentistry; veterinary medicine and science are exempted from the time limit on study." Despite this, we received some reports of problems with restrictions on the length of student visas.[87] The National Union of Students told us that: "Regardless of the length of their degree, Tier 4 visa holders were restricted to maximum five years of study with exceptions for some courses and PhD students. This significantly impacted students on courses in Scotland as their undergraduate courses are 4 years long, limiting access to many combined masters and postgraduate study."[88]

62. Another issue was that of international students being unable to interrupt their studies for medical or personal reasons without forfeiting their visa. Brunel University told us that as a result: "we have students here struggling to keep up… who really should be taking time out… we are very conscious that we cannot simply advise a student to take time out from their course as this could effectively end their studies here."[89] Cancer Research UK told us: "We believe that this presents an unfair disadvantage to international students and in particular, to females who would, in most instances, be required to leave the UK because of a pregnancy .…"[90]

63. In addition to problems with the immigration rules themselves, we also heard about problems with the way the rules are implemented and processes associated with the rules. We heard examples of cases where visas had been refused for seemingly trivial reasons. For example, Professor Rippon, from Aston University, told the Committee of a case where a visa was refused because a student had the correct funds in their bank account for 27 rather than 28 days.[91] Professor Riordan noted a similar issue with a student whose bank balance dipped £20 below the required level owing to a delayed bank transfer.[92]

64. After a visa has been granted, students may also experience problems. The National Union of Students told us of cases where students had to queue overnight to register with the police and questioned the criteria used to identify 'high risk' countries.[93] However, Professor Finkelstein, Dean of the Faculty of Engineering Sciences, University College London told us: "After the situation where there were appalling and chaotic scenes outside registration places in London, it has now been changed so that institutions handle the largest part of that responsibility. I am told that those problems are no longer as serious as they were."[94] Professor Fuller, Head of the Graduate School (Research and Innovation) at Plymouth University, told us:

65. In 2011, the Government introduced the requirement for sponsors of student visas to hold Highly Trusted Status. In 2012, London Metropolitan University had its license revoked. HEFCE noted that this occurred at the busiest point in the academic cycle and that it had a "damaging effect on the UK's reputation as a place of study for international students."[96] The British Council described "countering the negative international press coverage [of the case as] a real challenge."[97] The National Union of Students expressed concerns about how "revocation of an institution's highly trusted sponsor status is handled."[98]

66. The evidence we received suggested that universities may be fearful of being judged as non-compliant with the Highly Trusted Sponsor requirements:

67. We heard that some universities have therefore adopted extreme measures in order to ensure that they meet sponsor compliance requirements.[100] For example, the National Union of Students told us of cases where international PhD students were required to travel long distances to have their passport checked at a different campus or where international students had their fingerprints taken before each lecture to monitor attendance.[101]

68. We received evidence of problems with the Tier 4 immigration rules, the way in which the rules are implemented, and the processes associated with the rules. We recognise that the Government's intention is to target bogus students whilst continuing to attract high quality international students. We suggest, however, that there have been unintended consequences of some of the changes made to the Tier 4 visa rules and processes.

69. We recommend that the Home Office, together with BIS, take immediate steps to streamline the Tier 4 visa process, remove unnecessary obstacles and improve the experience for international students from the point of application to departure.

70. In particular, we recommend that the Government: bring the costs of applying for a Tier 4 visa in line with the UK's competitor countries; improve the training and guidance given to staff conducting credibility interviews; ensure that international students who need to interrupt their studies for personal or medical reasons are able to resume their studies afterwards; and ensure that their own rules for academic progression within the visa process do not inhibit legitimate transfers between courses for the purposes of gaining new skills.

71. We also recommend that universities adopt a proportionate approach to the management of the risks to their Trusted Sponsor status.

Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS)

72. The Academic Technology Approval Scheme[102] is a scheme designed to ensure that those applying for postgraduate study in certain sensitive subjects do not acquire knowledge that could potentially be used in Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes. The sensitive subjects listed cover a very wide range of different subject areas, from Botany to Artificial Intelligence.[103] We heard of significant concerns about the scheme:

104

73. Professor Sir Peter Gregson, Chief Executive and Vice-Chancellor, Cranfield University, told us about the difficulties that ATAS presented to his institution:

105

74. Similar views were widely reflected in the evidence we received. The University of Oxford pointed to: "delays of up to 30 days in the processing of ATAS applications, which meant that a few students were late starting their studies," and also called for greater transparency.[106] The University of Manchester told us that the problems in part resulted from the scheme being inadequately supported and staffed. Imperial College London expressed major concerns:

"We have seen increased complication and delay in this process, and this is an issue that has negatively impacted STEM providers across the sector. At Imperial there is a concern that we have lost some applicants as a result of the problems encountered."

