Thinktank adds to pressure to take students out of net migration figures

Bright Blue campaign challenges coalition policy

May 8, 2014

A pressure group of modernisers within the Conservative Party, of which David Willetts is president, is to launch a campaign to take international students out of the government’s net migration target ahead of the next election.

University figures and MPs have repeatedly urged the coalition to change its policy – which they fear could be damaging a crucial source of revenue and soft power for the UK – but the campaign by Bright Blue, a thinktank for “liberal conservatism”, would be a direct challenge to the stance from within the Tory party.

With less than a year to the next general election, it is not yet clear whether the Conservatives will stick by their pledge to reduce net migration to the “tens of thousands” a year in their 2015 manifesto, and if students will be included in the target.

Six parliamentary committees have called on the government to take students out of the migration target, but with the United Kingdom Independence Party forecast by some polls to win the European elections on 22 May, the Conservatives may be wary of any change that could be perceived as a softening of their stance on immigration.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow immigration secretary, has said the Labour Party wants more international students to come to the UK and will consider not including students in the same target as other migrants.

Bright Blue is hoping to attract support from universities, students and other interested bodies such as those that represent business, to influence the policy of all the main political parties after 2015.

Ryan Shorthouse, the thinktank’s director, said that the government should seek to convey “competence” on the issue of immigration by “properly managing our borders at the same time as ensuring businesses and universities can recruit the brightest and best from around the world”. “As a first step, international students should be removed from the government’s net migration target,” he said.

News of the campaign on international students came as Bright Blue last week launched The Modernisers’ Manifesto, a collection of essays from “leading Conservative politicians and opinion formers” about the future direction of the party.

It includes a chapter from Nick Hillman, the director of the Higher Education Policy Institute and former special adviser to Mr Willetts, the universities and science minister.

Mr Hillman, who stressed he was writing in a personal capacity, writes in the booklet that there is a “paucity of alternatives” to tuition fees, which are “here to stay”.

Liam Byrne, the shadow higher education secretary, has said that the party’s “long-term” goal is to introduce a graduate tax.

However, in his essay, Mr Hillman poses three questions about that policy that “no one has been able to solve”.

“How do you cover universities’ costs between abolishing fees and waiting for people to graduate to pay the new tax?” he asks, adding: “How do you ensure the Treasury doesn’t top-slice the tax and spend the proceeds on something else? How do you get the money back from students who emigrate, given you can’t tax people living abroad?”

He declares that the idea that tuition fee hikes change the outcome of national elections “does not stand up” and so university finance “may not be an election issue in 2015”.

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Reader's comments (4)

The answer to Nick Hillman (and apparently Hepi's) funding conundrum in respect of alternative HE systems is easy. It's called government borrowing which is precisely what the Government is doing to fund the present system. Whatever your view about the future, the Coalition's funding reforms are highly inefficient in economic terms and the Chancellor's Autumn Statement should give no-one any comfort. Now those are sums which really don't add up !
I was pleased by the commitment by Nick Hilman towards excluding stdents the immigration cap in his chapter for Bright Blue - it is ilogical. However, I was surprised that he raised no substantive concerns about the funding system that he play some part in bringing in. A system that has had UUK scuttling off to find alternatives to. A system that appears unsustainable - not least on the basis of the incorrect maths admitted to by Nick Hilman.
Thanks for the comments on my views. As the piece says, the chapter is not a corporate HEPI view (see for those). Pam is right: borrowing is possible. But, currently, loans and taxes look very different in some of the national accounts and she hasn't addressed the other two problems mentioned above. Mike has a point too, but it's a short chapter. I often say, as I did in two speeches to ARU and Solent only yesterday, I can see tweaks to the current regime being necessary. It's up to UUK to respond to the comment about them I guess, but their recent statement on the forthcoming election does not suggest they will push for radical change. Thanks for the feedback - I look forward to continuing these discussions with you both in other places.
One interpretation of this think tank report is that the Universities have got their act together to lobby, as any business would, for policy changes that are in their interests, and have spoken to their Minister. David Willetts has got his think tank to fly a kite where other members of the Government will have to see it. (Why didn't he just stand up and say it ? Ah, sorry, that would only work in a functional government.) The other (less flattering) interpretation is that the Coalition will need to be able to present a tough story on immigration numbers at the election. Since politicians consistently overstate the reductions they will achieve, and then fail to meet their targets, they are expediently looking around for a justifiable fudge on the numbers. Excluding students from the count does the job. What's being left out of this argument is the impact of international student flows on the learners themselves. Global classrooms are placing stresses on home students, and visiting students. The value and the costs, of this approach to education are not being scrutinised. Who reaps the benefits, who bears the burdens - surely that would be a more useful focus for Mr Willetts' think tank ?

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented