Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion of Regret

19:26

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To move that this House regrets that it is not clear from the Impact Assessment or Explanatory Memorandum of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 1148) how the findings from the consultation have fed into the development of the policy or the estimates of the costs and benefits of the changes.

Relevant document: 35th Report from the Merits Committee.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this statement of changes in Immigration Rules makes a number of changes to those rules and sets out the second set of changes to the rules governing the student immigration system in tier 4 of the points-based system. The tier 4 changes include restricting permission to work during studies for students applying for entry clearance or leave to remain and a restriction in the entitlement to bring dependents, partners and children into the UK.

The statement has been brought to the special attention of the House by the Merits Select Committee in relation to the tier 4 rules. I wish to express my great thanks to that committee for its work in relation to this statement. The House may recall that the Government earlier published a statement of intent, setting out the full planned changes for the student immigration system. However, that statement was laid without the impact assessment for the changes and the committee identified significant gaps in the analysis of the consultation responses. The Government have now laid the impact assessment for the reform of tier 4 of the points-based system.

The impact assessment says that the Government intend to reduce abuse through the immigration system and to reduce net immigration significantly. The impact assessment sets out the policy objectives as being to,

“Reduce the areas of the student route that are prone to abuse … Reduce net migration overall by the end of the current Parliament … Improve selectivity of students to the UK, to ensure they are the brightest and the best … Restore public confidence in the immigration system … and … Ensure that the system is robust and practical to enforce”.

The Opposition have consistently set out their concerns about the impact of this policy. The UK has a worldwide reputation for providing quality education to overseas students. My understanding is that we are the second most popular student destination in the world after the US. Overall, the international student market is estimated to be worth £40 billion to the UK economy. There is very real concern about the impact of the Government’s actions on this very important economic sector and the reputation of the UK generally. I hardly think that the current state of the economy lends itself to being the Government being so cavalier with such an important part of it.

19:30

Apart from the matter of principle and the potential damage to the UK economy of the Government’s approach, there is considerable uncertainty about the likely impact. In March 2011, the estimated impact on student numbers suggested a reduction in student visas of between 70,000 and 80,000, and yet the impact assessment suggests a reduction of 232,000 over five years from 2011 to 2015 against a total estimated baseline of 558,000. Quite understandably, I suggest, the impact assessment states:

“There is a great deal of uncertainty around the expected path of student visa demand”.

The analysis of the risk identifies that estimation of the impact,

“is not straightforward, and is subject to error”.

Not surprisingly, the Merits Select Committee says that,

“given the objective of reducing net migration, the Committee would have expected to see a greater analysis in the IA of the numbers of students who leave the UK at the end of their studies and those who remain”.

This is a very important consideration when looking at the overall impact of the Government’s policy. I would be grateful if the noble Earl would respond to that.

On the costs and benefits, which is another important factor, the committee points out that the impact assessment,

“estimates the total costs for the changes to student immigration system as being £3,558 million, with the total benefits being £1,119 million … At over £2.4 billion, the estimated overall cost of the package of changes is significant, and the Committee reiterates that it is unacceptable that the IA was not made available when the first tranche of changes were laid before Parliament”.

I hope that the noble Earl will be able to acknowledge that and give some reassurance that this will not happen again, given my own expectation that the Government will produce a number of further changes to the Immigration Rules in the future.

I would also like the noble Earl to respond to the point about the cost to the UK Border Agency itself, which I understand is included in the figures I have just quoted. The committee states:

“In terms of direct costs and benefits, the IA estimates that over the four year appraisal period UKBA will receive around £160 million less in fee income … This is a significant reduction in fee income at a time of budget cuts for UKBA. Although the IA also says that there will be a saving of around £150 million in processing costs, it is not clear whether this is actually a cashable benefit … The IA also estimates that over the four year period, tuition fee income will fall by approximately £170 million … However, this is based on the assumption that for every ten non-EU migrants no longer able to study at all affected institutions, eight of their places would be filled by either EU of British nationals”.

In the current circumstances, I would have thought that that is a very significant assumption. No wonder the impact assessment acknowledges that the estimate is “relatively uncertain”.

I have no doubt that the noble Earl will wish to respond to these concerns about the reliability of the figures. We would also ask him to respond to the point raised by the committee that,

“it is not clear from the IA how the findings from the consultation have fed into these estimations”.

This is not the first time that we have had to debate the Government’s reluctance to spell out the consultation and the way it has influenced the Government’s decisions. The committee gives an example of this when it states that,

“the estimation of costs to educational establishments would benefit from input from such bodies. This is regrettable as the Government presumably received some useful information given that the consultation specifically asked about the main advantages/disadvantages of the changes, including any financial impacts”.

