Operation Conifer

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The elected power who would have the authority to undertake any of the issues that the noble Lord is talking about would be the PCC. It would be up to him whether to call for an investigation and it would be for him to, perhaps, refer matters to the IPCC. He is the elected power.

[Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I worked very closely with Edward Heath when he was leader of the Opposition and I was head of his private office in the mid-1960s. The most damning indictment of Operation Conifer came from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven—the former Director of Public Prosecutions—who was in the best position to know, when he called it a sham. There is another problem: if distinguished contributors to our public life, such as Edward Heath, are treated in this way, is that not a major disincentive to others who wish to enter public life? I urge the Government to think again.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is a matter for the police to follow up any allegations of criminal activity that are brought to them. The public would rightly complain if allegations were brought forward that were ignored by the police. I can see the sensitivities on all sides of both Houses of Parliament on this; nevertheless, if an allegation is brought forward, the police must investigate it.

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market (Con)]

My Lords, I am tempted to try to contribute to some of the very important issues that have already been so expertly dealt with, in particular in the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who demonstrated his clear knowledge, commitment and persuasiveness on the whole subject. I want to concentrate on an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred, and which will be relevant for the Select Committee that the Minister and others have mentioned. That issue was debated in the Select Committee in the House of Commons, and it was unable to reach a conclusion on it, so it will be important for our own Select Committee to deal with it.

First, I must declare a non-financial interest. One of my lifelong hobbies has been conjuring. I think I am the only magician to have performed in No. 10 Downing Street, No. 12 Downing Street and the Speaker’s Chambers in the House of Commons—all three. My main claim to fame is that I appeared once in the television appeal programme “Children in Need”, hosted by the sadly late Terry Wogan. The final episode was so and so’s revenge—and I was put up to do the politician’s revenge, which was to persuade John Humphrys to have his head cut off by me, and for a lot of people to contribute charitably for me to do so, or for him to agree to it. He was a great sport and did agree to it. He was, rightly, highly nervous, as was I. I should say that my colleagues in the House of Commons criticised me the next day for putting it back on again.

I am, therefore, a member of the Magic Circle, one of the premier organisations in the world for magicians and a Mecca for magic, with a large number of members both here in the UK and internationally. It is not a wealthy organisation. Some years ago, after a stupendous fundraising effort, the Magic Circle found an ideal location for its new headquarters in Stephenson Way, adjacent to Euston Station and where much of the works to accommodate HS2 at Euston, including underground, will take place. The Magic Circle building was substantially renovated in the 1990s to provide a library, a museum to house all sorts of magical treasures of historic interest, a dining room, a club room, bars, and so on. Its location is ideal, not just for magicians amateur and professional here in the UK but from across the world. Its continuation is heavily dependent on substantial commercial contributions from running events and hiring out the facilities, all of which could be severely at risk as the construction work takes place at Euston.

The Magic Circle is not alone in facing this problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has already said. There are six other organisations, which are—dare I say it?—much more prestigious, significant and well known, located in the same area. They are all similarly affected and have formed the Stephenson Way Group to voice their concerns and seek safeguards. They are the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Wellcome Foundation, the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, the Royal Asiatic Society, the Religious Society of Friends—the Quakers—and the Methodist Church. The members of the group are all charities and pre-eminent bodies in their respective fields, delivering considerable public benefit. They are a unique cluster of like-minded organisations devoted to research and promoting knowledge in the spheres of health, well-being and the arts.

I want to give an indication of the kind of problems that its members face in this context. Their buildings are all put to sensitive uses; they house uniquely bespoke facilities; they are all used for training, conferencing and learning; and several have residential accommodation associated with their primary functions. Group members also rely on hiring out their facilities in order to sustain their core purposes. Their location greatly assists the national and international work. Their work should not be jeopardised or impaired by the HS2 project, yet no adequate solution to their plight has yet been provided by HS2.

Among the problems that HS2 building works will create are utilities diversions, demolitions, deep excavations, ground works and construction works. Access to the properties will be impeded. The noise, dust and vibration, the impeded access and the likely need to carry out protective works or alterations to the buildings may result in group members having to vacate their buildings for some or all of their very important functions for lengthy periods. I could go through a number of the issues. Without adequate safeguards, among them are: building damage; water ingress; damage to highly important equipment, surgeries and so on; damage to nationally and internationally important archives; impaired access; disruption of teaching and examinations vital for the medical profession, and so on, all resulting in reduced public benefit.

