Student Visas
12:37:00
(Glasgow North West)
(SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home
Department to make a statement on the changes to the student visa
route.
The Minister for Immigration ()
Net migration is too high, and the Government are committed to
bringing it down to sustainable levels. The most recent official
statistics estimated that net migration in the year to June 2022
was at 504,000. This is partly due to temporary and exceptional
factors such as the UK’s Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes. Last
year, more than 200,000 Ukrainians and 150,000 Hong Kong British
nationals overseas made use of the routes to life or time in the
United Kingdom. Those schemes command broad support from the
British public, and we were right to introduce them.
The Government introduced a points-based system in
2020 to regain control of our borders post Brexit. We now need to
decide who comes to the UK and operate a system that can flex to
the changing needs of the labour market, such as the skills needs
of the NHS. However, immigration is dynamic, and we must adapt to
take account of changing behaviours and if there is evidence of
abuse. The number of dependants arriving alongside international
students has risen more than eightfold since 2019, from 16,000 in
the year to December 2019 to 136,000 in the year ending December
2022. Dependants of students make a more limited contribution to
the economy than students or those coming under the skilled
worker route, but more fundamentally, our system was not designed
for such large numbers of people coming here in this
manner.
Yesterday, we introduced a package of measures to
help deliver our goal of reducing net migration. The package
includes removing the right for international students to bring
dependants unless they are on research postgraduate courses and
removing the ability for international students to switch out of
the student route into work routes before their studies have been
completed. This is the right and fair thing to do. It ensures we
protect our public services and housing supply against undue
pressure and we deliver on the promises we have made to the
public to reduce net migration.
Our education institutions are world-renowned, and
for good reason, and the Government remain committed to the
commitments in the international education strategy, including
the goal of 600,000 international students coming to the United
Kingdom each year. But universities should be in the education
business, not the immigration business. We are taking concerted
action to deliver a fair and effective immigration system that
benefits our citizens, our businesses and our economy. We are
determined to get this right because it is demonstrably in the
national interest.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and
while I thank the Minister for his response, it is disappointing
that the Home Secretary is not here, and that we have had to ask
an urgent question rather than a statement being made to the
House.
International students make an invaluable
contribution to our economy. According to the Higher Education
Policy Institute, last year they provided nearly £43 billion to
the UK economy, and in my constituency of Glasgow North West
alone the economic benefit was over £83 million. What assessments
have been carried out of the economic impact of this change on
the university sector, and on university towns? International
students enrich our society and have skills that are proving ever
more vital in this post-Brexit climate, which has seen the UK
deprived of workers across key sectors. There are currently
labour shortages in healthcare, STEM—science, technology,
engineering and maths—and IT to name but a few sectors; how can
the Minister fail to recognise that this policy will simply
exacerbate these?
The reality is that many students coming to the UK
look beyond their studies and want their families to be part of
that experience. Without a way for overseas students to bring
their families, many will opt to go elsewhere, and any drop in
international student numbers will cause further harm to
universities that are already facing financial difficulties. This
policy makes the Home Secretary’s agenda crystal-clear: she is
launching an attack on migrants regardless of the benefits they
bring to the UK, and in pursuing this short-term reactionary
programme international students are being caught in the
crossfire.
In Scotland international students’ contribution to
university campuses and our wider society is celebrated, but
Scotland will suffer the consequences of this misjudged policy.
Once again this is indicative of how out of tune this
Conservative Government are with the Scottish people. If the
Government are insistent in pursuing their hostile environment,
will they now accept that Scotland’s needs, and wants, are
different from theirs?
Finally, will the Government now devolve
immigration powers to the Scottish Parliament, to allow us to
choose a way that benefits our communities and society?
No, we will not devolve immigration policy to the Scottish
Government: it is right that the UK benefits from one immigration
policy and that is the way it will always continue to be under
this Conservative Government.
I am afraid that the hon. Lady was misguided on a
number of fronts. First, it was this Government who created the
international education strategy, which set a target of
attracting 600,000 international students to the UK. We have met
that target 10 years early and are likely to exceed it this year.
