“Thanks MAC, but we should go further”

“Taking students out of the net migration target is not about fiddling the figures”

In light of the recent and long-awaited MAC report, director of Universities UK International Vivienne Stern says that the UK’s stagnant growth in international student enrolments has been an “active policy choice” and highlights the need for a clear, compelling and competitive post-study work offer.

Last week’s report by the Migration Advisory Committee confirmed what many of us in the university sector have long argued – that the benefits international students bring to the UK are enormous. The MAC team should be congratulated on some excellent analysis. But their conclusions were disappointing.

Now, attention has turned to the government response, and I believe there is a live debate between departments about whether to accept the MAC recommendations or go further.

The government should have the courage to do so.

There was much to be positive about in the MAC report – not least the excellent analysis of the benefits that hosting international students confer on the UK. The chorus of disappointment from those in the university sector who had pinned their hopes on MAC being a game changer in the near-decade long battle for a more positive visa regime risks drowning out the good things the MAC proposed.

If the government did no more than implement the MAC recommendations in full, there would still be grounds for a small cheer. And as a sector we have a responsibility, I think, to welcome any liberalisation of the visa regime for students, and anything that makes it easier for them to stay and work afterwards.

“We are currently sending home graduates who have language skills and international connections which small business could use to help them grow exports”

It is important that we get this message out to prospective students: if the government accepts the MAC recommendations, it will become easier to stay and work in the UK post-graduation. PhD graduates would get an automatic year post-study; all masters students would get six months, and undergraduates would get longer to apply for a Tier 2 job without being subject to the cap and the resident labour market test.

However, the MAC should have gone further. The UK needs a clear, compelling and competitive post-study work offer. We know that those countries that offer such opportunities have seen rapid growth in international enrolments. The US and Australia both have such schemes and have seen 40% and 45% growth respectively in International enrolments since 2011, while the UK has grown by just 3%.

Given that international students contribute about £13bn a year in export earnings, and £26bn when you count knock-on expenditure in the wider economy; create around 200,000 jobs all over the UK; and account for over 60% of postgraduate research students in engineering disciplines, the case for a policy re-think is blindingly obvious.

I also think the MAC missed the wider argument for retaining International graduate skills in the UK labour market. As the British Chamber of Commerce, the IOD, the CBI, countless metro mayors and many other business leaders have repeatedly pointed out, the UK needs these sort of skilled graduates. We are currently sending home graduates who have language skills and International connections which small business could use to help them grow exports.

“Taking students out of the net migration target is not about fiddling the figures”

Finally, and perhaps most disappointing of all, was the MACs odd line of thinking on the net migration target. Despite acknowledging “that the existence of the target is a problem” they miss the fundamental point that this is a policy which actively disincentivises growth in international student numbers. Taking students out of the net migration target is not about fiddling the figures. We never said you shouldn’t count them – it is about changing the overarching policy goal – away from reducing numbers to growing them.

The UK’s stagnant growth in international student enrolments has been an active policy choice. It is time for the government to choose a different path.

Vivienne Stern, Director, Universities UK International