Written evidence submitted by Universities UK

About Universities UK

Universities UK (UUK) is the representative organisation for the UK’s universities. Founded in 1918, its mission is to be the voice for universities in the UK, providing high quality leadership and support to its members to promote a successful and diverse higher education sector. With 135 members and offices in London, Cardiff (Universities Wales) and Edinburgh (Universities Scotland), it promotes the strength and success of UK universities nationally and internationally.

Executive summary

UK universities are a British success story: world-renowned, internationally competitive, and a major economic asset. Access to international talent underpins this success. It is vital, therefore, that government policy in the lead up to and post-Brexit protects and enhances this access.

Leaving the European Union poses some major challenges and concerns for the UK higher education system, including increased barriers to recruiting talented European staff and to recruiting European students. The UK’s decision to leave the European Union does present us with an unparalleled opportunity to re-think the immigration system and ensure that it is structured to support efforts to drive economic growth across all regions of the UK, negotiate trade deals, enhance soft power and meet industrial strategy objectives. In doing so, future policy should maximise the migration flows that bring the most benefit to the UK, including those which are viewed positively by the public [such as international students and highly skilled migrants].

The UK can learn from how other countries discuss migration, particularly in delineating between temporary and permanent migration flows. The UK’s focus on a blunt net migration target has impeded public understanding of different migration flows. The inclusion of international students in the net migration target ignores the widely held view that international students are temporary migrants.  In recent years, six parliamentary committees have recommended the removal of students from the net migration target[1]. Government policy should explicitly distinguish between temporary and permanent migration and should remove temporary student migrants from the net migration target.

One factor inhibiting the building of a greater consensus around immigration policy is the questionable evidence base upon which policy is being determined particularly the International Passenger Survey (IPS). We believe that government should work with the Office for National Statistics and others to strengthen the evidence base on which immigration policy is made, including prioritising the use of exit check data and publishing it in full.

International students and staff in UK universities

The UK’s higher education sector is world-leading and this is in no small part due to the international nature of its staff and student body.

In 2015­­–16 students from outside the UK made up 19.2% of the student body, 5.6% from the EU and 13.6% from countries outside the EU. These students contribute to the diversity of university campuses and enhance the learning experience of UK students, with 76% agreeing that studying alongside international students had given them a better world view. In some cases, international students are among the very best in the world: the UK has hosted 50 international students who went on to win a Nobel prize[2].

International students (non-EU and EU) also contribute financially to every region of the UK: independent estimates for the 2011–12 academic year suggest that international students contributed £9.1 billion to UK GDP and supported 170,000 FTE jobs. And having studied here, many go on to develop business links with the UK, further helping our economy.

In addition to international students, the ability of UK universities to recruit the top minds in their fields, irrespective of nationality, is fundamental to the excellence of the UK university system. The UK’s scientific research institutions are ranked second in the world for quality and in 2013, the UK overtook the USA to become first in the world for field-weighted citation impact (a measure of research quality). For example, the International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base report by BIS/Elsevier finds that international research collaboration and researcher mobility are ‘core to the maintenance and further development of the UK’s world-leading position as a research nation’[3]. If we want to maintain this position as world-leaders, UK universities must be able to recruit globally for the best research talent. In 2014-15, 28% of all academic staff (54,995) came from outside the UK. Most university staff from outside the UK have an academic role – 74% are either teaching, undertaking research, or both. They contribute significantly to the quality and global competitiveness of the UK higher education system.

Furthermore, non-UK academic staff contribute to the teaching of a number of important subject disciplines particularly science and engineering subjects. Within engineering and technology subjects alone, 40% of academic staff were non-UK in 2014-15; without these staff it would be much more difficult for universities to offer courses in these areas.

It is therefore vital that any future immigration system supports the flow of staff and students to UK universities.

What approach should the Government take to different kinds of migration – for example skilled, unskilled, family migration, students and refugees?

Although the higher education sector welcomes Government’s intention to “retain the flexibility and discretion to ensure that the UK continues to attract the best of global talent”[4], there are considerable improvements that can be made to the way in which Government approaches migration. The recent referendum decision to leave the EU provides the current Government with a clear opportunity to re-think the existing system and develop a more nuanced system that maximises the migration flows that bring most benefit to the UK. This includes facilitating the flow of international students, academics and researchers to the UK, something supported by the public, including ‘Leave’ voters[5].

Government should make a clear distinction between temporary and permanent migration flows, as is the case in many of the UK’s major competitor countries. Making such a distinction would foster a more nuanced public understanding of immigration than the current blunt net migration target and could help promote informed discussions about the benefits temporary migration can bring including the benefits of international students to all regions of the UK.