It is fair to say that when developing and introducing these proposals, the Government and HS2 had so many issues to deal with that they failed to recognise the severity of the impacts on the Stephenson Way Group. In May 2014 the group therefore petitioned against the Bill, setting out its concerns. Even then, HS2 was slow to acknowledge the extent of the huge potential detriment to the group. By December 2015, when it was the group’s turn to appear before the Commons Select Committee, little progress had been made. HS2 has now offered some assurances but they fall far short of what is needed. It has set up a business mitigation group in order to discuss these issues further. The Commons Select Committee looked at all these issues and had this to say as a result in its report:

“Businesses, hotels and professional and academic organisations in and around Stephenson Way will be severely affected by construction. They need proper notice of when works will commence so that they can organise their activities. We believe a minimum of three months’ notice is appropriate—preferably more”.

The key point is this:

“The Promoter has agreed to establish a business mitigation user group to discuss problems and solutions. These will be helpful. We urge the Promoter to respond positively to the needs of petitioners from this area in the period between our report and the Lords select committee stage. The activities of several of the organisations we heard from are noise and/or vibration sensitive. We would like the Promoter to pay the reasonable costs of risk assessment and surveying to determine sensitivity to construction effects such as vibration”.

It now falls to the Lords committee to follow this through, as the Commons committee specifically urged it to do. One or two of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made would be very helpful in this context. I hope, therefore, that the committee will monitor closely the work of the business mitigation group, with a view to getting a satisfactory detailed plan to deal with these issues by the conclusion of the committee’s deliberations, and, if not satisfied, will make further recommendations as to how they can be dealt with.

Global Migration and Mobility (EUC Report)

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on his speech and on the comprehensive nature of his report. I will refer to only one subject, which he almost finished on: international students and net migration targets, which is covered in the last section of the report, particularly the recommendations and the government response.

In doing so, I will follow up on the debate we had in this House on 31 January this year, when the subject was well covered. We had 26 speakers, nearly all with very impressive backgrounds, in one way or another, in the university world. All were unanimously critical of the impact of the Government’s immigration and visa policies on non-EU students. As the noble Lord has just said, there have been five Select Committees of both Houses which have published their criticisms, along the same lines, and proposed changes. There is a debate in the other place this afternoon, of which I was able to watch a bit: all the messages seemed to be the same.

My starting point is the widespread understanding, fully recognised in government, of the huge benefits that international students bring to this country. I will touch on them very briefly, because they were well covered in our earlier debate. The economic benefits are not only the contribution to the wider economy, but to local economies; I understand that the Mayor of London has estimated that the economic benefit is £2.5 billion in London alone. There are various local estimates in other university towns. In particular, there are benefits to universities from the fees and other income brought in at a time when university finances are under considerable pressure. There is the major export contribution that this sector brings to this country. It gives our own campuses an international dimension for our own students. The soft power aspect was well delineated in the previous debate. Particularly important is the aspect that non-EU students bring to the postgraduate sector, to which the noble Lord has just referred.

While, overall, 12% of students enrolled in UK universities in 2011-12 came from outside the EU, in that year the figure rises to an astonishing 49% for postgraduate courses in engineering, mathematics and computer science, and 31% in postgraduate courses in technology. Indeed, in that year, 27% of postgraduate students in these subjects were non-EU students. A diminution in the flow of students to these courses would have a serious effect on many of them.

I briefly stress all these points because the public concern about immigration has nothing to do with postgraduate students coming to this country, contributing to our economy and spreading the good word about the United Kingdom when they leave. I do not believe that the public are concerned about that at all. In so far as they were concerned about some abuses in the university and further education sector, that has rightly been well tackled by the Government.

Our debates reflected two particular concerns: the impact of some of the actions and procedures of the United Kingdom Border Agency and the increased impact of the Government’s net migration target on international student enrolments—the particular point that this report refers to. I make the point about enrolment, rather than applications, because the signs are particularly worrying concerning enrolments.

From this flow the two points I ask my noble friend to respond to this afternoon. He very kindly arranged for a small delegation of those who spoke in the debate to meet him and Mark Harper, the Minister of State for Immigration, in mid-April. It was a most helpful and constructive meeting. The Minister outlined to us the initiatives he was taking with David Willetts on the many complaints about UKBA—complaints which were well indicated in the debate we had in January—and we discussed in particular the resources of UKBA, the feedback it gives to universities and training.

