Last week, the UK¡¯s higher education minister, Robert Halfon, told Times Higher Education that the government was doing everything possible to attract international students. The minister reiterated that universities should be ¡°very clear¡± that international students were still welcome in the UK and that the government remained committed to the International Education Strategy?(IES)¡¯s target to host of them each year.

However, there is real concern that such encouraging messages will be lost in the ongoing rhetoric around migration and the forthcoming review into abuse of the graduate route visa.

The primary objectives of the IES?and the graduate route were always to increase and diversify international recruitment in order to drive UK economic growth. has shown that a single cohort of international students generates almost ?42 billion ¨C not for universities, but for communities right across the UK. It is hard to think of another export industry that makes such a profound and widely distributed contribution to levelling up.

However, with the release of the most recent migration figures causing alarm, yet another set of announcements on immigration rules?has been made, with potentially significant implications for universities. This follows around the government¡¯s approach to international students, and particularly the graduate route.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

, the full effects of which have yet to be felt, either on universities or the net migration stats. Even as the government confirmed its commitment to both the IES and the graduate route, it barred most international students from bringing family members to the UK and banned all of them from switching to work visas before the end of their courses. Subsequently, the cost of student visas and the health surcharge have also been hiked significantly.

The objective of these measures was clearly to cool expansion in student numbers, which had been notably high for three years. Universities UK , but the spike in international student numbers has been driven at least in part by exceptional factors ¨C notably, the pandemic: the UK remained open to international students while others closed their borders.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The situation now facing universities is quite different, however. All the evidence we have suggests that numbers have already fallen from last year¡¯s high. Data for the expected intake in January 2024 ¨C when changes to dependant visas come into effect ¨C . And September 2024 also looks very difficult.

So universities¡¯ concerns over further uncertainty are not hypothetical. And, as reported in É«ºÐÖ±²¥ earlier this month, the ¡°uncomfortable reality¡± for university leaders and for government is that any short-term fall in international recruitment will damage the financial sustainability of the sector. The value of domestic tuition fees is being eroded by inflation and research is funded significantly below full economic costs ¨C ?1 billion each year on teaching domestic students and ?5 billion on performing research.

High levels of cross-subsidy from international fees have not happened by accident; it is the result of conscious policy decisions made by successive governments and, as minister Halfon acknowledged, ¡°we are dealing with a world of significant financial constraints¡±, in which addressing higher education funding is not the government¡¯s top priority.

This is why universities are concerned to see government returning to an issue that was believed to be settled only six months ago. While the review of the graduate route is said to be focused on ¡°abuse¡±, the minister declined to confirm that there?would be no further changes on visa policy, noting only that immigration matters?were for the É«ºÐÖ±²¥ Office.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

But even more than for universities, speculation will be a concern for prospective international students, who need confidence that the post-study opportunities being promised today will still be in place when they graduate. This is especially true for students from emerging economies, for whom work opportunities are fundamental to justifying the investment required for an international experience.

In this context, we need three things from government. First, a clear statement, direct to prospective students, that the terms of the graduate route visa will remain in place.

Second, the forthcoming review must be tightly focused on?actual?abuse (for example, overstaying). It should not frame entirely legitimate uses ¨C such as graduates taking on entry-level roles ¨C as misuse. We should be clear that the primary rationale for the graduate route is to boost the UK¡¯s competitiveness.

And finally, we need proper acknowledgement of the wider costs of further changes to the UK¡¯s offer to international students at a moment when their numbers are already falling. As the notes, migration policy does not act in isolation ¨C and we must ¡°consider the total impact of a policy change, rather than simply its effect on net migration¡±. This means recognising the impact on university finances, exports and regional economic growth.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The assurances from?Mr Halfon are welcome. But universities and prospective international students need more. We need action to match the rhetoric.

Jamie Arrowsmith is director of Universities UK International.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