Migration policy should also be underpinned by much better evidence. One of the main problems in recent years has been the reliance on the International Passenger Survey (IPS). This has been used as the basis for migration policy despite the fact it was never designed to accurately measure migration flows. 

Because the IPS only surveys a small and randomly-selected sample of passengers entering and leaving the UK, it can only estimate migration patterns and these estimates all come with a substantial margin of error and potential unknown biases. The use of a single figure also means that all immigration is treated equally, without enhancing public understanding of the benefits, scale and duration of different migration flows.

One significant concern relating to the IPS is its accuracy in recording international student migration flows. There are comparatively large margins of error linked to the IPS’ estimates on international student migration due to its small sample size (under 5,000 of those interviewed by the IPS each year are identified as migrants[6], with the number of students interviewed a small fraction of these) and the possibility of survey respondents misinterpreting the IPS questions. UUK shares the ONS’ (and others) concerns[7] that the IPS may not be accurately recording the number of students who depart the UK on completion of their studies. These concerns are further exacerbated by recent media reports[8] suggesting that exit data shows that levels of international student overstaying are a fraction of the level implied by the IPS’ estimates and by a 2010 UK Border Agency report[9] which found that at most only 2% of university-sponsored Tier 4 students had potentially over-stayed the terms of their visa. This underlines the importance of improving the data upon which policy is being made and where possible using new sources of information to improve understanding of migration flows.

In the absence of accurate data on migration flows, the immigration debate is limited to estimates and conjecture. This has an unfortunate knock-on impact on the quality of the public debate on immigration and policy-making itself. 

It is clear that better data will enable the UK to more clearly distinguish between temporary and permanent migration flows. In other countries it is widely accepted that international students are temporary citizens whereas in the UK they are categorised alongside those who have a route to staying in the UK permanently. For example, in the USA international students are classified as non-immigrants alongside tourists, business visitors and those on cultural exchange programmes, in Australia they are classified as temporary migrants alongside tourists and visitors and in Canada they are classified as temporary residents.

The government should also enhance post-study work opportunities for international students, recognising that the ability to stay for a time-limited period can be a factor in attracting international students. One option is to develop a post-study work option which is time-limited and offers no route to settlement and could therefore be defined as a temporary route.   

In terms of highly skilled migration, it is important that any future system supports universities to continue to be able to recruit world-leading academics and researchers. The current system for non-EU migration prioritises “PhD level” jobs and this should continue under any future regime. There is also scope to adopt a more sophisticated approach to defining highly skilled migration than the current focus on salary thresholds and NQF levels. There are a variety of jobs which support science and research but would not meet current requirements for highly-skilled routes. These include laboratory technicians and language assistants. The focus on salaries has also had a disproportionate impact on the creative industries where may new graduates earn relatively low salaries in graduate level roles and embark on portfolio careers that do not tie them to a single employer (which does not fit with the current sponsorship model for highly skilled migration).

There is currently no cap on international student numbers, which is welcomed by universities. However, UUK is concerned that any future attempts to cut student numbers through a system of differentiation of the Tier 4 route (whether based on quality or through compliance metrics), as mooted in the Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s speech to the Conservative Party Conference in October 2016, would be extremely damaging to a sector that is already highly regulated and of excellent quality.

What are the benefits and problems with different kinds and levels of migration, for the economy and society?

International students and staff bring huge benefits to UK universities, local regions and the national economy.

In 2014–15 there were 438,015 students at UK universities from outside the UK, making up 19% of all students; 310,575 were from outside the EU and 127,440 were from within the EU. At different levels of study, those proportions are even greater, with non-UK students making up 36% of all postgraduate taught students and 43% of all postgraduate research students.

In 2011–12, international students (EU and non-EU) contributed £9.1bn to the UK economy in tuition fees and off-campus expenditure[10] and supported 170,000 FTE jobs. International students’ spending supports the economy across all UK regions – in the North East alone they made a £106m contribution to GDP and supported 1,935 FTE jobs. The net economic impact, taking into account any impact on public services, housing and congestion, of international students to the Sheffield economy has been independently estimated[11] at £120 million annually and in London it has been estimated[12] at £2.3 billion annually.

The widespread benefits of international students are recognised by the general public, the majority of whom do not view them as immigrants. A 2016 poll commissioned by Universities UK and carried out by ComRes showed that 75% do not view international students as immigrants, a view which is remarkably consistent across both ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ voters[13]. The same poll also showed strong public support for increasing the numbers of international students.