A cynic might say that the Government did not like the result of the consultation, and that is why they have not been very open about it. I am not cynical, but I would like the noble Earl to respond to that point.

Of course, overriding the questions raised by the Merits Select Committee is a deep concern shared by many noble Lords about the general policy. This country has enjoyed a fantastic reputation for the quality of its education. Thousands upon thousands of young people in particular, but not just young people, have come to our shores. Most have gone back home, but they have retained links with this country and their educational establishments. The reputation of this country has been strongly enhanced, together with a huge amount of inward investment. I still fail to understand why the Government do not recognise the potential damage they are doing to these establishments and to the economic benefit of this country. The fact is that when it comes to bogus students and bogus colleges, the previous Government had already taken decisive action in that regard. The suspicion remains that the Home Office, desperate to meet the quota it set, charged ahead on this because it thought it would be easy to do, coupled with the weakness of the business department to defend effectively the interests of educational institutions. That is why we have this policy which, in my view, is a disastrous one.

I end by quoting Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research:

“The government has said that economic growth is its top priority and the economy needs to rebalance away from consumption and towards exports”.

But as Mr Portes said, the Government have here produced,

“a policy that will have a significant negative effect on growth and reduce exports”.

Why on earth have the Government gone down that route?

So here we are, with the outcome of a flawed policy, poorly executed, with inadequate information for Parliament which will do considerable damage to our economy and our educational institutions. I would remind the noble Earl of the publication yesterday of the top 100 universities. A remarkable number of UK universities are in the top 10 and in the top 100—including, I am glad to say, my own Birmingham University. Why are the Government putting that at risk? We demand those answers, and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to respond today.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I welcome this debate and I am glad that the noble Lord was able to table his Motion. I should say that I am a member of the Merits Committee. It seems to me that the sort of points that have been made in this report are just the sort of thing that the committee is there for. I welcome the debate, although I do not welcome the fact that it is necessary. With regard to the issue of the production of the impact assessment—I will come on to the substantive issue because I cannot resist it—it is not the first time that I will have talked about the importance of scrutiny. It is important both to those who are the proponents of a proposition and to the opponents. The first bunch wants to get it right and the second bunch wants to pick holes in it; there is a unity of purpose there. Making the point, as the Merits Committee has done and as the House is now asked to do, is worth while only if the culture changes and this sort of error or omission—call it what you like—is not repeated. This is the sort of point that the Merits Committee has often had to make by way of a warning shot. The sanction from the committee is to bring the matter to the House.

I recall reading the agenda item and, in order not to make the Hansard writers blush, I will not use the language that I used then when I saw the figures, which are startling. The noble Lord referred to many of them: the 232,000 estimated reduction against the 70,000 to 80,000 estimate given only six or seven months ago, and a net cost of more than £2.4 billion with the UK Border Agency estimated to receive about £160 million less in fee income on the basis of the option chosen against the “do nothing” option.

That takes me to my next point. The committee does not make this point but I will. The options given are not a range but simply the polarised options of “do nothing” or “do this one other thing which we, the Government, are proposing”. So there is a steer to what one might describe as the right answer. So although this was a consultation, it is more akin to some sort of choice. It is not easy or indeed even possible for Parliament to assess what it is being asked to agree in this way. The Merits Committee report was very measured, and I quote from Paragraph 10:

“The Committee recognises the difficulty in developing the estimations of the likely costs and benefits of the changes, particularly given some of the gaps in the data and the potentially complex range of impacts. However, it is not clear from the IA how the findings from the consultation have fed into these estimations”.

That is a pity because the questions asked in the consultation were interesting. Most of them asked for a “yes”, “no”, or “don’t know” answer but one of them asked:

“In the light of the proposals described in this document, what do you think will be the main advantages/disadvantages, including any financial impacts, to you, your business or your sector?”

That is just the sort of thing that should be made publicly available. That is the purpose of the consultation. The background questions which consultees were asked would also have been useful in informing the debate. They were asked:

“How many students (approximately) started new courses at your institution in the 2009/2010 academic year?”

and,

“What is your estimate of overseas students (non-EEA) as a proportion of your total student population?”

As I say, that is just the sort of thing that we should be able to see to put the changes into context.

In the end, of course, what matters is the policy. Many noble Lords across a number of debates, including many of my noble friends, have made very clear our real concerns with some of the policy objectives. Even if we support a reduction in net migration, we do not believe in clamping down on student visas. We do not believe that is in the long-term reputational interests of the UK, nor its social, political and wider economic interests. I am not convinced it is even coherent within its own terms. I have commented before on the term “the brightest and the best”. That begs an awful lot of questions. We cannot assess the success—a term I use deliberately—without knowing how many students leave at the end of their course, which we—I do not just mean Parliament—are not adequately equipped to do. There is an increase of one when an individual arrives in the country and when he leaves there is a decrease of one.

