The UK sector is still awaiting clarity from government on the scope of its review of the post-study work visa, amid fears the É«ºÐÖ±²¥ Office will seek a ¡°back door¡± extension so the review threatens the ¡°very existence of the route¡±, potentially bringing more financial turmoil for universities.

The É«ºÐÖ±²¥ Office?announced on 4 December?that it was asking the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to review the graduate visa route ¨C introduced in 2021 and allowing overseas graduates of UK universities to stay in the country for two years after graduation ¨C ¡°to ensure it works in the best interests of the UK and to ensure steps are being taken to prevent abuse¡±, part of a wider ¡°plan to cut net migration¡±.

But it appears that debate over the review¡¯s terms of reference is still going on between the key departments ¨C a É«ºÐÖ±²¥ Office set on reducing net migration and a Department for Education that puts more emphasis on the economic benefits of increasing international recruitment.

While the MAC ¨C which has?already criticised the graduate visa route?over concerns that it increases low-wage migration ¨C is billed as ¡°independent¡±, the É«ºÐÖ±²¥ Office is represented on the committee, and the committee receives its commission from the home secretary.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Although supporters of the graduate visa see it as key to UK competitiveness in the international education market given rivals such as Australia and Canada offer post-study work options, there is a??against it, as Conservative worries about the level of net migration grow ahead of the next election.

¡°Government appears to be considering the terms of reference on the review, and I imagine there is an active debate over how to frame abuse and misuse,¡± said Jamie Arrowsmith, director of Universities UK International.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

For backers of the graduate visa, which does not have a salary threshold, the only ¡°abuse¡± of the route would be overstaying beyond its two-year duration.

¡°To frame entirely legitimate use of the student visa and graduate route as somehow now constituting abuse or misuse is to attempt to rewrite history,¡± Mr Arrowsmith said.

Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said: ¡°The number one priority now has to be for us all to ensure the MAC sticks to reviewing ¡®abuse¡¯, which is what the review is meant to be about and what has been agreed across government.¡±

¡°We cannot have the É«ºÐÖ±²¥ Office or the MAC itself extending the scope of the review by the back door so that it becomes a review of the very existence of the route, as many fear they might like to,¡± Mr Hillman said.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

Diana Beech, chief executive of London Higher and a former policy adviser to Conservative universities ministers, said that while the sector was ¡°understandably nervous¡± about the review, it should be seen ¡°through a positive lens, allowing us to input constructively¡­and shape the terms of the review¡±, offering the chance to ¡°positively adjust the route to help drive graduates towards areas of skills shortages¡±.

Universities already fear?financial damage?from a?domestic funding crisis?that will be deepened by a?drop in international recruitment?and further expected drops following this month¡¯s tightening of the rules on?overseas students¡¯ dependants. There are now?concerns that the government is focusing on backward-looking net migration figures showing a boom in international student numbers that is already over.

¡°By going even further now, government risks undermining the UK¡¯s competitiveness and taking the bottom out of the market,¡± Mr Arrowsmith said.

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com

Like this story? Get more like it in your inbox ¨C?sign up to our newsletters.