A decision on whether the UK will retain its graduate visa could come in “the next week” but ministers should be aware that changes they have already made are “overachieving” and may even succeed in bringing immigration down below target levels, according to the chair of Migration Advisory Committee.
Speaking to the media after delivering his report into the post-study work route, Brian Bell, professor of economics at King’s College London, said he did not know whether the Home Office would follow the recommendation that the visa be retained but he hoped that the work would ensure the debate took place with a better evidence base.
The MAC was given just two months to conduct the investigation after being commissioned by home secretary James Cleverly and ultimately decided the visa was meeting its goals, with no evidence of widespread abuse. The government has said that it is still considering the findings, with some suggesting it could still attempt to reform the visa either by reducing its length or placing conditions on its use, with the Conservative Party also considering whether to make a commitment to scrapping it in its next manifesto.
“We know why it was a rapid review; it was a rapid review because the government wants to make a decision in the next week, two weeks, probably somewhat driven by the net migration statistics that are coming out [on 23 May] and there is some sort of general election or something planned soon,” said Professor Bell.
“I have no idea what the government will decide,” he added, but said it was not just a decision for the Home Office but one that will be made across Whitehall.
“My view is pretty straightforward,” he continued. “We have made the best recommendation based on the evidence we have reviewed…it is entirely up to government to decide whether to accept our recommendation or not. That is how it should be.”
Speaking to Times Higher Education, Professor Bell said that he had had no indication the government had made up its mind before the report had been delivered.
“I certainly got the sense that they were indeed waiting for our report and would take the evidence seriously and make a decision based on that,” he added.
Professor Bell said that scrapping the graduate visa would only have a modest effect on overall immigration numbers anyway, particularly after the changes made in January that banned master’s students from bringing their dependants and raised the salary threshold for skilled worker visas.
He said these reforms were resulting in a “much bigger fall that the government expected”, judging by evidence submitted to the review that international students paying deposits for master’s programmes were down by more than 50 per cent.
“If that bears out when we get to September and see the enrolment numbers, I think it probably supports a view that the government will overachieve on the objective of reducing net migration on the student side,” he said, adding that it now had a “fighting chance” of meeting its objective to bring immigration numbers down to the level they were in 2019, and possibly even below this threshold.
The MAC has estimated that the changes could reduce the number of students who end up entering longer term work routes to around 26,000, meaning “most of the hard work has been done” without the need to reform the visa, said Professor Bell.
The economist said it was a “good thing” that the MAC had been asked to conduct the review, despite the uncertainty it caused in the sector, because it had helped improve an “appalling” evidence base around what international graduates do post-study.
Professor Bell, who had previously been critical about the short time frame given for the report, said its conclusions would not have changed if the committee had been given longer but there was much more to discover about the visa and how it is operating.
He said he expected future governments to ask the MAC to revisit the issue, particularly because it was only able to look at one cohort who had gone through the whole cycle and future cohorts are far larger.