The action we are taking today does not take away from that goal:
it ensures that there are no unintended consequences.
It was never the intention of that policy to enable a very large
number of dependants to come to the UK with those students. It is
right that universities attract the best and the brightest and
that those who are on longer courses, such as PhDs or MPhils, can
bring dependants with them, but it is not right that education is
a back door for immigration into the country.
The statistics I quoted earlier show the
significant increases in the number of student dependants. In
2019, 16,000 visas were issued to student dependants. Last year,
the number was 136,000—an increase of eight and a half times. In
2019, for every 10 Indian students, there was one visa issued to
a dependant. Last year, that doubled to one in five. For Nigerian
students studying in this country, 65,000 dependant visas were
issued in 2022 to only 59,000 students.
We do not want to do anything that would harm the
international reputation of our universities, but it is right
that we pay particular concern to pressure on housing supply and
public services, to integration and community cohesion and to
making good on our commitment to the British public that we will
bring down net migration, which is what the vast majority of the
public want to see done.
(Wokingham) (Con)
When we invite people to our country, it is important that there
is good provision of housing, school places and healthcare, but
there are huge stresses on the system. Can the Minister give the
House some guidance on how much the capital and revenue set-up
cost is for a migrant family coming in? When we were in the EU
some time ago, it reckoned the cost was €250,000 for a migrant
coming to an advanced country.
Obviously that cost varies widely depending on the country of
origin and the skills of those individuals. The points-based
system is set up in such a way as to encourage higher-skilled
individuals to come to the UK for work purposes, but my right
hon. Friend is right to say that it is a relatively accessible
system, and that has meant large numbers of people entering the
UK for a range of different reasons in recent years. We should be
acutely concerned about the pressures that is putting on housing
supply, public services and integration, particularly in those
parts of the country with heated housing markets, such as the one
he represents. That is why it is right that we take action of the
kind we are taking today.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Minister.
(Aberavon) (Lab)
International students are much-valued contributors to our
world-class higher education system, which is a great asset to
our country. We and Universities UK recognise that a tenfold
increase in the number of dependants joining students in the UK
since 2018 creates significant challenges and that enforcement
measures are long overdue. Therefore, as the Leader of the
Opposition has made clear, our entire Front-Bench team does not
oppose these changes for masters students.
However, as usual, the Government have failed to
deliver an impact assessment for the new rules and have left many
of the details vague. How many people will this change affect, in
terms of both students and dependants? What will the actual
impact be on the numbers? The Office for National Statistics
defines an immigrant as somebody who has been here for more than
a year or who is coming for more than a year, yet masters
students are typically here for less than a year.
What is clear is that dependants of students are
only a fraction of the story. In their 2019 manifesto, the
Conservatives acknowledged that the Brexit vote was a bid to take
back control of immigration, but since then net migration has
skyrocketed from 226,000 to 500,000, which is a record high even
if we exclude Ukrainians and Hongkongers. The number of work
visas has increased by a staggering 95%. We are clear that that
has happened because for 13 years, the Conservatives have failed
to train up Britain’s home-grown talent to fill the vacancies we
have and because there are 6 million people on NHS waiting lists
in England alone, most of whom wish to return to the
workforce.
We want and expect net immigration to reduce, and
we have set out plans for how we will get more of Britain’s
workers trained up and back to work. Today, the Leader of the
Opposition has announced that we will ditch the flawed Government
policy that allows businesses to undercut British workers by
paying migrant workers 20% less in sectors assigned to the
shortage occupation list. Will the Minister commit to scrapping
the 20% wage discount on the going rate for shortage occupations?
Nothing could be clearer: the Conservatives have lost control of
immigration. We are committed on the Opposition Benches to
maximising opportunities for Britain’s home-grown talent.
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has had a
damascene conversion to tighter border controls. Unfortunately, I
do not think the British public will believe that. It is the same
old Labour party—the party that has always believed in open
borders. Its own leader campaigned for the leadership of the
Labour party saying that he wanted to defend free movement. Only
the other day, the chairwoman of the Labour party, the hon.
Member for Oxford East (), said that she expected
migration to rise under a future Labour Government. It is the
same flip-flopping approach—and the same open door policy.