75. Imperial noted that the Academic Registrars Council (ARC) has been in dialogue with ATAS representatives and has identified a number of key questions. These included the need for: clarification as to which subjects are covered by ATAS; improved turnaround times; and streamlining of the ATAS process.[107]

76. Whilst it is of course important to have an effective scheme in place for security purposes, it would seem that there are some problems with ATAS and it is not working well for significant actors in the STEM community. These concerns about the scheme are serious and worrying. ATAS is seemingly not always well understood, under-resourced, bureaucratic and inconsistent. Moreover, it may be resulting in some high quality applicants being lost and choosing to study elsewhere in the world.

77. We recommend that the Government immediately improve the design and operation of the Academic Technology Approval Scheme so that it is fit for purpose. We recommend that the scheme is better resourced, particularly for the period in the year when it is most in demand, streamlined and explained much more clearly to both universities and applicants.

Post Study Work Route (PSW)

78. In our previous inquiry, we received a good deal of evidence expressing concern about the closure of the post study work route (PSW) (paragraphs 226-27). The PSW visa gave international graduates the right to remain in the UK to work for up to two years after obtaining a UK degree.[108] After this time, a graduate would usually need to seek sponsorship from their employer for a Tier 2 visa.

79. In our previous inquiry, we were told that the PSW route was highly valued by international students as a way of gaining work experience before often returning to their countries of origin. In 2012, the PSW route was closed and replaced with more selective arrangements under Tier 2, notably making a job offer paying more than £20,000 a year a requirement for a visa. In addition, the period during which graduate level employment could be sought was cut from two years to a period of four months after course completion. In our previous inquiry, several witnesses suggested that this could make it much more difficult for talented international graduates of UK universities to enter the UK workforce. Moreover, at this time we heard that it may act as a deterrent in terms of prospective students deciding to come to the UK to study.

80. In 2012, the Home Office told us that the £20,000 threshold had been set following guidance from the Migration Advisory Committee. In our previous report we recommended that the Migration Advisory Committee review the £20,000 threshold and monitor the impact of the changes on both the number of graduates who stay on to work in the UK and on the number who decide not to study here. The Government, in their response, stated that they had asked the Migration Advisory Committee to review the Tier 2 Codes of Practice which set minimum appropriate pay rates by occupation above the general minimum level of £20,000. In addition, the Government stated that they would monitor the numbers switching from a Tier 4 student visa to Tier 2 on completion of their studies, noting, however, that it would be difficult to identify easily those students who had decided not to study in the UK because of the reforms to PSW as there were many reasons that international students considered when choosing where to study. As well as closely monitoring the impact of immigration reforms, the Government said that they would be looking closely at the experience of other countries and the measures they were taking to attract international students.

81. Against this background, we sought evidence in this follow-up inquiry on the PSW route. It was quickly apparent to us that it was a major issue. The National Union of Students, for example, told us that:

109

82. At the same time, we heard that the opportunity to work abroad for a period of time following graduation was highly valued by international students and influenced their decision on where to choose to study.[110]

83. There may be differences in how important the post study work arrangements are for prospective international students coming from different countries. Mr Williams, Director, Office for Life Sciences, BIS, suggested that:

111

84. The suspicion that the Indian sub-continent had been particularly affected was supported by the Engineering Professors' Council, who told us: "Students are often seeking to gain some work experience to go along with their investment in a UK education."[112] The Russell Group suggested that "one of the reasons for the fall in international student numbers from countries such as India is the reduction of the post-study work period from 2 years to 4 months."[113]

85. Professor Atkinson, CBE, FREng, Head of Department of Engineering, University of Leicester, Vice-President, Royal Academy of Engineering and Chair of the Standing Committee on Engineering and Training, and Immediate Past President, Engineering Professors' Council, offered further explanation. She suggested that Indian students were particularly affected as they were often self funding, taking out a personal loan to pay for their studies and that working in the UK after completing their studies enabled them to repay some of the loan and gain valuable experience. Professor Atkinson suggested students from other countries, in receipt of bursaries from their Government, or coming from prosperous families, would not be deterred in the same way:

114

86. Professor Atkinson noted that the undergraduate market had not been affected to the same extent because students were generally sponsored by their Governments or might come from more prosperous families: "…there is a strong view across the sector, particularly from those who are at the coalface of international recruitment, that [this is why] the removal of post-study work has had a big effect on postgraduate taught recruitment rather than the undergraduate cohort."[115]

87. We heard that the UK's post study work offer is no longer competitive against that of other countries. The Russell Group told us that the UK has: "one of the shortest post-study work periods for international students among key English-speaking and European markets."[116] Table 3 provides a comparison of post study work periods in the UK and seven competitor countries. It illustrates that the countries which compete with the UK for international students have much more flexible post study work policies.

TABLE 3

Comparison of post study work periods in the UK and seven competitor countries[117]

	Length of time	Restrictions/benefits
UK	4 months [from the end of the course][118]	Graduates can seek employment and work on a full-time temporary basis subject to usual student employment restrictions e.g. cannot be self-employed. PhD graduates can remain in the UK for 12 months under the Doctorate Extension Scheme with no restrictions on type of work.
Denmark	6 months with an option to extend for a further 6 months once only.	During the 6 month period post-study, graduates can seek employment and work up to 15 hours a week, as well as full-time during the months of June, July and August.
Ireland (Graduate employment scheme)	12 months	Graduates can work up to 40 hours a week under student visa arrangements and/or seek employment and apply for further permission to remain.
France	12 months	Masters graduates or above can work in any salaried job for up to 60% of the official work week.
Germany	18 months	No limit on number of hours that can be worked during this period.
US (optional Practical Training)	12 months / 29 months for STEM graduates.	Under Optional Practical Training, a graduate can undertake temporary work related to their major or course of study. Available to Bachelors, Masters graduates and above, with the option to undertake another 12 months following a further level of study.
Canada (Post-Graduation Work Permit Programme)	Between 8 months and 3 years dependent on duration of course studied.	Must have studied on a programme longer than 8 months on a full time basis. Some restrictions for those who have received scholarship funding.
Australia (Graduate Work Stream and Post-Study Work Stream)	Between 18 months and 4 years dependent on visa stream and length of study.	Under the Graduate Work Stream, graduates with skills and qualifications that relate to an occupation on the Skilled Occupation List are granted a visa for 18 months. Under the Post-Study Work Stream, a graduate must have studied for at least 2 years. The visa lasts for two to four years, depending on qualification obtained: 2 years for an undergraduate or postgraduate taught, 3 years for postgraduate research, 4 years for a doctorate. Both visas allow travel, work and/or study.

88. For example, we heard about the flexibility of post study work arrangements in the USA where students:

119

89. We heard that the removal of the PSW visa is causing problems for employers. Mr Lockett, Pro-Dean, Faculty of Engineering, Science and the Built Environment, London South Bank University, explained how the new system differed from the previous PSW and the bureaucratic burden had been increased:

120

90. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation told us that their members: "report that STEM graduates—many with shortage skills in high demand—are finding it very difficult to pursue post-study employment in the UK."[121] Mr Thomas, Head of Employment and Skills Policy, EEF (the manufacturers' organisation, formerly the Engineering Employers' Federation), told us that the four month period caused difficulties for employers, specifically on account of the need to obtain a sponsorship license.[122] Employers wishing to employ non-EEA graduates need a sponsorship license. The types of job that the employer offers must be classified as a graduate level job. UKVI (UK Visas and Immigration, formerly the UK Border Agency) provides a 144 page guidance document for businesses wishing to apply for licenses to sponsor Tier 2 or Tier 5 visas.[123] UKVI state that eight out of ten applications are dealt with in less than eight weeks.[124]

91. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation note that: "it is extremely difficult to convince employers to sponsor [students] through Tier 2, given the cost, complexity and uncertainty of the process."[125] EEF told us that whilst large companies with substantial resources and knowledge of the immigration system might deem four months to be a satisfactory period of time to get sponsorship, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) would struggle much more:

126

92. Mr Thomas, EEF, told us that business found "navigating the immigration system costly, painful and expensive" and that "the impression that they have from navigating the system and the inspections is one again of guilty until proven innocent."[127]