19:45

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, which is immensely helpful to your Lordships in the detailed, analytical and very sensible briefings it provides, has drawn more concerns to our attention. It makes the point:

“The effects of lack of proper evidence, for the consultation or for the impact assessment, go beyond an unsound evidence base. They go to the question of fair and equal treatment of persons on the basis of their nationality”.

It draws your Lordships’ attention to students from designated so-called “low-risk” nationalities where the UK Border Agency bases decisions on national origins. The countries I call “respectable” in this context are Canada, Australia, Hong Kong and New Zealand. So an immigration history of an individual may be lengthy and exemplary but the way in which that individual is treated by the UK Border Agency does not depend on this but on his national origins. The ILPA cites examples of the UK Border Agency “not being over-zealous” in attempting to verify documents, not pursuing responses or assuming a negative response if a phone call is not returned within a couple of days, and refusing to pay a de minimis fee of a couple of quid in order to get copies of necessary documents. It does not make me feel proud of the way we deal with people who want to come into this country and show a confidence in it and a loyalty to it.

The ILPA also draws your Lordships’ attention to the slightly wider problems which arise from the changes we are asked to consider about the rights of adult refugees to be reunited with their children who are minors. I am concerned about what I read on that. Finally, it cites the example of the Academic Technology Approval Scheme. This is almost laughable except that it is really very serious. The scheme requires a certificate to be obtained where studies are said to,

“relate to the transfer of knowledge or skills that could be used in weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery”.

If the word “nuclear” comes up in an application, possibly in the context of something like DNA, the assumption is made that the student is coming in to learn bad things, which is nonsense.

The sector was very vocal in its concerns about the financial impact of the changes and wider arguments than those referred to in the impact assessment were shared with your Lordships. I recall my noble friend Lady Benjamin, who is Chancellor of Exeter University, talking about the value that students bring to the local area, and bluntly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The sector is such a good earner, such a good revenue generator well beyond its immediate operation, that restricting access as a proposition frankly defeats me.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, I join my noble friend in welcoming the Motion that has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord, Hunt, and I find myself in substantial and almost entire agreement with every single word that he spoke in support of it. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hamwee on the sterling work that she does on the Merits Committee which has resulted in bringing this matter before the House, and not for the first time. I remind your Lordships that this is the second occasion in a row when the Merits Committee has commented on a statement of changes in the Immigration Rules. That indicates to me that all is not well in the direction of the UKBA. I often thought that the separate management of the UKBA was a mistake. At a time when the Government are looking for economies, they could perhaps do worse than to consider bringing it back under the umbrella of the Home Office.

The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, uses the wording of the Merits Committee report and is none the worse for that. It regrets that it is not clear from the IA or the Explanatory Memorandum how the findings from the consultation have fed into the development of the policy or the estimate of the costs and benefits of the changes. As far as I can see, that is not an opinion, but a fact.

In the most glaring case of a discrepancy between the responses to the consultation questionnaire and the statement, 85 per cent of the respondents disagreed with the proposal further to restrict students’ paid work when there is no evidence that it has impaired their academic performance and when fee increases have made it much harder for students to pay their way. There are many other instances where significant minority responses have been overridden. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about the considerable uncertainties affecting student numbers and the costs and benefits laid out in the impact assessment, which I shall come to discuss in a few minutes.

As one would expect, more than three-quarters of English language school respondents disagreed with the proposal to require all tier 4 students to demonstrate level B2 English proficiency, a requirement which will be a major problem for many schools and private colleges of further education. The IA states that unless English language schools can attract either EU students or student visitor route applicants, they face going out of business. The replacement estimate of 80 per cent, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, is not only difficult to believe but pure guesswork. Schools say that a £1 billion industry is being put in jeopardy.

The Government have recognised the particular difficulties of the English language sector, however, by creating the extended student visa route, allowing applicants to come here for 11 months, which is non-renewable. They are not allowed to work or bring in dependants, or to switch into other routes including tier 4. When this was announced in December 2010, the Minister said that he would monitor it closely to ensure that it did not become a loophole and take a decision on whether to make it permanent in due course. I understand that it is working well so far. I should like the Minister to tell us when a decision will be taken on incorporating this route into the rules.

