No doubt at all that the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) Rapid Review of the Graduate Route and its recommendation of “retaining the Graduate route in its current form” is good news for the UK higher education sector. But amid the sound of high-fiving and back slapping from universities and sector bodies a close read of the Review still leaves scope for Government mischief making. It should also be remembered that MAC’s recommendations of 2018 on a “more restrictive post-study work route” of 6 months for Master’s students was largely ignored.
Political antennae will be twitching at the sound of Robert Jenrick’s post that “if you order white paint, you get a whitewash” and MAC has left a few open goals if James Cleverly chooses to score with his party’s right wing. There’s an open invitation to leverage the sector “to support the government’s desired labour market objectives for the route” which could mean manipulation of Student visas as well as Graduate Route visas. He will also have his eyes on the year-on-year visa announcement of Immigration System statistics on 23 May as he considers the next steps.
Sticking to the Exam Question
The Review chose to largely confine itself narrowly to the question about the Graduate Route and declined to take the bait on some associated issues. In doing so, however, it may have offered a road map for the Home Secretary to thank it for its work, accept the plaudits around the dependent visa reductions and then pursue a new quarry – the student visa. He can diminish recruitment at source while celebrating that the Government’s introduction of the graduate route was correct.
The quoted objectives of the Graduate Route are so benign and wooly that it is difficult to know what to make of them:
- “Enhance the offer to international students..ensure the UK remains internationally competitive”
- “Retention of talent..enabling employers to recruit skilled graduates…contribut to the UK economy”
- “Increase the number of international students in higher education…increase the value of education exports”
Of course, the Graduate Route achieves those aims because almost any competitive post-study work offering would. What MAC notes in several passages is that changes to the student visa (such as dependent visas) are where the action is. Yet on page 32 they are keen specify “we did not examine distinct abuse of the Student route and note that the government did not ask us to do so.” There seems to be a decent signpost for Cleverly if he chooses to follow it.
There May Be Trouble Ahead
If one was looking for trouble and reading between the lines, one can see where the Minister may choose to take guidance from the Report. Specifically, there may be ways of managing Student route visas to give preference to high-ranking universities (however defined), supporting specific geographical locations, penalising institutions recruiting students who seek asylum and controlling the role of agents.
- MAC declined to engage in any assessment of whether the route secured the “brightest and the best” but nodded to the High Potential Individual visa use of league table rankings in its provider groupings while noting that “international postgraduates from lower globally ranked universities are more likely to go on to the Graduate route.” Explicitly it says, “If the government’s aim is to retain bright international students… and by this they mean those who attend universities ranked the highest globally, then this data suggests that the Graduate route may not be attracting the global talent defined in this way.”
Other areas for caution or limited support in reflecting the value of international students are where MAC:
- indicated that the data suggests “students may be moving to London for work after graduating from universities in other parts of the UK”. In that respect there may be limited evidence for international graduates contributing to any levelling up agendas;
- reflected the difficulty of determining numbers in employment but showed a 79% match rate for Graduate visa holders and HMRC records and 68% as PAYE employees. They caution that neither is comparable to a “normal” employment calculation. Some would argue that this leaves some 20-30% whose employment status is, at best, unknown. It was quickly seized upon by some Conservative party commentators;
- suggested they are “likely [to] make a small positive net fiscal contribution” which would suggest this is not a key issue for government consideration despite the efforts of the sector to suggest otherwise;
- noted the “recent reports of an increase in asylum applications” but indicating that is an issue the government should address directly if it is a concern.
On direct abuse there is some damning with faint praise. Basically the Review notes that there are almost no rules to be abused (which could be seen as a sign of laxness) and limited data to track whether they are overstaying. Comments include:
- “limited number of criteria a student needs to meet to apply”, “few restrictions for what those on the route are allowed to do in the UK” and “beyond refusal rates, there are no quantitative data sources”
- “little evidence available on the numbers who are overstaying their visa length. The Home Office was unable to provide data on the rate of overstaying on the Graduate route.”
The biggest issue related to the potential exploitation of international students by recruitment agents “when applying under the Student route”. This is a departure from the rest of the Review because MAC decides to very explicitly link the selling of the Graduate Route as a lure for students joining the Student Route. They claim that HE providers and student representatives at roundtables agreed “regulation would strengthen the ability to eliminate the exploitation of students by bad actors.”
A more heavy-handed regulation, particularly as MAC included both agents and subagents in the discussion could make for interesting times for commercial operations associated with universities. While MAC noted that 57% of HE providers (responding to a Home Office survey) used student recruitment agents this would be 100% for aggregators and pathways. With the growth of direct recruitment relationships with pathways operators the ownership of any quality and oversight obligations is likely to come even more under scrutiny.
Steady As She Goes (For Now)
If the government wanted MAC to provide it with hard evidence to close the Graduate Route down the gambit has failed and the sector can breathe a sigh of relief. Short of a blatant, politically motivated disregard for the advice given and the evidence base produced the best presentation is to take the applause for introducing the Route and ensuring a globally competitive sector. The window of opportunity for the current government to act is rapidly closing and without a clear steer from MAC it is difficult to see what the political upside is to radically changing the Graduate Route.
MAC has also provided the government with what it will consider political good news, in saying that the ban on foreign students bringing dependents was having a far bigger impact than expected. Anything that gives Sunak a “fighting chance” of reducing net migration levels below 2019 levels before the election is likely to be received with open arms. It’s probably a stronger case than arguing about the growing dependency of universities on foreign students.
After all that it seems appropriate to thank Professor Brian Bell and his colleagues for a decent job done in very short order and apparently without bias towards past observations. The Review has highlighted some other aspects of student recruitment that are less palatable and it would be good if the sector took that seriously. Perhaps some universities could also consider this a warning to moderate their approach to enrolment growth.