93. Sir Andrew Witty, Chancellor of the University of Nottingham and Chief Executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), told us that the new arrangements were:

128

94. Mr Thomas told us that around 70% of EEF's members had taken external advice on the immigration system and that this was necessary "to have any realistic chance of navigating this system … which adds substantially to the cost of the exercise …" He considered, "it must be baffling to anyone who does not have a fair degree of existing knowledge."[129] The Engineering Professors Council told us: "The change in policy regarding the requirement for company sponsorship to remain in the UK after studies on a Tier 2 visa, rather than an automatic 1 year visa extension, while theoretically straightforward, companies seem reluctant to do the paperwork."[130] Meanwhile EEF called on government to make it simpler for manufacturers to recruit non-EEA students and pointed to the results of their recent survey showing:

131

95. The Confederation of British Industry called for customer service, communications and processing times for sponsorship licenses to be improved:

132

96. The Government maintained that: "it is also easy for businesses to become a Tier 2 sponsor if they are not already—they can apply online in 30 minutes. We do recognise, however, the importance of highly skilled, highly trained international graduates to STEM employers and we are in conversation with businesses from those sectors on how we might improve the system further."[133]

97. A large volume of evidence urged the Government to review the post study work arrangements and increase the length of time available to students to seek work. Professor Colin Riordan, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cardiff, Chair of Universities UK's International Policy Network and Chair of the UK Higher Education International Unit, put it to us that:

134

98. Sir Andrew Witty, Chancellor of the University of Nottingham and Chief Executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), argued that four months was an inadequate amount of time and that students should have a year's grace:

135

99. Sir Andrew Witty[136] and Professor Gelenbe, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London and member of the UK Computing Research Committee, both expressed concern that the four month period was distracting students from their studies:

137

100. It is also notable that the four month period begins from the end of the course rather than when results are published.[138] This may cause difficulties as employers may wish to be clear about actual rather than putative qualifications.

101. In addition to reported difficulties with the post study work period, we also heard about problems with the minimum salary requirements. To qualify for a Tier 2 visa, students must secure a job with a minimum salary of at least £20,300 per annum. Universities UK explained that, whilst the minimum salary was £20,300:

139

102. Professor Rippon, Pro Vice-Chancellor for International Relations, Aston University, told us that the minimum salary requirements caused a significant problem for their graduates in subjects allied to medicine.

140

103. The Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences at the University of Manchester also raised concerns about the Tier 2 threshold of £20,300. They told us that in 2013/14:

141

104. The Confederation of British Industry suggested to us, however, that the minimum salary should not cause significant difficulties across STEM as a whole: "the minimum salary level should not cause significant difficulties in STEM sectors, given STEM graduates have higher earnings on average than non-STEM graduates."[142] We suggest that the evidence we received casts doubt on this assertion.

105. Following the closure of the PSW route, the Government have introduced measures to allow international STEM graduates to stay and work in the UK. As described in Chapter 2, these include the Graduate Entrepreneur scheme, the Doctorate Extension Scheme and provision to switch to Tier 5.[143]

106. The evidence we received, however, indicated some scepticism about the success of these measures. Universities UK expressed concern about the administrative burden placed on universities, who are required to sponsor graduates on the Doctorate Extension Scheme and were: "unclear as to the purpose or benefits of such continued sponsorship arrangements."[144] EEF told us that although the Government have made it easier for graduate entrepreneurs to switch to Tier 2 or Tier 5 "we do not see this having any real impact on manufacturers' ability to fill their vacancies."[145] The University of Manchester described the Tier 5 route as "unpopular with both our students and employers … We are not familiar with any students actually taking a Tier 5 experience at Manchester."[146] Aston University indicated that there could be challenges in finding organisations which would act as sponsors. [147]

107. Sir Andrew Witty suggested that the entrepreneurial exemption "… seems to be more and more complexity to address what I think is a pretty simple problem: just giving people the breathing space and the confidence to let them finish their course successfully, and then engage with the jobs market …"[148] He suggested that: "From a personal perspective and from a GSK perspective, we would always favour a simple solution to the identified problem, rather than complex ways to chip away at the problem."

108. It is not clear to us that the various measures introduced by the Government compensate for the simplicity and attractiveness of the previous PSW. We also note that Migration Watch UK do not perceive any significant immigration risk in reinstating the PSW for STEM students.