In the past, some English language and FE colleges have been used as a way of gaining entry to the UK with the intention of working illegally. It would be useful to know whether the Minister has details of the attendance records of those admitted under the extended student visa route since it came into force on January 10, and if not, how else he is monitoring the new route. I hope that the bogus colleges have been eliminated since it was provided that overseas students could apply only to those schools which are accredited and the list of schools was reduced by some 90 per cent to 1,500, all of which are registered with the UKBA. But there may still be a residual problem with individuals who apply to a genuine college simply to gain entry. If so, what obligations do the colleges have to report unexplained absences to the UKBA, and are any statistics available on those absences as an indication of the use of education as a continuing route to illegal entry? I ask this question believing that the loophole has been finally closed, but it would be useful to have that reassurance from the Minister.

An additional problem has been created for the English language sector in that the Government suddenly decided at the end of July, without any consultation, that it was going to be subject to a new inspection regime in substitution for the one that has been operated—as far as I am concerned, perfectly satisfactorily —by the British Council for many years. This will be a monopoly handed to the Independent Schools Inspectorate, which has no experience or knowledge of the sector and intends to charge four times as much as the British Council has in the past. Since the BC/Accreditation UK inspection scheme is fit for purpose, which I ask the Minister to acknowledge, the right answer as proposed by the schools is that BIS and DfE should jointly designate the private further education sector as subject to regulation and approve BC/Accreditation UK as an inspection body under the powers of the Education Act 2002. Would my noble friend the Minister be kind enough to comment on that proposal? I shall ask him to address the overall problems of the sector that English UK has drawn to my attention, which are too numerous, complex and potentially disastrous to be covered adequately in this debate.

The rationale for the statement is clearly set out in the impact assessment: that too many migrants have been allowed to enter the UK and that the Government's aim is to reduce the level of net migration to sustainable levels. As students make up the majority of non-EU immigrants, yet we do not propose putting a limit on their numbers, we have to make it harder for student applicants to enter and harder to sustain themselves by working part-time while they are studying if they are not the brightest and best. Deterring students from coming to Britain will certainly reduce the numbers, but on the Government’s own estimate it will do so at a cost of £2.4 billion a year to the economy—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee—and possibly even more in the long term. Of course it is necessary to ensure that every student who enters the UK is studying at a bona fide education institution towards a qualification that will enhance their prospects when they return home, as the IA emphasises, but the statement does nothing directly to eliminate bogus providers, which I presume, as I have said already, have been eliminated by the inspection regimes put in place over recent years. It concentrates entirely on making life harder for all students, the legitimate as well as those who in the past have used the education route as a means of entering the country with the intention of illegal working.

It has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend that no impact assessment was published for the previous statement of changes. The one that we are looking at today, although it does not say so, covers both this and the previous statement. Will the Government give an undertaking that Parliament will never again be asked to consider changes to the Immigration Rules unless we are provided with an IA?

The IA states that we need to filter out those who contribute least and who pose the highest immigration risk. There may be good reasons for the accreditation by Ofsted and its devolved equivalents of all tier 4 sponsors and for making them all highly trusted sponsors, as suggested in the IA, but are these changes in the statement? I do not see them either in the statement or in the Explanatory Memorandum. HTS accreditation costs £14,000, and I am told that all colleges, including those offering only the extended student visitor courses of up to 11 months not covered by tier 4, need to obtain this status in order to be considered favourably by applicants and their agents overseas.

I do not see, either, the changes in the English Language requirement mentioned on page 11 of the impact assessment, demanding B2 for undergraduates and above, and B1 for lower-level courses. Perhaps the Minister could point out where this is mentioned in the statement. There is enough paperwork to be digested in assessing the statement without the inclusion of text that refers to some other provision.

The estimates given for the reduction in student numbers and the costs and benefits arising from the changes in this statement and its predecessor, taken together, are subject to huge margins of uncertainty, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out. Increases in the levels of fees are bound to put off many applicants as well and the danger is that the combined effect of these increases and the present changes, together with increased competition from overseas, will seriously damage an industry that, according to an independent study for BIS, produces something like £14 billion of annual exports, potentially increasing to £26 billion in 2025. Reductions in the fee income from overseas students may undermine the high standards that we have always maintained in both higher and further education, driving students into the arms of our competitors and producing negative feedback—a threat not taken into consideration in the IA. Nor has account been taken of the intangible loss of the tens of thousands of former students who have attended our universities and colleges of further education all over the world and the links that they have with the United Kingdom.

The Government’s commitment to reducing immigration numbers, and their inability to attack other routes such as work or asylum, have led them to concentrate on education, relying on dodgy and unverifiable statistics and ignoring inconvenient responses to the consultation to arrive at conclusions already determined. I certainly hope that I am wrong in fearing the damage that may be caused by the measures that we are taking. I hope that my noble friend will be able to offer me an assurance that the Government will closely monitor the immediate effects of the changes in this and the previous statement on the higher and further education sector, and be prepared with remedial policies if it does turn out that we have impaired the contribution that they make to our economy by even more than the £2.4 billion we are already throwing away.