First, will my noble friend give us an update this afternoon on progress on these issues? Undoubtedly the Government are now trying to be in the right place on these issues, and are making quite an impact on the perceptions of those from overseas in relation to applications to UK universities. Secondly, and much less satisfactorily, we stress that the step that would make the greatest difference to overseas perceptions would be to remove non-EU students from the net migration targets in exactly the way recommended by the report we are discussing this afternoon. This is where the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report is so disappointing. Effectively, their response is that,

“we welcome all genuine students, coming to attend any university or college that meets our requirements”.

In December, the Home Secretary affirmed that,

“we will place no cap on the number of genuine students coming from across the world to study in this country”.

That is a very clear quote, but the Government’s response sidesteps the recommendation and simply makes a bland statement instead.

That pledge that there will not be a cap is not the perception in many countries. There are clear signs from many of them that, as the noble Lord has said, at a time when other countries, such as the United States, Germany, Australia, Canada and many others, are very actively promoting and expanding their intake of such students, we risk having a diminishing share of that growing market because of the overall net migration target. The total number of non-EU students has dropped for the first time in 10 years. Overall, demand is sustained by rapid growth in the number of Chinese students, but numbers from elsewhere are declining. One small indication has just come to my attention of the sort of way in which actions by the Government, or by UKBA, affect very considerably the perceptions of individual countries. This relates to Brazil.

The Brazilian Government’s student exchange scheme, Science Without Borders, fully funds high-achieving Brazilian undergraduate and postgraduate students to study at the best universities around the world, including in the UK. A group of 2,143 Brazilian students who wanted to come to the UK to study as part of this scheme have been prevented from doing so by inflexible visa rules. These are high-achieving students who want to study undergraduate STEM courses, but they needed to improve their English before starting their degrees. The current rules prevent their staying in the UK after completing an English language course. These students would have been required to return to Brazil and reapply for a new visa before starting their degree courses. As a result of these rules, and the refusal of the Home Office to change them, 1,100 of those students are now going to the United States and 600 to Australia, which are happy to let them come to study English and then stay for their degree course. Of the original 2,143 students, approximately 43 have applied to come to the UK for September, and approximately 400 to come to the UK in March 2014. The value to the UK of the entire cohort was about £66 million, but as well as lost earnings there is probably a perception that the UK is not worth applying to among many who otherwise could have been very successfully received here. I do not expect a response this afternoon from my noble friend, but I urge him to look into this case.

Why, therefore, despite the Government’s pledges, is a different perception growing in so many non-EU countries? Is it perhaps because the Government have not tackled head-on, or responded to, the well argued and well publicised case that in order to meet their target of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands by 2015, somehow a reduction in non-EU student numbers of 87,600 between 2012 and 2015 will be required? My noble friend did not respond to that point in the debate in January. The Government did not respond to it in their response to this Select Committee report. They bypassed it and somewhat dodged it.

I hope that we can have at least a more direct and well argued response to this charge. I suspect that there is no such response, in which case it is clear that we have a self-inflicted wound that is harming our universities, despite our good intentions of “no annual limit on numbers” and so on. It would be much better to make it clear that there is no annual limit by accepting the Select Committee’s recommendation. The Government’s statement that there is no cap on the number of students coming from across the world to study in this country will be widely believed and totally credible if the Select Committee’s recommendation is accepted.

Visas: Student Visa Policy

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market]

That this House takes note of the impact of student visa policy on admissions to universities in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

[Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market]

My Lords, I thank the many distinguished noble Lords who have put their names down to speak in this debate. There are several, such as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who for good reasons are unable to be here but would like to have participated. That is a sign of the concern that there still is on this matter. The time pressure put on us means that I will have to be succinct on the issues and there is much that I will have to leave out.

There are three basic points with which to start. I strongly support the Government’s overall immigration policy. I entirely agree with the steps take to deal with abuse and bogus applications in parts of the private sector, the education sector and English language schools. Today we are talking solely about universities. I welcome the helpful steps that the Government have taken to alleviate some of the concerns expressed not least by five Select Committees in both Houses, and in particular the decision to disaggregate the student numbers in the migration figures. That was a big step in the right direction but we need to go further.

The achievements of our universities are one of the major UK success stories. Many are recognised world leaders, comparable to the best anywhere, especially in the United States. Overall our university sector has an internationally high reputation and the demand for places from overseas is strong. Non-EU overseas students contribute over 10% of total university fee income. The contribution to that reputation from overseas undergraduates, postgraduates, research fellows and professors working and studying here is great. The benefits that our universities bring to local economies are substantial, not only in their spending on local goods and services but also in their contribution to key economic developments. The huge growth in the science and research parks in Cambridge is just one outstanding example. The universities are a major expert earner, accounting for £8 billion now and with an expected to increase to £17 billion by 2025 on recent trends. They are the fifth biggest positive contributor to the net balance of payments.