149

150

109. In conclusion, it is clear to us that the closure of the previous post study work route has had a deleterious effect on international students. Four months is too short a post study work period and it is at least questionable whether £20,300 is an appropriate figure across all STEM disciplines. It is also unclear how this figure was arrived at. The previous post study work route was simple and competitive; current arrangements are far less so.

110. We therefore recommend that the Government immediately reinstate the previous post study work route as it was simple, competitive and effectively enabled qualified STEM students access to the UK jobs market. If the Government do not agree with this recommendation they should explain why this is the case to Parliament and, within current arrangements, at least review the appropriateness of the £20,300 starting salary figure across all STEM disciplines and the length of time afforded to STEM graduates to seek work in the UK. The review should be completed by autumn 2014 and a report to Parliament published.

Taught Masters

111. In our previous report (paragraphs 240-51), we noted a potential compound effect of policy reforms on the provision of taught Masters courses in the UK. We observed that the new higher fees regime, combined with a lack of student finance, could deter UK students from taking taught Masters courses, whilst changes to immigration rules could deter international students. We also noted that by the time the effect is quantified and analysed it may be too late to take remedial action. We called on the Government to set up an expert group to consider the supply and demand for postgraduate provision. The Government declined to establish a group to undertake this function. The Government instead told us that HEFCE's work, involving stakeholders, would be sufficient to "identify any potential mismatch between supply and demand for postgraduate provision, including in STEM disciplines."[151]

112. In their submission to this follow-up inquiry, HEFCE told us that: "The past decade has seen increasing numbers of EU and overseas students, particularly at taught Masters level, and we aim to monitor the risks and opportunities arising from this."[152] HEFCE also noted that since 2010/11 there had been a 3% decline in the total number of new students taking postgraduate taught courses in all subjects, but a larger 20% decline in the number of new students taking postgraduate taught courses in STEM subjects. Figure 2 in Chapter 2 of this report provides further information on the changes in numbers of postgraduate taught students. Despite these changes, in their evidence to this inquiry, HEFCE reported that they were:

153

113. HEFCE noted an apparent reliance on international students in some subjects, particularly at the Masters level. They did not consider any subject area to be at immediate risk at the national level, but noted the need for continued monitoring.

114. Nonetheless, during this inquiry, we heard that postgraduate taught (PGT) courses in some STEM subjects were vulnerable to declining international student numbers. The Science Council expressed ongoing concerns that the combined effects of the withdrawal of funding together with negative perceptions of current immigration policies: "threatens the sustainability of many postgraduate courses …" and that this would also impact on UK students.[154] The British Council warned that:

155

115. The University of Leicester suggested that postgraduate taught courses had been particularly severely affected because:

156

116. Whilst universities are able to respond to a changing market and are free to determine which courses they offer, we heard that declining numbers of international students risked making the provision of some STEM courses unviable. At a national level, nearly half of all students on computer sciences and engineering and technology postgraduate taught courses are international students.[157] Professor Atkinson noted that falling international student numbers on postgraduate taught courses was bound to affect the financial situation of university departments.[158] Mr Bradley from the University of Manchester told us that whilst in the short term falling numbers of international student numbers were not threatening the viability of courses: "we would not be running many of our postgraduate taught master's courses if it was not for the international students that we have on the courses. That is pretty much the case for virtually all our STEM subjects, with one or two exceptions."[159] Imperial College did not report problems with recruitment of international students, but noted that up to one-third of their Masters courses were reliant on international students to remain economically viable. Meanwhile, we learnt that Aston University had seen a 70% fall in numbers of taught postgraduate international students since 2009.[160] Brunel University told us that falling overseas numbers could jeopardise important courses for domestic/EU students:

161

117. We heard that taught Masters courses in certain STEM subjects were particularly vulnerable to declining international student numbers:

162

118. The Institution of Chemical Engineers suggested that the quality of chemical engineering courses could be threatened by a reduction in the numbers of international students and the corresponding loss of revenue. Professor Atkinson, Leicester University, pointed out that:

163

As the British Council told us, UK universities also rely on their postgraduate taught programmes to support their research programmes.[164]

119. It is clear from the evidence that international students often make up a high proportion of students enrolled on STEM taught Masters courses. In some subject areas and at some institutions this can be more than half of the students enrolled on a course. The evidence suggested that postgraduate taught courses are particularly vulnerable to changing market conditions and are threatened not only by changes to immigration rules, but also by changes to funding, fees and student finance. Taught Masters are important to the health of research at UK universities and also to UK employers seeking to recruit skilled STEM professionals. Employers need a training pipeline equipped to supply these skilled professionals.

