Chapter 4: Summary of conclusions and
recommendations
Interpreting the data: Influencing
factors
149. We therefore recommend that
every two years the Government review comprehensively the experience
offered to international students by the immigration process and
assess how the rules—specifically in terms of entry and
the ability of students to stay and work in the UK after completion
of their studies—compare with the UK's competitors. The
Government should publish a report to Parliament setting out in
full their evidence base, analysis and findings of the review.
(paragraph 39)
Government policy objectives
150. 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. (paragraph 53)
Tier 4 student visa requirements
151. 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. (paragraph 69)
152. 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.
(paragraph 70)
153. We also recommend that universities
adopt a proportionate approach to the management of the risks
to their Trusted Sponsor status (paragraph 71)
Academic Technology Approval
Scheme (ATAS)
154. 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. (paragraph 77)
Post Study Work Route (PSW)
155. 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. (paragraph 109)
156. 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. (paragraph 110)
Taught Masters
157. 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. (paragraph 120)
Policy Stability
158. 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. (paragraph 128)
Perception and communication
159. 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.
(paragraph 136)
Monitoring and evaluation
160. 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. (paragraph 148)
| 