20:00

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, I should like briefly to add to the comments made by both my noble friends, with whom I am in total agreement. Indeed, I very much welcome today’s debate. I declare an interest as chairman of the Council of the School of Pharmacy, University of London.

It is already very clear through this debate that the process and outcome of the consultation, impact assessment and change in the rules have been grossly unsatisfactory. Although it was rather strange, I suppose that the qualified welcome given by some institutions to the March statement by the Home Secretary and the attendant statement of intent was explained by the fact that many in higher education were expecting worse. However, that does not mean that any of them are by any manner of means in agreement with the current state of play.

I want to talk, in particular, about the closure of the post-study work route visa, on which I have asked quite a number of questions over the past two years. The Government’s response to the Home Affairs Select Committee and correspondence to me from the immigration ministry are interesting in that they show that the Minister and the Home Office seem to have greatly underestimated the importance of the post-study work aspect of coming to a United Kingdom university.

As vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary China Group, I have had a great deal of contact over the years with Chinese students in particular. I believe that some 80,000 to 100,000 students from China are here at any one time. The opportunity to undertake what is essentially an internship with a UK business after graduating, to prepare for a career back in China, has played a very important part in the decision by Chinese students to come here. In the response to the Home Affairs Select Committee report, the Minister said:

“We want to ensure students come for a limited period and to study not to work”.

In his letter to me of 27 July, the Minister put it rather differently:

“Tier 4 should be about coming to the UK to gain a high-quality education and not about finding a route to work in the UK through undertaking a course”.

However, that completely misunderstands the reason for the post-study work route visa. It is a route to having brief work experience here in the UK and thereafter to working long-term back in the home country with the skills acquired.

The tier 2 route visa will be granted only on a case-by-case basis. If we were able to unpack the responses to the consultation, which we are not, I am sure that a better solution could easily be found—certainly looking at the evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee—to tighten up the PSWR mechanism under tier 4. That would be much more satisfactory. As it is, it will make our higher education institutions much less attractive to overseas students. As we know, and as has been mentioned by all speakers so far, the impact assessment for the new rules came out extremely late in a very unsatisfactory fashion. That, as we also know, was commented on by the Merits Committee on two occasions, and we now know that some £3.5 billion gross of income and economic activity could be at risk as a result. That potentially has a huge impact on our education sector and it puts that sector considerably at risk on the basis of little evidence of abuse of the post-study work route visa.

It is right to say, as the Merits Committee does, that it is not clear from the impact assessment or the Explanatory Memorandum to the June statement how the findings from the consultation have fed into the development of the policy or the estimates of the costs and benefits of the changes. I think that that is an entirely uncontroversial statement in the light of what we have heard today. That is despite the statement in paragraph 8.1 of the statement of changes. As we know, the consultation was rushed through in only a month, which itself was grossly unsatisfactory and, sadly, these new rules have taken effect in those circumstances. It is vital that the new rules are kept under review and I hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that that will happen after a very short period of operation. It would have been better if these rules had not gone through but, on the basis that they have, I very much hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that such a review will take place.

The experience of Australia is an extremely salutary lesson in these circumstances. When the Immigration Rules were changed, as the Home Affairs Select Committee reported, there was a slump in applications from overseas to Australian universities, from which they are still recovering.

Finally, the Home Affairs Select Committee report, which is an extremely good document, said that the committee members were not persuaded that students are migrants. The Minister, in his reply to the report, said that he disagreed, claiming that the definition was long-standing under UN measures. That does not make it right. It is high time that rationality prevailed and that students are not regarded as migrants unless they are here for the longer term after graduating.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the opportunity to debate this Motion. A large number of points have been raised. I am eager to deal with the issues to which they give rise but clearly I shall have to deal with most of them in writing, as noble Lords have been quite wide-ranging.

The Motion before us deals with changes to tier 4 of the immigration system covering international students. The issue at hand is how the findings from the consultation have fed into the development of the policy and the estimates of the costs and benefits of the changes.

When the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, started, he told us about the importance of overseas students. He is, of course, quite right and I absolutely agree with him, but only in respect of genuine students who have come here to study at our world-class academic institutions. That is why we are devoting our attention particularly to the private education sector, where there is much abuse, although we are doing well to reduce it. However, I am at one with the noble Lord regarding universities. He will know that they enjoy considerable advantages under our policies. For example, we have introduced flexibility into universities on the English language requirements, on the ability to work and on the ability to bring in dependants.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about loss of income from the UKBA. Although there will be a reduction in fees paid to the UKBA, the agency has made allowance for this in its business planning. I hope that he agrees that the UKBA exists to keep our borders secure and not just to turn over visa fees. He claimed the credit for the previous action to deal with bogus students but the previous Government only started that and left this Government with considerable work to do.