120. We recommend that BIS immediately establishes a working group to review the impact of actual, and potential, reductions in the numbers of international students on the provision, sustainability and quality of taught Masters courses in STEM subjects in the UK. BIS should ensure that UK and international students continue to have access to taught Masters courses in order to meet the needs of the industrial strategy, health strategy and wider national interests. This working group should include representation from HEFCE, industry and the Higher Education sector. The group should report by autumn 2014 and publish its findings openly.

Policy Stability

121. As set out in Chapter 2, there has been a great deal of change in immigration policy over recent years. We were told that frequent changes to the rules and the lack of stability were making it difficult for institutions and students to keep abreast of the latest developments and plan accordingly. The British Council told us that:

165

122. Sir Andrew Witty, Chancellor of the University of Nottingham and Chief Executive of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), put it to us that:

166

123. Professor West, Vice-Chancellor, University of West England, and Chair of Universities UK's Health Policy Network, put it in the following terms:

167

124. Professor Atkinson stressed how difficult it was for students and academics alike to keep track of the rules.[168] The NUS told us that: "International students have no certainty if the rules will change during the duration of their studies."[169] We heard that shifting rules had 'moved the goalposts' and had a serious impact on students' education. When changes to immigration rules are made part way through a student's course, this can have a major impact on individuals or groups of students. The evidence we received contained several examples of such cases, three of which are provided in Boxes 2 and 3 as illustrative case studies.

BOX 2

The impact of changing immigration rules

Changes in immigration rules can have major impacts on students who are part way through a course when the change takes place. For example, we heard about:

"A group of students studying a RIBA accredited Architecture course was unable to complete the course as part of the requirement was achieving a number of hours work experience which were to occur at the end of teaching. The course was designed while the post-study work visa was in place, and students were provided with work experience after successfully applying for the PSW. When the PSW scheme was removed and applied to students who were part-way through studying, these students could no longer complete the required hours for the RIBA accredited course. They are still appealing the decision."[170]

We also received an individual account from a student affected by this change, who told us: "It has been my experience that the mechanisms that are currently in place are not efficiently or effectively communicating the rules to all of the stakeholders, be it prospective international students, universities and accrediting organizations."[171]

BOX 3

The impact of changing immigration rules

If not properly managed, changes to immigration rules can have very significant impacts on individuals. We heard about the case of a Canadian medical student, training in the UK: "… in September 2004, I began my undergraduate medical education at King's College, University of London… At this time, I was assured by the University that if I were to complete my full undergraduate medical education in the UK, I would always have the same training and employment opportunities as any UK medical graduate throughout my career."

After eight years studying in the UK, however, this student was advised to take time out to complete the Canadian Medical Board examinations to allow her to practice in Canada, should she ever wish to do so: "However, what was unclear to both the advisors … and to myself at this time was that the UK would change its immigration policies in 2013. Upon submitting my application for specialty training in December 2012, I was informed that I was no longer eligible to apply as a result of my leave of absence … The result of this change in immigration policy is that I am now treated as a 'foreign medical graduate' in every country around the globe, including in my own home country, Canada. This has made my job prospects as a doctor very difficult, despite my passion for clinical medicine … I own an apartment in London and have a large network of friends and professional contacts in the UK. In essence, I have built a life and a career in this country over the last ten years and feel very much a part of my community. It has been devastating to learn that I am no longer able to continue my training as a doctor within the NHS and to continue my life in this country."[172]

125. We also heard that the introduction of new rules part way through a recruitment cycle caused problems for universities as well as for students.[173] The University of Oxford noted the lead in time for marketing and publicising courses:

174

The University of Manchester called for "time for implementation [to be] built into any future plans for change."[175]

126. There are currently more changes planned in the Immigration Bill, currently before Parliament. The Immigration Bill impacts on international students in three principal ways: the introduction of a health surcharge for non-EEA temporary migrants; the removal of the right to appeal; and the introduction of a requirement for private landlords to check the immigration status of their prospective tenants.

