Our 24 February MabelPost included a piece titled: Keegan versus Braverman; Round One! We reported that Home Secretary Suella Braverman was looking at Higher Education to control net migration numbers. Braverman does not like the growing number of overseas students as they are skewing her data (although, of course, most will eventually leave).
We also wrote, "Education Secretary Gillian Keegan has suggested she will fight potential Home Office attempts to reduce migration into the UK by reducing the numbers of overseas students, stating that universities were a hugely valuable export success."
Speaking to the Financial Times, Keegan said she wanted to build on the UK's booming export market in university education.
Braverman has been particularly concerned by students bringing family members into the UK. In an interview with The Sun last October, she had said dependants were "piggybacking" on student visas and "not contributing to growing our economy".
We assume Braverman would accept that students paying tuition fees contribute to the economy. So when their family members come here and spend money, is it difficult to imagine that they might be helping the economy as well?
Of course, the boxing terminology in our February post was deliberate. We expected this to be a long, drawn-out fight between the right-wing political 'heavyweight' Home Secretary and the more pragmatic Education Secretary.
So who won round one?
Photo Credit: Suella Braverman: official House of Commons photo (link to license)
So who won round one? Braverman, as last month, restrictions on dependants of most students were announced. Keegan would appear to have fallen into line. You can argue that the damage was minor, but, in this boxing match, you should assume Braverman is ready to go all the way.
Round two
This will be a long struggle between very different factions of the same political party.
This week Jo Johnson (most famous for having a famous brother) weighed in under the Times Higher headline:
Johnson: reform needed before 'round two' of overseas student fight.
Yes... 'round two'...
Lord Johnson, a former MP and universities minister, recommended that HE institutions reform their recruitment of overseas students. He said that there was a need to weed out some poor-quality and fraudulent applications. HE institutions should "embrace [reforms] proactively before the Home Office returns for round two". Apparently, Johnson predicts that the UK 2019 International Education Strategy's aim of "welcoming" 600,000 foreign students annually might be converted into a "de facto cap".
Overseas Students usually pay more than double the fees of UK students. Overseas students make up 24% of the University population, but they contribute 43% of all tuition fees. As UK universities enrolled 680,000 overseas students last year, a 600,000 cap would be a 12% cut (around 5% of all tuition fee income).
So the UK seems likely to convert a business objective successfully completed into a contentious immigration issue. At the same time, potential students may have the impression that the UK government authority responsible for student visas is questioning the value of their attendance.
None of this helps universities recruit, and, as reported in the Guardian last week, many are struggling with a funding system that is close to breaking (also see MabelPost 140423).
Why this matters
This matters to MabelSpace for the same reason it should matter to everyone in the UK. Our Universities are in a competitive global education market (and the competition is getting stiffer). A lot of universities lose money educating our own young people but survive by educating others. Government should support our universities. This does not mean that universities should be immune from criticism, and Johnson may have some valid points. However, the dialogue should be much more positive, and with the government speaking with one clear voice.
Universities need a positive and stable political environment to plan with confidence.
Without proper support, the system will become unsustainable as competition from abroad wins a greater market share. Our universities will lose confidence, and this will affect many people. As an example, Universities have had a positive effect on the sectors with which MabelSpace is familiar. Construction consultants, surveyors, architects, engineers, contractors and suppliers have all benefitted from investment in University estates over the last decade. However, over time, estates continue to need reorganisation, refurbishment or replacement. Without the resources to carry out this programme of work, our University environments will deteriorate, and this will lead to further decline.
Imagine this
Imagine if you were a government of a Western European country. Your political party is what visiting foreign journalists would label 'the traditional ruling party'. By this, the journalists mean that you are in power most of the time, and your supporters include most of the wealthy ruling elite as well as most of the national press.
However, like many others, your country has seen profound changes to its economy over recent decades. With the loss of an empire and the advent of globalisation, the country had seen part (although not whole) deindustrialisation. These changes have brought hardship to some geographic areas and an increasingly unequal society. Many groups, blindsided by the dismantling of their traditionally close-knit communities, ask who is to blame.
You have a problem; it's you that has been in charge for the majority of the time. So you might be tempted to blame, in no particular order, some of these people themselves (assuming others will still vote for you), or unfair trading restrictions imposed by other countries, or maybe immigrants.
Of course, in the modern media era, if you decide to blame anyone, keep the message simple and the debate without nuance, or it might not 'land'.
However, much more positively, a more 'knowledge-based' economy is developing. Your capital city retains its long-established reputation for global trade; using the latest technologies, it remains one of the major financial centres providing services for customers across the globe. Also, once some restructuring has occurred, the remaining manufacturers are often of the 'advanced' kind (for example, aerospace) that pay decent wages. Your country is also valued for its creativity and design skills, which boost exports further.
Finally, an expanding Higher Education sector provides the knowledge and skills vital to run this style of economy. This sector also has significant research capabilities that expand human knowledge in areas such as material sciences, biological sciences, medical therapies and pharmaceuticals.
As the global thirst for tertiary education grows, this sector sells its services to overseas students, with an estimated +£40 billion overall annual boost to your economy. At the same time, this activity grows your nation's soft power as many of the planet's middle-class are educated in your country.
The really great news is that many of your prominent and expanding Universities are based in cities within the deindustrialised regions (since where there is space, things grow). This gives these regions an increasing sense of purpose and hope.
But this expansion leads to an increased number of foreign people visiting your country to study (technically classed as immigration).
So, as a government, do you decide that:
this does not deserve your public support, that this is an opportunity to increase the panic?
or
you should recognise this fantastic opportunity, work with the Universities and, with one voice, demonstrate your support?