More difficult to calculate, but just as significant, are the economic, academic and wider societal benefits provided by attracting the most ambitious and skilled young people in the world to the UK. International students enrich the UK’s university campuses and the experience of UK students, both academically and culturally. Over three-quarters of UK students surveyed by the Higher Education Policy Institute[14] (HEPI) agreed that studying alongside international students was a useful preparation for working in a global environment, and the same proportion (76%) said it gave them a better world view.

Most international students intend to retain links to the UK post-graduation which provides long-term, soft power benefits. A study commissioned by the former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)[15] found that of those former international students they interviewed, 84% intended to develop personal or professional links in future and 90% agreed that their perception of the UK had improved as a result of studying here. The same survey also found that over two-fifths of the graduates interviewed were working in professional roles in business or public service or as corporate managers showing just how important their links to the UK may be in developing new British trading partners post-Brexit. The ability to attract international students has been cited as a powerful tool in public diplomacy in annual soft power rankings from ComRes and Portland Communications[16]. An internationalised student body is also recognised as being an indicator of a world-leading institution in global university rankings[17].

As well as their national and regional contribution, international students make an important contribution to the financial sustainability of UK universities. Tuition fee income from non-EU students made up 13% of total income for higher education providers and 29% of all tuition fee income in 2014–15[18]. At postgraduate level, international student fees cross-subsidise home students by providing additional income which is used to expand the places available for UK students through building new buildings or recruiting more staff. Research by the LSE[19] found that every additional international student at postgraduate level supported one extra home student. At the University of the Arts London, income from international student fees is contributing to the funding of significant developments which will help regenerate of three areas in London – the Olympic Park, Elephant and Castle and Camberwell.

The ability of UK universities to deliver many strategically important courses is also dependent on attracting international students. 63% of postgraduate business students and 61% of postgraduate engineering students are from outside the UK; without international students on these courses, it would become increasingly difficult to keep them open for UK students to study.

International staff (lab technicians and language assistants, as well as academics and researchers) also make a significant contribution to the UK. Indeed, UK universities depend on the ability to recruit the most talented and productive researchers and teachers from across the world. In 2014–15, 28% of all academic staff were from outside the UK, rising to 31% of academic staff in STEM subjects more broadly, 44% in electrical, electronic and computer engineering and 52% in chemical engineering. The proportions are even higher for those on research-only contracts, with 45% from outside the UK, including 66% of mathematics staff and 65% in chemical engineering. Without these staff, the UK’s universities would not be able to produce the same levels of world-leading teaching and research in these key subject areas and many others.

International staff play a fundamental role in teaching and upskilling the domestic population, including developing the academics of the future. The number of UK PhD students increased by 20% between 2007–08 and 2014–15, and the number of UK-national junior academic staff has increased by 58% over the same period. International academic staff are committed, along with the universities they work in, to developing the UK’s talent base and upskilling the local population at a regional level. Given that the UK’s science and innovation system is held back by weaknesses in its STEM talent base[20], restricting access to the global staff currently required to teach in these areas is likely to make it more difficult to deliver the ‘upgrade in our education and training system’ that Greg Clark MP called for as part of the government’s industrial strategy [21].

As well as their teaching, international staff at UK universities are world-class researchers. Research is intrinsically international and collaborative in nature and research output is highly correlated with researcher mobility. Researchers who have spent an extended time abroad are likely to have published significantly more than those who have stayed in one place[22]. The proportion of international staff at a university is also used as a metric in international university league table rankings, recognising that the ability to attract and retain world-leading researchers is a vital part of being an internationally-excellent institution[23].

That world-leading research excellence does not just benefit the universities international staff work at, it also benefits the communities they work in and the UK as a whole. It was international researchers working at the University of Manchester who discovered graphene, the ultra-light miracle material 200 times stronger than steel. Following graphene’s isolation in Manchester, the university and others are investing over £355 million in three new institutes based in Manchester, bringing jobs and benefiting local people and businesses[24].

International staff also contribute to the UK economy. Over 80% of non-UK academic staff were higher rate tax-payers in 2014–15, and in addition to paying tax, these staff spend their wages on consumer goods and services locally and nationally, contributing to GDP. This induced impact on the economy contributes to the £37.63 billion knock-on output generated by university spending in the UK in 2011–12[25].

As with international students, the general public hold extremely positive views of highly skilled migrants who contribute to the excellence of our universities and produce valuable research which impacts the whole of society; in a recent poll, 88% of the British public supported maintaining (42%) or increasing (46%) levels of highly-skilled workers[26].

