Speaking in the meeting, hosted by
London First, Universities UK and Bright Blue, chief executive of Universities UK, Nicola Dandridge, argued that the UK’s economic survival depended on its ability to be a global hub for skills.
“Employment and immigration is not a zero sum game” she said, arguing that an immigration system attracting talent from overseas could create a “virtuous circle”, both creating jobs and benefitting society.
She spoke of the softer benefits of international students studying in the UK. Most left the country with warm feelings towards Britain, and would carry this throughout their careers.
Dandridge urged the government to “listen to what the public is saying on immigration”, pointing out how the majority of the public were sceptical about immigration in general but supported the UK’s need to bring in talent.
Government should be working with universities to remove students from immigration targets, she argued.
Baroness Jo Valentine, chief executive of London First, agreed that students should be welcomed into the UK, noting how higher education was one of the UK’s highest grossing exports.
The current government’s migration target was “unhelpful”, she stated. “Our ability to pay down the deficit is, in my view, intricately linked with our ability to be a hub for global talent.”
Her two primary concerns for the future were of a return to the 50p tax rate, and the introduction of a mansion tax, both of which would affect London disproportionately.
Former universities minister David Willetts MP agreed with Dandridge’s point that the majority of the public felt unthreatened by the prospect of international students coming to the UK to study.
“They are people we are educating, and then they go back home” he said. “We are delivering a service to them for which they pay.” It was more helpful to have this mindset on the subject, he said.
There was no cap on the number of international students in Britain, he stressed, and there were no plans for any cap to be introduced. This message really needed to be communicated clearly and loudly to students across the world.
Dandridge responded by saying this message needed to be more coherent. The message that Britain welcomes international students would continue to be lost so long as the Government’s key focus of cutting down on immigration was being projected so prominently.
Willetts noted how it was easier for foreign students to meet the criteria to stay in the UK for their post-study in London and the south east than in the rest of the country, meaning a tension existed between regional policy and a balanced economic recovery.
“Not enough British students have the experience of studying abroad”, he argued, before stressing the need for better data on what students did after finishing their studies but before leaving the UK.
There were thousands of schools labelled as British schools across the world, but very little control of these existed in the UK. Better links should be created with these schools, he said.
Too much focus had been put on the migration statistics, he concluded, at the expense of using links to schools across the world more fully.
Daily Telegraph columnist Dan Hodges said a competitive tax environment in the UK was obviously important, but cautioned that “we would be kidding ourselves if we thought we could turn Britain into some kind of Dubai”. There was more to people’s decisions for where they studied than simply the financial aspect, he stressed.
He argued immigration policy in Britain had “entered a cul de sac” on immigration policy in Britain, partly because progressives had wrongly assumed the argument “had been won”.
The case for immigration has to be made “because if it isn’t, this country is finished” he said. The UK’s mentality of it “doing the rest of the world a favour” by opening its doors had to be removed, and this would require courage from politicians to stand up and make the case for immigration clearly.
A discussion had to be had about what ‘talent’ actually meant. He called for a culture change in the UK to celebrate success, rather than failure.
London Evening Standard columnist Jenni Russell noted how many universities in the UK were “not actually teaching very much”, with essays due irregularly in comparison with the best universities. This meant there is a wildly differing quality of students.
She echoed Hodges’ view that it was not simply tax rates that attracted students to study in the UK.
Centre for Entrepreneurs study which had shown that one in seven new companies being set up in Britain was being set up by migrants. The value of migrant companies in Britain was therefore invaluable.
“London is the great draw for migrants”, she said, partly due to the capital’s success attracting more success. “There is a great deal of energy and talent out there… but they just need a bit more assistance” she said.
A member of the audience noted the “horror stories” that existed of the difficulties international students faced in obtaining the correct visas to study in the UK. Baroness Valentine agreed that the system was incredibly “clunky”, and Willetts accepted the system needed to become more user-friendly.