We want to ensure that we bring net migration down.
We consider that to be a solemn promise to the British public,
and an important manifesto commitment. This is a significant
policy, which I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman support, that
will make a tangible difference on this issue. It will reduce
very substantially the number of people coming into the country
as dependants, but there might be more that needs to be done. We
are determined to tackle this issue and to ensure that we bring
net migration down.
(Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Minister is doing a difficult job very well. He has set out
the context, and it is notable that the Opposition spokesperson
shares that analysis. However, most students are temporary
visitors, yet many of them are counted as permanent immigrants.
Has my right hon. Friend considered changing the definition to
include in the count only those who stay?
I respect my right hon. Friend and his deep knowledge of this
area, but I do not think it is helpful to change the way in which
the statistics are reported. I do think that we have to consider
the fact that anyone coming into this country will place pressure
on our housing supply and on public services, particularly if
they are bringing dependants, including young children or elderly
relatives, into the UK. In the present climate, in which there is
significant pressure on public services and significant pressure
on housing, particularly in certain parts of the country, that is
extremely important.
We have seen, historically, that the vast majority
of students leave the country and go back to their home country
to continue their careers and lives. It is too early to say
whether the graduate route will make a material difference to
that. It may be, if individuals come to the UK to study and then
spend a period of time here on the graduate route, and certainly
if they bring dependants, that we will start to see a significant
increase in the number of people staying here, making a life in
the UK and not returning home, in which case policies of this
kind will become more important.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
In a week when universities are celebrating all that
international students bring with the “We Are International”
campaign, the Home Office is setting about undermining the UK’s
place in the highly competitive international education market. I
am dismayed that the Labour party is supporting the Government’s
measures. Canada, Australia and the US must be rubbing their
hands in glee at yet more chopping and changing, which makes the
UK less attractive.
Research published by the Higher Education Policy
Institute last week shows that, in 2021-22, the benefit to the UK
of international students stood at £41.9 billion, with every
single constituency on these islands seeing a benefit. When their
dependants come with them, those husbands or wives are often
working—they are not a burden to the state—and they have to pay
the immigration health surcharge as well.
What is the evidence for the policy the Minister
has brought forward? The written statement yesterday speaks of
issues with agents and of enhanced enforcement and compliance, so
what data does he have to suggest that people are abusing what is
already an incredibly expensive system? What equality impact
assessment has he carried out, because Universities UK
International has said that restricting dependants will have a
“disproportionate impact on women…from certain countries”?
Incidentally, those are countries such as Nigeria and India,
where the market is growing. Finally, what discussions has he had
with the Minister for Higher and Further Education in Scotland
ahead of this announcement, and what impact assessment has he
carried out on how it will affect institutions in Scotland?
We did think very carefully about this measure and had detailed
conversations with colleagues across Government, including of
course the Department for Education, and indeed with
universities. In my experience, leaders of universities
understand the issue we are grappling with here. They can see for
themselves the significant increase in the number of dependants
who have come to the UK in recent years, and why the Government
would feel the need to take action.
The measures we are putting in place will ensure
that there will still be a route for student dependants to come
to the UK for research courses, such as PhDs, where people will
be here for a sustained period of time, but there will not be
that route when people are here for short courses. To give the
hon. Lady an example, last year there were 315,000 foreign
masters students in the UK. These are very large numbers of
individuals, and if those people were to bring dependants at
scale, it would put pressure on public services and on housing in
the UK. I am surprised the hon. Lady does not appreciate that,
particularly given the state of some public services in Scotland.
(Torbay) (Con)
It is obviously right, when we see emerging trends in the
immigration system that cause concern, that action is taken. When
discussing net migration, we need to be clear about the factors
that contribute to it. For example, British citizens returning to
the UK and potentially bringing children with them also count
towards the net migration statistics, but that is clearly not
related to immigration policy.
On the wider system and the rationale behind this
move, I suspect the Minister may have wanted to announce
something slightly more comprehensive, rather than just to focus
on student dependants. Does he agree that we should make sure the
immigration system has the appropriate impact on the labour
market and look more widely at things such as the salary
thresholds throughout the system, as well as making the change
that has been announced today?
