Share agent ‘bad actor’ data with universities, Home Office told

New requirements for universities to record recruitment agent details on a student’s record have raised questions about how the data will be used, after the Home Office allegedly refused to commit to sharing details of “bad actors” with universities.

Updated guidance for institutions that sponsor international students features new clauses related to the management of agents who recruit students on behalf of education providers.

Universities already had to share details of the education agents they use with the Home Office, but the new rules go further than previous ones. Now, institutions must record an agent’s details on an individual’s confirmation of acceptance for studies (CAS) document when they have been involved in the recruitment of a student.

Although the Home Office has not said how the data will be used, experts expect the government to employ the information to help trace so-called bad actors – agents with a record of recruiting students who fail to show up, drop out or go on to claim asylum.

“There’s always been this element of concern from the UKVI [UK Visas and Immigration] regarding bad actors,” said Jonathan Hill, senior manager at immigration firm Fragomen. The new guidance suggests that the Home Office is “trying to use data analysis to see which agents they deem to be trusted”, he said.

But some compliance experts who have been involved in discussions with the Home Office about the introduction of the new measures have concerns about how the data will be used, particularly as the government has not promised to share its findings with universities.

“The Home Office, at the moment, is collecting [the information] with no commitment to share it, to help that information flow across the sector,” said Ross Porter, co-chair of sector organisation Ucisa’s immigration compliance group.

He added that Home Office officials had said they did not intend to use the information when assessing student applications. “However, if they’re not going to be doing that, why do they need the data? There is a mismatch there between what we’re seeing and what they’re saying.”

Alex Lock, also a co-chair of the group, said there are some fears that a university could begin working with an agent who has cleared its due diligence checks only to learn later that the agent has attracted concern from the Home Office and that any student connected to that agent could be subject to heightened scrutiny.

A Home Office spokesperson told Times Higher Education that the department is “currently exploring how we can share data with the education sector, including grant and refusal rates associated with agents”.

"We are tightening the rules to prevent abuse of our immigration system and ensure sponsors and agents take their responsibilities seriously,” they said.

Hill predicted that the Home Office might not reject candidates linked to a specific agent but might select certain students for credibility interviews if they are connected to an agent with a poor record.

“Historically, we did see the same sort of approach for [suspected] bogus colleges,” he said.

A key compliance metric for universities is their visa rejection rate – if too many of the students they have offered a place fail to secure a visa, the university could face serious consequences. Incoming changes to visa compliance rules are also tightening the allowance that universities have for rejections from 10 per cent to 5 per cent.

Universities have long bemoaned the lack of information sharing from the Home Office, including following the latest January intake, where, they say, they experienced an unexpected uptick in visa refusals for individuals from certain countries without warning from government officials.

Lock said there is “real concern in light of the Basic Compliance Assessment changes that you may end up in a position where you…have refusals for agents that, for your institution, have a positive compliance [record] but may have attracted concern from other organisations that are picked up by the Home Office, but you don’t have access to that information”.

Under the new guidance, universities must for the first time evidence how they are adhering to the key principles of the Agent Quality Framework – a sector-led initiative that documents best practice for education providers working with agents.

Hill said this requirement might “add quite a lot of time and resource and, probably, administrative burden to the university” and, until an audit happens, it will be unclear what evidence UKVI is expecting.

“I’d suggest that if an institution can provide some evidence of communicational materials that confirm that they have been monitoring agents closely, that would suffice,” he said.

He added that the changes might encourage agents to take a more “vested interest” in compliance because their names will be attached to student records.

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com