Why is the government so anti foreign students?

Our higher education will suffer

The government’s behaviour in its decision to revoke London Metropolitan’s ability to sponsor international students and the resulting chaos created for genuine students, is a devastating blow to the international reputation of our higher education sector and its capacity to act as an engine for growth. Given that UK higher education (HE) is our seventh largest export industry, worth £8bn a year, with a huge capacity for growth, this is incredibly counter-productive.

The UK Border Agency (UKBA) is tasked with the important job of looking after the flow of student immigration. We fully support the government’s attempts to tackle bogus colleges and stop immigration fraud, and that does require tough enforcement of the rules. But on this occasion it seems the UKBA’s processes have caught too many legitimate international students in their net.

Part of the problem is the very different approaches to process and regulation that are taken by the UKBA and the HE sector. UKBA rules change often, with little or no consultation. Generally speaking they come into force straightaway, and usually without a great deal of publicity. Bulky new versions of guidance are frequently issued without any signposting as to what has been changed. UKBA have changed their rules 11 times since 2010. Scrambling to keep up with this, universities tell me they dedicate ever more resources to ensure compliance with the rules, but still feel perpetually on the back foot.

This approach to process is flawed and sits particularly awkwardly in UK HE. For example, our universities are by-and-large responsible for their own regulation of quality. Internal processes to assure quality are far reaching in every institution. The Quality Assurance Agency rarely finds severe problems in its external review process because it works with universities at every stage to ensure they are complying with good practice and fulfilling their duties to students. In contrast, UKBA does not have the same level of engagement with universities, and certainly not at every stage of the process, thus creating a risk that in terms of compliance with the rules and guidance, something might slip through the net.

We do not have all the detail about London Met’s case – no doubt we will learn more once the judicial review begins. But process issues have been affecting the whole sector. At a recent meeting with a Vice-Chancellor, I was told that UKBA officers asked for a set of student data to be produced within 20 minutes of the request being made. The data was held across 3 different computer systems, to ensure its integrity and prevent hacking, so producing it as quickly as requested was simply not possible. Given that the data existed, was robust, and once it was checked was found to be fully in compliance with UKBA rules, this should have been a straightforward matter to resolve. But in fact it caused a huge amount of difficulty and took up an inordinate amount of time.

The case of London Met should draw attention to UKBA’s counter-productive process and the havoc it is now causing in UK universities and for the thousands of legitimate students now caught up in it all who are being forced to find a new university or face deportation. Placing such a burden on these students is unfair, unjust and defies all reason.

While it makes sense to prevent any new international students coming to London Met, the government should recognise that the position of current, legitimate London Met students, who are here legally and have done nothing wrong, requires a different approach. In this special case, it seems that it would take much less effort to find some way of enabling them to carry on at London Met and finish their course, rather than establish an emergency mechanism to find them a new place. Finding new accommodation and the process of moving itself will also be a costly affair, piling further financial pressure on those who have already paid so much for the privilege of a UK higher education.

Even before this episode, NUS published research that showed that students from outside the EU were increasingly likely not to recommend studying in the UK to their friends and family. Worse still, more and more legitimate international students are feeling that the UK is now a hostile environment for them.

The NUS research shows that students want to come to the UK, because our universities are seen as world-class and carry a premium that is almost unrivalled in the global employment market. It is vital that we do nothing further to jeopardise this position, put at risk an £8bn export industry and ruin the lives of students who thought they were coming to the UK for something better than this.

Shabana Mahmood is the Shadow Minister for Higher Education and the MP for Birmingham Ladywood

A protest outside the Home Office

Shabana Mahmood is Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.