I do think the package of measures that we have announced will
make a tangible difference to net migration. Taken together with
the easing of exceptional factors, such as Hong Kong BNO
individuals coming to the UK over the next year or two, there is
good reason to believe that net migration will fall and that we
will be better placed to meet our important manifesto commitment.
However, my hon. Friend is right to say that it is
critical that we do so, that we should consider further measures
and that we have to think carefully about how migration interacts
with the British labour market. It is quite wrong to perpetuate
an economic model that is overly reliant on foreign labour, with
people coming here and taking jobs from British workers, and not
to tackle the core issue, which is the number of economically
inactive people in our country.
(Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Our higher education institutions operate in a global market,
which is why universities such as Lancaster University attract
students from over 100 different countries, many of whom come,
study and then return. The Minister raised the issue of pressure
on public services, which makes me wonder who he thinks has been
in charge for the past 13 years, but my question to him is: what
consultation has he had with universities such as Lancaster
University about the implications for them in respect of things
like the global league tables for universities?
We have given careful thought to this announcement, as I have
said, and we have worked closely with the Department for
Education, which is of course the bridge to universities. It is
important to stress that we have met the Government’s target of
600,000 international students 10 years early and are likely to
exceed it this year, so there is no suggestion that the number of
international students is going to diminish rapidly.
What we are doing is tackling a particular issue—an
unintended consequence of earlier liberalisations—which is the
very significant increase in the number of dependants following
international students. I would also say that it is not healthy
for British universities to become overly reliant on
international students. Just a few years ago, only 5% of the
income of British universities came from international students.
Today, it is 18% and growing. There are obviously benefits to
having income from international students, but we should not be
overly reliant on it.
(New Forest West) (Con)
When these measures have their effect, surely we will then be
able to treat foreign students as the booming export that they
are, rather than as immigration.
The education of international students is an important export
industry. I believe that it is the UK’s fourth or fifth-biggest
export industry, and that is a good thing, and it is supported by
the Government. That is why we created the international
education strategy that has proven to be so successful. But what
we are doing today is ensuring that we do not see unintended
consequences and unnecessary pressure on public services as a
result.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
What impact will these changes have on the number of students
from overseas coming to study in British universities, and what
will be the financial consequences? Has the Home Office made that
assessment?
As I said, we have already met our target of 600,000 students
coming to the UK from overseas. That is 10 years early; in fact,
last year there were 605,000. We expect the numbers to increase
this year beyond 600,000. There is no suggestion that
universities will be short-changed as a result, but in the medium
term it will obviously involve fewer dependants coming with those
international students. For the reasons that I have set out, we
think that is a good thing. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does
not.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
This measure is wholly to be welcomed, but the fact is that legal
migration is out of control and the British people did not vote
for Brexit to replace mass migration from Europe with mass
migration from the rest of the world. May I therefore press the
Minister on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for
Torbay () that we will never deal with
legal migration until we solve the labour problem? Home-grown
employers in Britain are paying too low wages and trying to
attract people from all over the world. Why do we not raise the
threshold so that those who want to come here and get a job need
to earn average earnings?
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. He is
right that, having left the European Union and taken back control
of our borders and migration policy, it is critical that we make
good on our promise to bring net migration down, because it does
put intolerable pressure on public services and housing, and it
does strain community cohesion, particularly when it happens at a
scale and speed that is too great for many people in British
society.
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about
the workings of the points-based system and the salary thresholds
for the shortage occupation list and for general work visas. The
Government keep that under review, because we do not want to see
employers reaching for international labour rather than seeking
to recruit and train domestic labour, reducing unemployment and
reducing the number of people who are on benefits.
(Slough) (Lab)
The Home Secretary makes contradictory statements to different
audiences and thinks that nobody notices her sleight of hand.
Yesterday, she recommitted to bringing in 600,000 international
students per year. Does the Minister now regret the fact that,
having completely lost control of immigration figures, she
actually expressed her desire to reduce student visas at last
year’s Conservative party conference?