What approach should be taken to EU migration as part of the Brexit negotiations – for example, points-based systems, or work permits; and geographical variations?

It is difficult to offer firm and detailed policy proposals for dealing with EU migration post-Brexit given the significant number of variables that are likely to impact the final negotiation outcome (such as decisions over free movement and whether EU migration flows should be prioritised over non-EU in the long-term). However, it is clear that Brexit offers the UK an unparalleled opportunity to rethink its approach to immigration, and to ensure the system maximises the migrant flows which are the most beneficial to the country and which command high levels of public support. Any future system must be coherent, cross-Government and recognise the importance of structuring the migration system to support economic growth, trade deals, soft power, research and development and the industrial strategy. Government must also think carefully about the impact of any changes on the UK’s reputation, particularly perceptions of it being open for business. Recent surveys have shown potentially damaging implications from the referendum vote with 64% of international students seeing the UK as less desirable following Brexit[27] and 16 universities having job offers rejected for reasons related to the referendum[28].

In the first instance, EU migrants who were already present in the UK prior to the EU referendum should retain the right to remain in the UK on the same terms, ensuring they are able to stay permanently should they desire and retain access to public services on the same terms.   

In terms of the future system applying to EU migration post-Brexit, it should be based on the following principles:

• Provides certainty to universities that they will be able to recruit and retain the highly skilled global talent – including those who support academic and research functions such as lab technicians and language assistants - that they need in the future
• Ensures minimal bureaucracy and administrative burdens for both applicants and sponsors
• Provides the flexibility needed to accommodate all forms of academic, student and research mobility, including students arriving via a trans-national education arrangement, exchange programmes, and longer-term courses and posts for early career talent to established global stars
• Prioritises migration flows of most benefit to the UK, ensuring universities are able to attract appropriately qualified students and academic, research and technical staff on a comparable basis to our international competitors

It is also vital that any changes to managing EU migration flows post-Brexit are introduced with appropriately phased transitional arrangements. There is a strong possibility that leaving the EU will ultimately lead to significant changes in how EU citizens come to the UK to work and study. It is important that Government introduces appropriate transitional arrangements to enable universities and other organisations to adjust and plan ahead. This will help provide stability and a smooth transition to any new system.

Is it possible to build greater consensus behind immigration policy? What steps would be needed to do so?

Yes, Universities UK believes that there are several steps that can and should be taken to enhance public understanding of migration and to build a greater consensus behind immigration policy.

In the first instance, action must be taken to enhance public understanding of migration flows. In recent years, the focus on net migration has done nothing to enhance public understanding of who is coming to the UK and how long they may be coming for. Instead, migration flows have been captured in a way that aggregates all forms of migration together simply because individuals are coming to the UK for more than 12 months, irrespective of whether they have a route to staying permanently or not. The UK could learn from other countries in terms of categorising temporary and permanent migration flows more clearly.

Recent opinion polls have also shown that there is consensus – even between ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ voters – on certain types of migration: 88% of the public are in favour of increasing or maintaining the number of skilled workers coming to the UK, and 75% think the same about international students. Less than a quarter of those polled think of international students as migrants, and 91% would like to see them able to stay for a period after they graduate and work. Brexit offers an opportunity to redesign immigration policy to recognise the nuances already present in many people’s understanding of immigration.

One way of building further consensus and allowing this nuancing of the immigration system to happen would be to make better use of migration data. The UK’s definition of a migrant is based on the UN definition; anyone who intends to stay for more than 12 months. This broad definition, used in conjunction with a blunt target for net migration, means that discussion and reporting of migration flows tends to be unspecific, rather than differentiating between types of migration. If data and reporting more clearly delineated temporary and permanent migration flows and broke down different types of permanent migration more clearly, this would improve public understanding of immigration. It would also allow for more informed conversations about the benefits different migrants can bring and help to foster consensus behind different temporary and permanent migration flows.

How should trade-offs between immigration policy and economic policy be handled?

There does not need to be a trade-off between immigration policy and economic policy. Indeed, immigration policy should be seen as integral to a successful economic policy particularly post-Brexit.

There is clear evidence that migration flows such as international students, academics and researchers bring huge benefits to every region of the UK, supporting research and development and improving the UK’s human capital, both of which are drivers of productivity[29]. The UK’s economy must be underpinned by an effective immigration policy which is coherent, cross-Government and views migration as an integral component of securing trade deals, enhancing soft power, supporting research and innovation and meeting industrial strategy objectives.

For further information or questions regarding this submission, please contact:

Karmjit Kaur

Political Affairs Manager

Universities UK

Page 11 of 11