The vast majority of overseas students are not permanent immigrants. They are migrants. The universities have excellent systems for tracking what happens to them. Most eventually return to their own countries or elsewhere. A 2010 Home Office study showed that of the individuals who entered as students in 2004, only 3% had settled permanently by 2009. They do not claim benefits. It is a condition of their visa that they have no recourse to public funds. They are net contributors to the economy and not a drain on public funds. They are unlikely to require NHS care because of their age profile. They are totally unlike bogus applicants and many other immigrants.

There are countless examples of them returning to their own or other countries and becoming permanent ambassadors for the UK. They are our best ambassadors when they leave our shores. They find prominent positions in government, foreign services and defence, industry and commerce, education and elsewhere. This is so-called soft power. In short, these are absolutely not the sort of immigrants that the public and the media have in mind when they call for tougher controls on immigration. They are the opposite, real assets to us, and that needs constantly and regularly to be made clear in the context of policy decisions. In so far as there has been public concern about students, this was related to bogus ones, and I hope that that problem has now been dealt with.

Overall figures of new entrants from non-EU countries are only slightly down in 2012, by 0.4%. Most overseas students are postgraduates and their numbers are down by 1.9%. Not much, one might say, but I suspect that this is only the start of a trend. First, in what is a hugely competitive industry, as many in this House know, numbers in most of our major competitor countries—America, Australia, Canada and some EU countries, which are fast developing courses in the English language —are up.

Secondly, some universities have told me that they found that last September the number of postgraduate applicants who had even paid deposits and then declined to come had increased. Thirdly, the perceptions that the UK was imposing tough new restrictions, being less welcome to new applicants and spouses, and even closing for business, have grown considerably since these figures were compiled. This goes particularly for the Indian subcontinent, where numbers are already substantially down and compensated for only by a rise in China.

Unless action is taken, future years will show a considerable decline in entrants. On the Indian subcontinent and, I am told, in some African countries, this perception has been especially evident as a result of the London Metropolitan issue. I do not have time to go into that in detail. Suffice it to say that the hostile publicity in India after that matter focused on the students who either had to or could not find other places—and it was huge. That, combined with individual stories about visa difficulties with the UK Border Agency, has been immensely damaging.

Fourthly—and this is difficult to explain in a few words, certainly to people outside this House—the claims sometimes made by Ministers that there are no limits on non-EU applications are simply not believed. This is due partly to the perceptions that I have already described, partly to difficulties with the UK Border Agency—of which, more in a moment—but perhaps most of all to the following point. In order to meet the Government’s target of reducing net migration to tens of thousands by 2015—and we are still a long way off that—and since students are the largest category of migrant, a further reduction in student numbers seems inevitable. The Migration Advisory Committee’s report states that a reduction in non-EU student numbers of 87,600 in the period 2012 to 2015 would be required to meet that target. The Institute for Public Policy Research has an estimate of 50,000 fewer non-EU students, translating to a loss to the UK of £2 billion to £3 billion per annum. These figures suggesting limits are becoming widely known and are fed by the perception of the way in which the UK Border Agency is applying its controls and rules to potential and already-in-place students from non-EU countries.

So what is to be done? I will be as brief as possible to enable as many speakers as possible to have a little bit more than the two minutes allowed. I have two points to put to my noble friend. First, it is clear that the UK Border Agency is overstretched, overbureaucratic and underresourced. Universities are highly responsible and want to clamp down on any bogus students and those who break the rules. I have talked to various vice-chancellors, seen the Universities UK submission and read the excellent article in the Daily Telegraph of 24 January by Sue Cameron, which accurately sums up the impressions that I have gained. The stories of unnecessary difficulties are legion. The UK Border Agency seems to be making students feel as unwelcome as it can. The amount of time, energy and costs that universities are having to use up is high, and all this is now being used by competitors in other countries to imply that the UK is closed for business.

I have a list of complaints and suggested improvements from Universities UK which I do not have time to repeat. Today, I shall mention just one or two of them. It makes the following points: that the UK Border Agency requirements of tier 4 sponsors have changed 16 times since 2009, making it incredibly difficult for sponsors to keep track of requirements; that changes have been made to visa requirements in the middle of the universities’ admission cycle, which has led to individual institutions having to review by hand thousands of offers already made to prospective students; that the UK Border Agency helpline is often unable to answer questions about changes to the rules; and—this is a particularly important point—that universities frequently tell Universities UK that they have received no feedback from the UK Border Agency following a tier 4 audit visit, either to inform them that they are compliant or to point out shortcomings or potential weaknesses. Many universities are making this point to Universities UK, and I hope that the Government will take it up.