The Home Secretary and I are completely at one in our
determination to reduce net migration. That is what our party
stood on a manifesto to do and that is what we intend to achieve.
The Home Secretary and I want to find ways in which we can tackle
abuse and unintended consequences within the system, and the
package of measures that we have set out this week will do so in
this important area and, as Labour appears now to support it, in
a clearly significant cross-party way.
(South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’
Financial Interests. As the Minister considers work visas, which
have exploded, displacing investment in domestic skills and
investment in modernity and working practices fit for the future,
will he also answer this question: why it is right and fair for
people studying a research degree to be able to bring their
family into the country but not for people who are not doing
primary research? Surely if those studying for MAs that do not
require research cannot bring their family, no one should be able
to?
We said in the announcement this week that, with the Department
for Education, we will launch a consultation with the university
sector to design a longer-term alternative to the system that
previously operated, which could be a more nuanced approach. But
I think that the determination that we have made this week is the
right one, which is that those people coming into the UK to study
will be able to bring in dependants only if they are doing those
high-value, usually longer-term, research-based courses such as
PhDs, and those coming for short courses will invariably not be
able to do so. That will cut out some of the abuse that we have
seen in the system and will focus universities on their primary
responsibility, which is teaching and education, rather than in
some cases being a back door to immigration and to work.
(Glenrothes) (SNP)
Later this afternoon, my much-valued international student
Jacqueline will spend the last few hours of her time here before
she completes her internship. She has been a massive asset to my
office, as were the other London School of Economics interns and
other interns I have had the privilege of working with over the
last number of years. What should I say to her? Should I say,
“Thank you—you have been a boon to this place and these islands”
or, “You’re a problem that has to be controlled”?
It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman did not spread
misinformation to his researcher or indeed anyone else. It was
the Government, through the international education strategy, who
created this commitment, which has proven to be so successful
that it has led to 600,000 international students coming to the
UK—perhaps including the lady he referred to. We also created the
graduate route, which has enabled people—potentially including
his researcher—to move seamlessly into the workplace here in the
UK after their studies rather than having to apply immediately
for a work or family visa as used to happen. There is no
suggestion of any diminution in our support for universities or
international students, but it is right that we get a grip on
abuses or unintended consequences. That is what Governments have
to do when trying to control an immigration system. Perhaps he
does not want controlled immigration. We do, and that is why we
have to take these steps.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
International students studying high-quality courses at
high-quality universities such as Keele in my constituency—the
Minister knows it well—add a huge amount to our local economy.
But is it not absolutely clear from the figures that the Minister
quoted earlier showing the increase in dependant visas that some
universities have, wittingly or otherwise, been selling
immigration rather than education? Is it not vital that we get on
top of that?
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Universities such as
Keele—I do know that university well—have played a critical role
in the economic development of local communities, and we want to
encourage that. But it is important that universities primarily
focus on education, not creating courses marketed overseas to
individuals whose primary interest is in coming to the UK for
immigration and work purposes, with those courses being a back
door to that.
(Exeter) (Lab)
Is not the truth that, since Brexit, excellent universities such
as mine in Exeter have sought to replace those thousands of EU
students they have lost with students from other parts of the
world who tend, for cultural and other reasons, to bring more
family members, spouses and children with them? Are not the
Government having to clear up another Brexit mess of their own
making? Will the Minister be honest with the House and explain
how he will avoid discriminating against countries such as
Nigeria and India, from which students do tend to bring
dependants, and making us even more reliant on students from
China?
The right hon. Gentleman makes a curious argument. Of course, it
was as a result of leaving the European Union that we have
created an entirely non-discriminatory immigration system that
has enabled people to apply to come to the UK, whether for work
purposes or as students, from anywhere in the world, rather than
making it more difficult for those from outside the EU and having
a large number of EU citizens come here. Today’s proposals will
tackle this particular unintended consequence of the opening up
to international students. I do not see any evidence that it will
harm particular nationalities. There are some glaring examples
such as the Nigerian one that I mentioned previously, but this
will apply to everyone. It is an entirely non-discriminatory
policy.