The noble Lord referred to the 35th report from your Lordships’ Merits Committee, which states that:

“The Committee regrets that it is not clear from the IA or the Explanatory Memorandum how the findings from the consultation have fed into the development of the policy or the estimates of the costs and benefits of the changes”.

Your Lordships will recall that the House debated the first set of changes to the student route on 16 May. At that time, the impact assessment for the student changes had not been published. However, the impact assessment for the changes to the student route was published when we made the second set of changes on 13 June. I reiterate my previous reassurance that we are quite clear that it is right and proper to provide the Merits Committee with the information necessary for it to do its job.

However, the issue having been raised, it would be remiss of me not to put this again in the context of the previous practice in this area. While it is generally accepted as good practice, there is no legal obligation for the UKBA to consult on changes to the Immigration Rules. In March 2010, the previous Government made significant changes to tier 4—the student route—without a formal public consultation. Despite taking the views of key partners, they did not publish any formal explanation of the findings. Similarly, in March 2006, following consultation, the previous Government published their policy for a points-based system but did not publish the 517 consultations that they received.

I am satisfied that this Government have gone to great lengths to seek the views of the public and of the sector, and to take account of these views in developing our final policy. On 23 November 2010, the Home Secretary informed Parliament that she intended to hold a public consultation on reforming the student visa system. This process began on 7 December, when the Home Secretary announced our proposals and the consultation paper was published. The consultation ran until 31 January 2011—shorter than a standard 12 weeks but that was in order to announce decisions at a time that would allow the sector and students to plan for the following academic year.

Our consultation received over 30,000 responses—10 times as many as the consultation on economic routes—and officials spoke to representatives of over 200 institutions during the consultation period. On 22 March, the Home Secretary made a full statement in the other place setting out the detail of the Government’s decisions, and the public reaction and data that had informed those decisions. On 31 March, we published a detailed statement of intent describing the full policy package and lay changes to the Immigration Rules to implement the first changes resulting from the consultation, which came into effect on 21 April. On 13 June, we lay the second set of changes to the Immigration Rules and published the impact assessment.

It is true that, like the previous Government, we have not published every consultation response. As I mentioned, there were over 30,000 responses online and over 200 longer written responses. We published a summary of the online responses to all questions asked and answered in the consultation. We also indicated the level of support in relation to every response. We felt that this was helpful information for Parliament and interested parties to have. The government code of practice on consultations states that:

“Following a consultation exercise, the Government should provide a summary of who responded to the consultation exercise and a summary of the views expressed … Consideration should be given to publishing the individual responses received”,

but, in this instance, the volume of responses made that impracticable.

The level of response demonstrates a high level of public engagement with the policy development processes. The changes that we have made to our final policy show that we have genuinely listened to and taken account of the views expressed. For example, we initially proposed raising the minimum level of English to an upper immediate level and required secure English language tests for all students. This received a clear, negative response from institutions, who indicated that pre-university pathway courses provided a vital route for international students to access our world-class universities.

20:15

We initially proposed that all students should have to return overseas on completion of their course. Some 92 per cent of respondents disagreed with that proposal and the final policy instead puts a maximum limit on the time students can spend in tier 4. We proposed a wide reform of students’ permission to work and again received significant negative feedback, with 85 per cent of respondents against the proposals. Instead, we have retained the previous system in the most compliant sectors while removing permission to work in those sectors where we account the most abuse.

The impact assessment shows that we expect the full set of reforms to lead to a cumulative net reduction of around 230,000 migrants to the end of this Parliament, 2011-15. Once all changes have been implemented in 2013, we expect a reduction in net migration numbers of around 60,000 a year. However, it is important to note there is not a one-to-one relationship between the number of visas issued and the level of net migration. The volume of visas is larger as it includes students coming to study for less than 12 months.

Once the system is fully implemented, we estimate that there will be around 70,000 fewer student visa grants a year and around 20,000 fewer visas issued to dependants each year. In addition, closing tier 1 post-study work in April 2012 but retaining a route into skilled, sponsored employment through tier 2 should result in 20,000 fewer each year staying in the UK to work. As a result of the transitional and full effects of the policy, we estimate that there will be around 260,000 fewer student visas granted and around 100,000 fewer visas issued to dependants—a total of 360,000 fewer by the end of this Parliament. In addition, closing tier 1 post-study work in April 2012 but retaining a route into skilled, sponsored employment through tier 2 should result in 80,000 fewer staying in the UK to work but with 25,000 fewer dependants by the end of this Parliament in 2015.