Secondly, and most important of all in the light of all that I have said, I strongly support the recommendations of the five Lords and Commons Select Committees, including the Public Accounts Committee. It must be rare to have five committees from both Houses making the same points time and again. I am not sure that I can recall that ever happening before in my long period. It is important therefore that the Government take heed of what they have all said and remove international students from the net migration target. All five committees have powerfully argued the case. I quote from just one, the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, reporting in September 2012. It states:

“Whilst we understand that the UN definition of migration includes overseas students the Government is under no obligation to use that definition for the development of domestic policy”.

That is a fundamental point: it is perfectly reasonable to have the figures under the UN definition, but they should not be used for the development of domestic policy. The committee goes on:

“Removing overseas students from the Government’s migration targets would allow universities to compete on a level playing field with their international competitors”.

That is again an absolutely fundamental point. By changing the system, we would come into line with what happens in America, Australia and Canada, where they are making great appeals to overseas students. The report continues:

“It would also allow the Home Office to concentrate on economic migrants and their value to the United Kingdom”.

That is a point that I made earlier. The report goes on:

“We recommend that, for domestic policy purposes, overseas students should be recorded under a separate classification”—

we are moving, thank goodness, towards that—

“and”—

crucially—

“not be counted against the overall limit on net migration. That does not mean that we wish to hide the level of overseas students studying in the UK. The Government could make clear the distinction by publishing, alongside its net migration data, detailed information on the number of overseas students studying in the UK, their country of origin, the number who remain here after they have completed their studies and the number who remain in higher education”.

The committee then makes the following, terribly important point:

“Such an approach would make clear the difference between permanent immigration and study and crucially it would demonstrate clearly that the United Kingdom welcomes overseas students and values the contribution they make to our economy”.

I could not put it better myself. I stress again that such a change would bring our universities into line with the systems in our major competitor countries.

Yesterday, all five chairmen of the committees wrote to the Prime Minister on this point in view of his forthcoming visit to India, where the problem is most acute. I cannot recall an occasion on which the chairmen of five Commons and Lords committees have taken such action. I am sure that, on his visit, the Prime Minister will yet again powerfully and splendidly promote the cause of British exports. This change would be most timely and welcome in relation to one of Britain’s key export sectors.

At the Conservative Party conference in October 2011, the Prime Minister said:

“I want the best and brightest … scientists and students from around the world to get the red carpet treatment”.

I say amen to that. It is precisely what this change would do. My noble friend on the Front Bench has a deservedly high reputation in this House. I am sure that he will listen. I hope that, as a result of this debate, he will feel able to pursue both these points, on the UK Border Agency and on taking the migration statistics out of the target, with the relevant colleagues in government. If he can achieve progress on that front, it will be warmly welcomed by very many in this Chamber.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, may I point out that, on the mathematics of the speakers list that we have in front of us, we actually have three minutes each?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market]

My Lords, we have all had to be extremely brief in our contributions today and so I will endeavour not to sum up but to be very brief in my final remarks.

Many of us have referred to the fact that the five Select Committees of both Houses were unanimous across party in the recommendation that they made. That is a rare event. We have had a similar rare event today in this House. The messages have been clear, extremely well informed, based on vast experience across party and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria said, unanimous across the Chamber.

I am most grateful to all who have participated. I have to say that I did not anticipate when I put down the Motion that there would be such a huge response on a Thursday afternoon but I think it reflects the concerns that many directly involved with UK universities have and it has been passionately conveyed.

I sympathise with my noble friend the Minister for having to respond to a lot of very critical comments. I think he did a good job and I entirely agree with what he said about the way in which the Government have tackled the clear abuses in the system which were not doing the reputation of overseas students any good domestically. That was the right thing to do and I am all in favour of it.

My noble friend also put across some important messages which he hopes we will convey to the universities themselves. One of the points that has come out of the debate is that many universities and vice-chancellors are still concerned about some of the approaches of the UK Border Agency and by the fact that our regime is different from those in Australia, America and Canada which have a much more apparent open house.

I am most grateful to my noble friend and I hope that he will convey some of the points that have been made in the debate. I suspect I am putting it mildly when I say that there are sometimes big issues debated on both sides in the Government. It is important that my noble friend should convey the feelings that have been expressed on the two key issues of the UK Border Agency and the difference in the targets compared with America, Australia and Canada. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.