(Wimbledon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is completely right that we must choose who
comes here and we must strike out abuse. Wimbledon has many
English language schools and English language is a key part of
the international education strategy. Given the specific and
short-term nature of these students, and that they bring in no
dependants and are not a cost on our public services, will he
meet me and the leaders of the sector to discuss restoring work
visas for this specific group of students?
I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. As I
said earlier with respect to the announcement we made today, we
will be carrying out a consultation with the Department for
Education that will give universities the opportunity to set out
their case and refine the policy if necessary. He highlights one
of the other elements of the announcement we made this week,
which is clamping down on abuse. There are a small number of
unscrupulous education agents who may be supporting disingenuous
applications that are selling immigration rather than education.
One measure we are taking this week is to clamp down on those
with much more targeted and effective enforcement activity.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
My constituents do not share the Tory and Labour obsession with
net migration. They understand that Scotland benefits from inward
migration. In fact, Universities UK research shows that my
constituency’s net economic benefit from international students
is £170.8 million, which gives the lie to most of what the
Minister has said. Continuing as a member of the United Kingdom
is damaging Scotland’s universities, including Edinburgh Napier
University and Herriot-Watt University in my constituency. First
Brexit, now this. The Union has to work for both partners, so why
will the Minister not sit down with the Home Secretary and
consider devolving immigration policies relating to student visas
to the Scottish Parliament?
As I said many times before, we have no intention of devolving
immigration policy. On the broader questions, there is no
material difference between Scotland and the rest of the United
Kingdom in terms of unemployment or economic inactivity, so there
is no compelling case for a bespoke immigration system for
Scotland versus the rest of the United Kingdom. The sheer scale
of the number of international students who have come into all
parts of the UK, including Scotland, in recent years suggests
that this Government’s policies have increased the number of
international students, not diminished them.
(Meon Valley) (Con)
Pressures in migration policy ultimately lead back to the
efficient processing of everyone UK Visas and Immigration has to
deal with. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this change
will help UKVI make more decisions more quickly?
I am pleased to say that UKVI is today a very well-run
organisation under the superb leadership of an official in the
Home Office called Marc Owen. In every one of the visa
categories, it is meeting its service standard or significantly
exceeding them. [Interruption.] I know the hon. Member for
Glasgow Central () always likes to deal in
anecdote rather than statistics, but—I am afraid to disappoint
her—it is.
(Oxford West and Abingdon)
(LD)
I, for one, am very proud of the international students in my
community. Oxford Brookes University and, of course, Oxford
University pride themselves on being able to attract the best and
brightest. This policy will make that harder. We value them
because they bring value. They bring value of, on average, £400
million to the Oxfordshire economy. Why are the Government, and
apparently the Labour party, intent on stifling our universities
and our economy?
I have affection for the hon. Lady, but she is probably the
greatest nimby in the House of Commons today. She always opposes
new homes, new development and new infrastructure in and around
Oxford, so it is quite wrong for her to say that we should have
an open door immigration policy, welcoming more and more people
into her community and others, without meeting the demands that
come with that in terms of housing and infrastructure.
(Ipswich) (Con)
I am uncomfortable with net migration at current levels, as I
believe are most of my constituents. I understand what the
Government are doing about one-year taught masters; they seem to
be about 95% of this issue. That absolutely makes sense. However,
I have some concerns that some universities might try to game the
system and re-label one-year taught masters as one-year research
masters. I understand why PhDs are treated differently, but will
the Minister assure me that that will not happen and we will
clamp down on that? Will he also comment on the two-year period I
believe that students get after they graduate, where they can
stay here even if they do not necessarily have a job?
We believe the changes we are setting out today will make a
marked impact on net migration. We will, obviously, monitor them
very closely for some of the unintended consequences my hon.
Friend refers to. The consultation we will do with universities
and the broader sector will help us to refine the policy, should
that be necessary.
(Birmingham, Selly Oak)
(Lab)
The Minister has already acknowledged that the vast majority of
students return home. In fact, the compliance rate for
international student visas is 97.5%, the highest for any UK visa
category. Does that not suggest there may be better targets for
the Government’s energies?
