Global Migration and Mobility (EUC Report)

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I would like to begin by expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for the way that he guided our committee through our inquiry into the EU’s global approach to migration and mobility, and to the clerks who so ably assisted us all.

I would also like, in a general way, to thank the Government for their response to our report, which contained 43 conclusions and recommendations. The Government agreed with most of these. It was disappointing, however, that they did not agree with our recommendation to opt in to the family reunification directive, simply asserting that it is not in the UK’s interest to do so. It would be very helpful if, in the Minister’s response today, he were able to enlarge on this and deal with the moral as well as the practical issues that will inevitably arise from the differences in family admissions policies across the member states.

It was the committee’s view that when it came to the integration of migrants, language learning had an important role to play. The Government agreed with this and went on to say that,

“the Government believes that communities, businesses and voluntary bodies should be enabled to lead integration in their local area. The Localism Act introduces new rights for communities to take greater control in their local areas, for example by challenging local authorities to contract out services where they feel they could do a better job of running them”.

This suggests three questions: what services do the Government have in mind; do they know what local authorities are actually doing; and what plans have they got to assess the use of the Localism Act in promoting migrant integration? I hope that the Minister can address some of these questions now or later.

Our report also recommended that member states and the EU consider a more balanced and comprehensive approach to those who overstay their visas, including by the selective encouragement of legal migration channels, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned. The Government simply did not respond to this recommendation, although I know from the Home Secretary’s comments yesterday that the Government are very much aware of the problem of overstaying. Can the Minister give his views on the approach to handling this problem, both in terms of those migrants here now and those who will arrive in the future? I was sorry that the Government did not agree with our recommendation that they participate in all EU readmission agreements, but I was glad that they agree that there should be continued evaluation of existing agreements.

In any discussion of mobility and migration and the opportunities and problems that they may present, it and is vital to have accurate and reliable data and robust evaluations of programs and tools. The committee considered that the current iteration of the GAMM has not effectively evaluated the EU’s progress to date in achieving its objectives, and we called for more rigour and for full and detailed evaluations. The Government agreed with this and agreed, I think, that there is much work to be done.

The mobility partnerships, again mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, illustrate the point. These partnerships are set to become the main tools for the EU’s external migration policies. Yet, so far, only one of these partnerships has been evaluated and that evaluation was close to worthless. In my long experience of evaluation reports, I have rarely seen one that was so inadequate, so amateur and so directly misleading. The evaluation’s conclusion that the Moldova mobility partnership had been “a clear success” was not supported by the evidence adduced and was directly contradicted by the evaluation’s account of its own shortcomings. The general sloppiness, lack of rigour and misleading conclusions regarding the Moldova mobility partnership evaluation matter. The EU proposes these partnerships as the key mobility and migration tools. If they are to be the key tools, they should not be progressed without a grown-up evaluation framework being built in to them from the very start. The Government surely have a role to play here, if only to prevent a further waste of taxpayers’ money.

However, none of the Government’s disagreements or qualifications in their response to the committee’s report is as disappointing as their response to the recommendations on international students and net migration targets. Noble Lords have already spoken eloquently and forcefully on this matter and I am sure we will hear more from other speakers. The Government rejected the recommendation that international students be removed from the public policy implications of the Government’s policy of reducing net migration. The reason given in their response is that the UK will continue to comply with the international definition of net migration. That is not in itself an obviously compelling reason for anything at all. It is also a very odd response.

The Government say that there is no cap on qualified student numbers. Their response states that,

“any student with the right qualifications, sufficient funds and a good level of English can come with no annual limit on numbers”.

Unless there is some implication that I have not spotted in the phrase “no annual limit”, this is a liberal and sensible approach. After all, the Government acknowledge that they are committed to the sustainable growth of a sector in which the UK excels and which is worth huge sums to the UK economy. In other words, we want this sector to grow. That means attracting more suitably qualified students. It also means maintaining—or, even better, growing—our market share.

The Government are not trying to cut the numbers of qualified students coming here, so why on earth include their numbers in the gross number of migrants presented for policy purposes? What possible harm could it do to exclude them? The answer is surely that it would do no harm at all. However, it is easy to see that leaving the situation as it is may well be causing us current and future damage, and that is because, as the committee’s report says, it helps to create the perception that overseas students are not welcome in the UK.

Noble Lords have already referred to the briefing produced yesterday by Universities UK. The Higher Education Statistics Agency data in this briefing show a decline in non-EU postgraduate entry to our universities and only a small increase in undergraduate entry. The data also show that demand from India has absolutely plummeted. Universities UK concludes that,

“in the context of a rapidly growing and highly competitive international market, the low overall growth over recent years is likely to equate to a loss of market share”,

which means, of course, a loss of revenue for the UK, but it also means a loss of future cultural influence and soft power. Much of this is caused by problems of perception: the perception that the UK does not welcome foreign students and that the UK is making itself deliberately difficult for students to get into. Unless we change that perception, things will get worse.

With the very dramatic fall in Indian students coming to the UK, the numbers are increasingly propped up by the Chinese. However, there are signs that the Chinese numbers may themselves soon decline. A recent survey of Chinese high school students revealed that over the past 12 months only 60% of those high school students who had previously preferred the UK as a destination for university still did so. I repeat: only 60%.

We need to reverse the perception of the UK as unwelcoming to students. We need to reflect the truth of “no cap”. We need to make entry easier and for it to be seen to be easier. We can make a good start in doing this and send out a powerful signal by removing students from the public policy implications of the Government’s policy of reducing net migration. The Government’s refusal so far to do this looks much more like stubbornness than it looks like principle or even electoral calculation, and I hope that the Minister may feel able to ask his colleagues to reconsider.