On costs and benefits, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the financial considerations. The impact assessment shows that the changes are estimated to have a net cost of £2.4 billion to the UK economy. We estimate that the policy proposals will lead to £1.1 billion of benefits but £3.6 billion of costs, of which £840 million is savings to public services. However, the noble Lord will be aware that a significant proportion of this impact results from less work being done by students, post-study workers and their dependants, whether this work is legitimate or not. The impact would be lower if some of this work is instead done by non-migrant workers. We have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to look into this. The MAC has access to the appropriate economic expertise. In the mean time, we have costed a worst-case scenario.

The institutions that will no longer be able to recruit migrants will lose fee income but our view is that the policy strikes the right balance between support for British educational institutions and the need to reduce migration to manageable levels and cut out abuse of the student route. The committee has recognised the difficulty in estimating likely costs and benefits. The impact assessment drew from a range of sources but did not specifically draw on the consultation responses. Other, more established data sources were used as they were more likely to be representative of a diverse sector.

I would not want the House to think we are dismissive of the Merits Committee’s comments. The Merits Committee provides an invaluable service to Parliament and the public, and we have taken on board its comments in the spirit in which they are intended. I reassure the chairman, my noble friend Lord Goodlad, that the Home Office will always be happy to provide the committee with more information wherever it is possible and reasonable to do so. Ministers will work hard to ensure that that happens.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked how the consultation responses were incorporated into the students’ IA. Very few of the consultation responses provided information directly relevant for the numbers in the impact assessment. Most responses focused on the policy itself. Of those that did, they either confirmed the uses of sources already used or were judged to be unrepresentative of a diverse sector.

The noble Lord suggested that the numbers differed from the Government’s earlier estimates. There are indeed differences between reductions in net migration and reductions in visas. We estimate that in 2013, once all changes have been implemented, there will be a reduction in net migration of around 60,000 a year. For the same year, we estimate a reduction in visas and in-country grant of around 70,000 for students, 20,000 for post-study workers and 30,000 for dependants.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked about low-risk countries. The UK Border Agency does not base decisions on the nationality of the applicant. All applicants are judged against objective measures. Low-risk nationals are given a streamlined process, but the underlying criteria remain unchanged.

My noble friend Lord Avebury asked about student visitor extension to 11 months and whether this creates a loophole. The student visitor is a secure route. The UK Border Agency officials, both overseas and in the UK report, retain the right to refuse any student visa application on credibility grounds. If they believe that the applicant does not genuinely intend to study—and we will monitor closely the numbers of students making use of this extension—they will take action at signs of abuse. We plan to decide the future of the route once it has been operating for 12 months.

My noble friend Lord Avebury asked about the management of the UKBA. The Home Office has made a recent change to bring the strategic immigration policy back within the core Home Office.

My noble friend Lord Avebury reminded us that fee increases made it hard for students to make ends meet, or words to that effect. However, he will be aware that overseas students are expected to be able to provide for themselves without working. Paid work is only to supplement this and to give them experience of UK life.

My noble friend also asked why we are asking the QAA and the Independent Schools Inspectorate to inspect private colleges, and whether we will reinstate the British Council or Accreditation UK. We did consult on a new inspection regime. Under tier 4 we have seen that the level of compliance has been closely aligned to the type of institution, with far higher rates of abuse to be found in the privately funded sector, with up to 26 per cent of students found to be non-compliant in one study. The previous system was based on accreditation by sector bodies, and this has proved to be inadequate. Therefore we are moving to a system of more rigorous inspection carried out by fully independent bodies that have previously inspected the sectors with the highest levels of compliance, namely the public-funded providers and independent schools. The ISI’s framework and standards have been scrutinised by Ofsted to ensure that they are appropriate and rigorous. We do not plan to reinstate Accreditation UK or the other accreditation bodies.

Noble Lords have made several other points. As I have already indicated, I will respond to them in writing. I reiterate that the Government have gone to great lengths to seek the views of the public and the sector, and to take account of those views in developing our final policy. In the light of this thorough approach to consultation and an explanation of our calculations, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will feel able to withdraw his Motion.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I wonder if the noble Earl could clarify—if not now, then at a later time—the basis of the use of the responses to the consultation. I was not entirely clear whether he was saying that it was factual information that was not used, and that other sources were used, or whether it was something wider than that.

[Earl Attlee]

My main point was that the consultation was responding to the policy rather than giving us detailed data on the likely effect of the policy.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who seems to be working very hard today.

First of all, I echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the work of the Merits Select Committee, of which she is a distinguished member. It is very difficult for noble Lords to go through all the statutory instruments and statements of changes, and without the Committee we would be in a very difficult position as far as parliamentary scrutiny is concerned. Essentially this debate is about two issues. One is parliamentary process and the information provided by the Home Office; and it is also about the policy. On the issue of parliamentary process, it is very important that the Home Office learns lessons from the way in which this statement and previous statements have been produced for when further changes in Immigration Rules are brought before your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said that this is not the first such occasion, and indeed it is not. We come back consistently to this House to debate these changes because of the inadequacy of the department’s approach. The noble Earl said that his department readily takes on board the points made by the Merits Select Committee, but so far it has not. We continuously come back to debate these issues because the Merits Select Committee has identified inadequacies in his department’s approach. I have very little confidence that we will not be back in another few weeks with further discussion on the same basis.

The noble Earl has kindly offered to write to noble Lords on points to which he has not responded—he always does and it is appreciated—and I hope that his department will take this to heart. I thought it was very interesting when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that the problem with the IA was that it only had two options: the do-nothing option, or the option of taking what the Home Office wants to do. Rather surprisingly, the Government have come to the view that the Home Office got it right in the first place. I am sure that we are all reassured that, after rigorous consideration of the Home Office’s original proposals, they have indeed, through the IA, come to the view that that is the right approach. Normally on IAs, one seems to get a series of options where I think one can get a more considered view, and I would hope for that in the future.

I too would pay tribute to the ILPA. I thought that the briefing paper it produced for us was, as ever, very comprehensive. Very interesting were the examples that it gave of people who would be badly affected by these proposals and changes. I hope that the noble Earl will have some time to have a look at these examples, because I think that they bring home to us how these changes can have a real impact on people from other countries.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke about the impact of English language schools, and I agreed with everything that he said. I thought that he put a very pertinent point to the noble Earl about the proposal to change from the accreditation scheme to the monopolistic provider that is now going to be provided in relation to inspection, which will be very expensive indeed. The noble Earl gave the reasoned response that he thought this was going to be a more effective and more rigorous scrutiny. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, might feel able to bring this back in some form because I think that it warrants further debate. I am particularly worried about the monopolistic issue and the cost, and I hope that there will be an opportunity to debate this further in due course.

I very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who spoke from his experience of the School of Pharmacy. My experience is particularly in the health field. Throughout the world we have wonderful contacts with healthcare systems in other countries, and it is because we have always had this marvellous open door, with people from other countries who often come to help the NHS. My fear is that it is not just the change in the rules that will make a difference but the change in the atmosphere; people from other countries will get the feeling that they are no longer wanted here to study, and that is a major concern.

20:30

I also agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the post-study work visa. It is part of a package. This does impact on the brightest and the best, however we define them—that if they are able to undertake some work experience before they go home, it is extremely valuable to them. If they cannot, it actually undermines the qualification that they receive in the UK. I cannot see the problem in them being able to undertake some work experience. It is not that they are taking away work from indigenous members of the population; it is simply that it is part of the package. I have met many of these students and I know that they are not seeking to abuse the system by staying on here and working. It is essentially part of the credibility of the educational package that is on offer.

On dependants, I have met many of the mature students. They are not students in our terms; they are not 18 year-olds, but mature people who often have partners and families. We need to be somewhat more sympathetic to their needs. Why should it be a matter of concern if they bring dependants with them while they study on these courses?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is because the route has been abused.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Yes, my Lords, but surely the point is to deal with the abuse in a holistic way and not stop legitimate people coming here. I fear that the changes will have that dampener impact. I really do.

On the question of consultation, I, like the noble Baroness, was rather confused by the Minister’s response. The Government seem to dismiss these responses because they commented on the policy or because they were unrepresentative. I do not know who decided that they were unrepresentative; it is almost as if the Government have decided that anyone who does not like the policy should not be listened to because they are unrepresentative. I just point out to him—and I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Rosser for referring to this—that the Merits Committee in paragraph 10 says that the committee very much regrets the lack of information and how the findings from the consultation fed into the conclusions and estimates that the Government have made. As the committee says,

“the estimation of costs to educational establishments would benefit from”,

consultees, and it is,

“regrettable as the Government presumably received some useful information given that the consultation specifically asked about the main advantages/disadvantages of the changes”.

If you are commenting on the general policy, I would have thought that you were actually talking about the main advantages and disadvantages of the changes. That really gives the game away. The fact is that all those legitimate organisations involved in education know that this has been a disastrous change in policy; they told the Government that and the Government take no notice. No wonder they have not fed that into the results of this statement of changes.

This has been a thoroughly good debate. Once again, the Government have found themselves rather lonely on this policy. That is because this policy is wrong and highly damaging to this country. I of course withdraw the Motion, but I hope that the Government will listen to what noble Lords have said tonight.

Motion withdrawn.