There is no one single intervention that will solve this
challenge, but this is a significant intervention that will make
a material difference to net migration. The hon. Gentleman is
right to say that the overwhelming majority of international
students historically have left at the end of their studies, or
shortly thereafter. It is possible that the system that has
evolved since 2019 will see different trends. In 2020, only 7,400
non-EU students stayed on post study and those numbers will be
dramatically higher in the years ahead. It may be that the mix of
individuals, the countries they come from and the fact that they
are bringing dependants with them in many cases, will lead to a
far higher number of individuals staying on post study, but I do
not think we will see those trends clearly enough this year. We
may see them in years to come.
(Blackpool South) (Ind)
Many of my constituents continue to be deeply concerned about the
levels of net migration, not just over the last few years but
over the last few decades. They, along with myself, will welcome
the measures outlined by the Minister today. Is he able to update
the House on any measures his Department is taking to tackle
bogus college placements from students who sometimes come to this
country only to disappear into thin air?
Alongside the package of measures today, we are, as I said
earlier, taking further targeted enforcement activity against
unscrupulous education agents who are selling entry to the United
Kingdom, rather than education. We will also work closely with
universities and the Department for Education to improve
communication, to universities and their affiliates, of the
immigration rules, so we can clamp down on the kind of poor
practices my hon. Friend describes.
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
The Minister avoided this question when my hon. Friend the Member
for Glasgow Central () asked it, so I will try
again. What discussions were there between the UK Government and
Scottish Ministers on this matter before the announcement was
made?
Immigration is a reserved matter. I would just add that I am
seeking a meeting with the relevant Cabinet Secretary in the
Scottish Government to discuss illegal migration, but her office
has so far not offered a meeting.
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab)
The statement is right to celebrate the huge growth in
international student numbers—I assume that is the bit the
Department for Education and the Treasury insisted should go
in—but within that there is a welcome diversification in that
growth away from overdependence on China. That was a deliberate
part of the international education strategy. The Minister talks
about unintended consequences, but it was entirely predictable
that those coming from other countries for masters courses would
come from a different demographic from Chinese students, that
they would have families and that, like us, they would not want
to separated from them. Our competitors welcome students with
families, so there is a real risk that a blanket ban on
dependants will undermine the Government’s own international
education strategy. The statement commits to consulting with
universities in developing the approach, so will the Minister
confirm there will be no blanket ban on dependants of
postgraduate taught students until that consultation has taken
place?
We will implement the policy we set out yesterday, but
concurrently we will launch the consultation with universities
and, if we need to refine the policy as a result of that, we will
do so. To the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I do not think there
is any reason why a Chinese student would be less likely to bring
dependants with them to the United Kingdom than a Nigerian, a
Vietnamese or a Bangladeshi. I do not follow his logic there at
all. We want an entirely non-discriminatory approach and that is
what we have said to our international counterparts this week.
That has always been our approach to this. We welcome
international students from any part of the world.
(Wythenshawe and Sale East)
(Lab)
The vast majority of international students access their courses
in the north of England through Manchester airport in my
constituency. Will the Minister agree to an economic impact
assessment on how the policy will impact jobs in my constituency
and route development, and the cost to the wider northern
economy?
I was pleased to be at Manchester airport on Friday, meeting my
Border Force officials and seeing the expansion currently under
way. I do not foresee any serious loss of revenue for an airport
such as Manchester. The number of international students coming
to the UK has risen very significantly in recent years. To the
extent that that provides income to airports, they will have
benefited from our existing policy and I expect them to benefit
in future.
(Motherwell and Wishaw)
(SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, even if
only to expose that we could not put a cigarette paper between
Labour and Tory policies on this issue. Scotland has a track
record of welcoming international students to our internationally
recognised universities. Scotland wants and needs the benefits
that they bring. This Government’s continuous refusal to devolve
immigration powers to the Scottish Government shows their
contempt for Scotland. Why do they not understand and recognise
that things are different there? Continual refusal to do what
Scotland needs and wants will come down heavy on them in the next
election.