127. A great deal of evidence expressed concerns about the impact of the Bill on international students. It was put to us that the Bill would exacerbate the perception that the UK does not welcome international students. The Government maintain that they "do not believe these measures will have any adverse impact on genuine international students studying STEM subjects at our universities."[176] As set out in the introduction, we do not intend in this report to provide a parallel forum for detailed scrutiny of the Bill. We note, however, that the provisions in the Bill herald yet more change.

128. We recommend that the Government aim to achieve far greater policy stability in this area. We do not believe that the Government should rule out making any changes altogether, indeed, we invite the Government in this report to change several elements of current policy. A policy priority, however, must be the creation of a simpler, more stable and predictable policy environment. If further changes are to be made, we recommend that they are not introduced part way through an admissions cycle, and that both institutions and students are given adequate warning and time to absorb and implement policy changes.

Perception and Communication

129. As set out in Chapter 2, a perception has grown that the UK is not welcoming to international students. As we argue elsewhere in this report, we do not think that the UK's offer is as strong as it could be, and that it has deteriorated in recent years due principally to the closure of the post study work route. As such, we would question the wisdom that the notion of an unwelcoming UK is merely a matter of perception, or rather, misperception. Nevertheless, we believe that the UK's offer is still a good one. Unfortunately, however, it seems as though a negative message has been allowed to develop. Ever tougher rhetoric on immigration has fed a suspicion that the UK is not welcoming and media outlets in foreign countries have filed lurid and misleading copy.

130. The Government told us about their efforts to address the problem of perception. The Minister for Security and Immigration, James Brokenshire MP, explained that:

177

131. The Minister for Universities and Science, Rt Hon David Willetts MP, noted efforts to address the situation in India, conceding that more needed to be done:

178

132. Universities are clearly also working hard to recruit international students:

179

133. We heard of a huge amount of determination from universities to rise to the challenge of international recruitment. Professor Allison, Vice-Chancellor and President, Loughborough University, told us: "whatever the nature of the challenge around recruiting overseas students, our approach is that we will sort it out."[180] At the same time, however, we heard that universities needed a conducive environment in which to operate: "We have put very focused investment into an international office, marketing, recruitment activities and all the rest of it. We are aiming at increasing the proportion of international students to 20% over the next three or four years, which ought to be perfectly doable. The issue, then, is that we really want a fair wind for that. We would like the support for that, essentially."[181]

134. We also heard that the British Council plays a pivotal role in getting across the message that the UK welcomes international students.[182] We applaud their work and believe that this is an important vehicle for getting across key messages to prospective international students. The British Council is clearly the appropriate body to carry out this task and we fully support their efforts. We make no specific recommendation in his regard, except to say that if the messages we transmit in this report are heeded and the recommendations we make agreed, then a consequence will be that the British Council's job is made easier. Indeed, the British Council's evidence to this Committee points to this.

135. As Professor Finkelstein, Dean of the Faculty of Engineering Sciences, University College London, put it to us, however, the welcome for students begins "from the moment they google UK Visa".[183] The British Council told us:

184

136. We recommend that the Government improve the way in which information is provided to prospective students via both Government websites and all sources of information over which they have control. The Government should take steps to ensure that the language used is clear and that a welcoming, consistent message is conveyed across the whole of Government.

Monitoring and Evaluation

137. We conclude this report by emphasising the importance of monitoring and evaluation in order to drive evidence based policy making. We accept that understanding the motivations of young people in India is difficult. But too often in this inquiry, we have been left with the impression that monitoring the impact of policies is not as rigorous or granular as it might be. In our previous report, we considered this issue and do so again briefly here.

138. The Government told us that they: "regularly review the impact of our policies through monitoring the available data and frequent meetings with key stakeholders and partners." They referred to the Home Office's quarterly publication of data on visa statistics and how the publication of Tier 4 visa statistics has been "improved to now give information on university sponsored applications."[185] In addition, HESA collects and publishes data on the Higher Education Sector, which includes "data about the number of non-EEA students at UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), by level of course, subject matter and by institution."[186] These data are used in Figures 1 to 4 of this report.

139. In addition, the Government told us that:

187

140. In spite of these mechanisms, we were told that monitoring and evaluation could be improved. The British Council stated:

188

141. The Engineering Professors' Council said that while there was sufficient data at individual university level, sector level data—collected by HESA from the publicly funded HEIs—was not available quickly enough to enable sound policy making:

189

142. Similarly, Imperial College London, noted that: "UK-wide data is published with such a large time-lag that it is not useful in enabling the sector as a whole to respond effectively to the impact of changes."[190] HESA has a statutory obligation to collect data from HEIs and provide it to Government Departments and Higher Education Funding Councils throughout the UK. The terms of the agreement between HESA and these bodies might be reviewed to enable the statistics on international STEM students to be published more quickly. In addition, HESA is sponsored by HEIs who could therefore be instrumental in eliciting more timely publication of the HESA statistics.

143. The UK Deans of Science told us that:

191

144. We acknowledge that the sort of analysis recommended by the UK Deans of Science would not be without complexity. Nevertheless, given the importance of international students to the UK, and the Government's wish for numbers of international students in higher education to grow by 15-20% over the next five years, it must be incumbent on the Government to improve dramatically their monitoring, evaluation and analysis of the effects of their immigration policies on international students. The current availability of data makes it virtually impossible to address problems as they arise.

145. In the context of the four month post study work period, we questioned the Government on the supporting evidence for choosing this period of time. This resulted in a somewhat cyclical dialogue. The Minister for Immigration and Security, James Brokenshire MP, queried whether there was hard evidence that four months was insufficient and he described the evidence we had taken as "assertion".[192] Equally, however, when he was invited to provide evidence that four months was sufficient, he told us: " I have certainly not seen firm evidence that it is either harmful or making a contribution."[193] We suspect that the evidence underpinning the Home Office's policy-making is not as robust as it might be.

146. Data are available on total immigration, numbers of CAS sponsored visa applications and numbers of international entrants at publicly funded Higher Education Institutions. The Government has also indicated that improvements will be made to ONS methodology so that is will be possible to determine how many students leave the UK following their studies.[194] It is not, however, apparent that the available data are collated and analysed in a meaningful way, which would allow the impact of immigration policies, or other influencing factors, to be determined. The Government may also need to make increased efforts to collate and analyse the data available on the immigration of international STEM students to other, competitor countries.

147. In conclusion, unfortunately, it seems as though the step change we sought in our previous report in the area of data and analysis has not been achieved. Too often, concerns about the impacts of immigration policy are described as being merely anecdotal or speculative—lacking hard evidence. The Government should help to remedy this by vastly improving monitoring and evaluation practices. The Government insist that immigration reforms are not affecting international students, but we are sceptical as to the basis for their certainty, both because of the evidence we took, and because of the absence of granular or causal data collected by the Government.

148. We recommend that the Government, in partnership with Higher Education Institutions and the Higher Education Funding Councils, improve markedly their monitoring and evaluation of the effects of their immigration policies on international students. Data should be made available far more quickly, thus enabling the Government to make timely policy responses as appropriate. Furthermore, it is essential that the Government put in place an ongoing monitoring and evaluation mechanism to determine the impact of their policies and underpin future decision making. Monitoring and evaluation processes should be embedded in the policy making process and findings should be routinely published in the biennial review we recommend.

65 Speech on immigration and welfare reform. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/david-camerons-immigration-speech. Back

66 HM Government (2013) International Education: Global Growth and Prosperity. Back

67 Royal Academy of Engineering. Back

68 ONS (2014) Migration Statistics Quarterly Report. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_352080.pdf. Back

69 Government supplementary written evidence. Back

70 The Committees are: the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs, The Work of the UK Border Agency (December 2011-March 2012), 16 July 2012 and The Work of the UK Border Agency (April-June 2012), 31 October 2012; the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Accounts, Immigration: The Points Based System-Student Route, 12 July 2012; the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Higher Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects, 17 July 2012; House of Commons Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, Overseas Students and Net Migration, 4 September 2012; and the House of Lords European Union Sub-Committee F: Home Affairs, Health and Education, The EU's Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, 18 December 2012. The letter to the Prime Minister of 30 January 2013 can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/business-innovation-and-skills/Letter%20to%20the%20PM%2020130130.pdf. Back

71 Select Committee on Soft Power and the UK's Influence, Persuasion and Power in the Modern World, 28 March 2014, paragraph 235 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldsoftpower/150/150.pdf. Back

72 Supplementary evidence from the Home Office to the House of Lords Committee on Soft Power and the UK's influence. Available online: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/soft-power-uk-influence/SoftPowerEvVol1-as-of-12March.pdf. Back

73 British Council. Back

74 British Council. Back

75 Russell Group. Back

76 Universities UK. Back