At the risk of repeating myself, there is no material difference
between unemployment or economic inactivity in Scotland and in
the rest of the UK—the hon. Lady is incorrect in that regard. The
UK benefits enormously from a single immigration policy and offer
to international students in universities in all parts of the
world.
(North Down) (Alliance)
In Northern Ireland, our universities are very dependent on
international students, particularly in the light of the budget
crisis we are facing. Employers cannot access labour without
migration, which I am sure is the same for the rest of the UK.
Rather than being a burden, our public services depend upon
migrants for their basic functioning. Why are the Government so
insistent on acting against the core interests of our public
services, the economy and our local universities?
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is this Government
who established the international education strategy that led to
600,000 international students coming to the UK every year.
Indeed, that number is likely to grow next year. With respect to
public services, we created the health and social care visa,
which last year led to 76,000 applications. Their dependants were
able to join them. That was 11% of all the visas issued to
individuals wishing to come to the United Kingdom. We are doing
everything we can to support public services, but we must address
the fact that very high levels of net migration place intolerable
pressure on housing, public services and integration.
(Twickenham) (LD)
Our schools are in the midst of such a chronic teacher
recruitment and retention crisis that the Department for
Education currently offers £10,000 relocation payments to
overseas applicants to come and train as language and physics
teachers in the UK, on postgraduate taught courses. If they
cannot bring their families, they will not want to settle here
and use the training that we have provided in our schools, where
they are desperately needed. Why are the Government cutting off
their nose to spite their own face?
If the hon. Lady is referring to pressure on school places, that
would be a good argument for reducing the number of dependants
coming to the UK, because the children of the students will be
using primary schools in her constituency.
(Manchester, Withington)
(Lab)
The Minister still has not said what economic impact assessment
the Government have carried out on this policy. Will he publish
one?
I said that we take a pragmatic approach to this issue. We are
balancing our strong desire to bring down net migration with the
needs of the economy. That is why we have taken the approach of
standing behind the 600,000 target for international students,
but making this important tweak to ensure that it is not abused.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
Net migration figures also include the number people who leave
this country. The Minister’s hard Brexit has made it more
difficult for students and others to travel overseas, and that is
having an impact on net migration figures. Meanwhile, Glasgow
North thrives culturally, socially and economically to the tune
of £225.8 million thanks to our lively and diverse international
student community. Why does the Foreign, Commonwealth and
Development Office spend millions of pounds on overseas campaigns
that say that Britain is great, when the message coming from the
Home Office is that Britain is closed?
I wonder what world the hon. Gentleman lives in if he thinks that
net migration of half a million is too little and we should
encourage more. Net migration levels in this country are very
high. We want to bring those down, which is why we are taking
measures such as this.
(Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The University of Cumbria and Lancaster University are hugely
successful institutions, and we are proud of them. They are
important to our economy and are successful exporters. What is
their export? High-quality education delivered in the United
Kingdom. Why are the Government seeking to stifle our great
exporters’ ability to export? Why have they become suddenly
anti-free market? Will the Minister recognise that, by earning
money through international students, British universities can
cross-subsidise services and places for British students? British
students will be the ones who pay the price.
As I said in answer to an earlier question, the economic benefit
of international students is clear. We welcome that, but we do
not want British universities to become totally reliant on income
from international students. Just a few years ago, that accounted
for 5% of their income; last year it was 18%, and without
measures such as this, no doubt it would continue to rise. To the
hon. Gentleman’s broader point, of course we want to support
universities such as his to thrive and prosper and to market
themselves internationally, but the business of universities is
education, not immigration.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. I welcome the announcement
as it shows considerable effort in committing to the Government
pledge to crack down on net migration. However, what assessment
has the Minister made of the number of children who will be left
behind while their parents come to the UK to study for a better
life, and cannot bring their little ones with them on their
journey and, crucially, maintain family life, which is really
important?
That is one of the reasons we have said that those coming here
for longer-term research courses such as PhDs can continue to
bring their dependants with them. If one were coming to the UK
for a sustained period, it would be right for them to relocate in
a more substantial way. But if individuals are making a choice to
come here for a one-year masters course, it is perfectly
appropriate for the UK to say that that is their decision and
they should not bring their dependants with them.
