Clause 52
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment 58, in clause 52, page 43, line 29, at end insert—
‘(ib) a condition restricting his studies to an education institution registered as a sponsor of non-EU nationals.
(1A) An educational institution registered as a sponsor of non-EU nationals must be defined as a University, Institute, Royal College or College under the Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1685).’.
New clause 10—Restriction on studies: further definition—
‘(1) The Company and Business Names Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1685) are amended by inserting “College” in column (1) of the Schedule.
(2) Section 2(1)(b) of the Business Names Act 1985 (c.7) does not apply to the carrying on of the business under a name which includes the word “college” by a person—
(a) to whom the business is transferred on or after the date on which section 52 came into force; and
(b) who carries on the business under the name which was its lawful business name and immediately before that transfer,
during the twelve months beginning with the date of the transfer.
(3) Section 2(1)(b) of the Business Names Act 1985 (c.7) shall not apply to the carrying on of the business under a name which includes a word “college” by a person who—
(a) carried on that business immediately before the date on which section 52 came into force; and
(b) continues to carry it on under the name which immediately before that date was its lawful name.’.
Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)
It is a delight to see you occupying the Chair, Mr. Gale, albeit temporarily. I was at the beginning of my remarks on this group. The break was fortuitous, as it allowed me to look at more details of what the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs said in the Home Affairs Committee this morning, which is directly pertinent to the new clause.
The Committee will remember that I was setting out the background as to why the issue is so important. Not only Opposition parties but many bodies, including the Home Affairs Committee and the security services, have been warning the Government about abuses of the student visa system for immigration purposes for some years. The Minister for Borders and Immigration said this morning that he rather agreed that the old system was deeply imperfect, but that there was now a new system that made things much better.
This morning, the Minister of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—or DBIS, if that is what we call it now—said that his understanding was that the register was already in place and that the IT systems should be up and running by the end of the year. That does not sound completely like a system in full flow. If the hope is that the IT system will be working by the end of the year, there is clearly some way to go before the new system is properly up and running. There is a long-running problem that we have all known about. There has been inactivity on the part of the Government in cracking down quickly enough on bogus colleges.
The scale of the problem is enormous. One of the witnesses to a recent Home Affairs Committee inquiry estimated that there could be tens of thousands of bogus students across the country. I would be interested to know what the Government’s estimate is. Even more frightening is that the British high commission in Pakistan estimates that half of all students to whom it grants visas disappear after reaching the UK. Does the Minister recognise that terrifying figure? We have no estimate of the number of foreign nationals on student visas who have worked more than the permitted 20 hours during term time in the past 12 months.
We have failed to find out from the Home Secretary how many student visas were revoked in each of the past five years as a consequence either of failure to register with the relevant institution at the beginning of the academic year or failure to attend classes. I asked that question and had one of the standard brush-offs, which cited disproportionate cost as the reason why an answer could not be given. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position that it would cost thousands, but nevertheless, this is a serious problem, which affects the security of this country and the integrity of our immigration system. It seems—because I believe all the answers I am given by Ministers—that we do not know the scale of the problem. It is difficult to solve a problem if one has no idea of its scale. That, apparently, is the situation we are in. If the Minister wants to say that despite all that it would be too expensive—cost thousands—to have the basic information that would enable us to solve the problem, so be it, but that is an interesting insight into the running of government.
Let me move to amendment 57, the purpose of which is clear. Any condition restricting studies could be imposed only on people who had been given leave for the purpose of studying and not on anyone else with limited leave to enter or remain. I hope that the Minister welcomes the amendment. It is in line with the Government’s stated aim, which is that the clause meets the objective in the points-based system that students should be tied to the institution that sponsors their entry to and stay in the UK. If so, there is no need for the Secretary of State to take wider powers to impose restrictions on the studies of migrants who have been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK. That point arose on Second Reading.
Amendment 57 would address the underlying problem of the Government’s tendency to legislate for powers whose nature and extent is realised only much later, when further regulations or guidance are introduced. That process undermines the authority of Parliament. Given that no reason has been advanced for a power to impose conditions restricting studies other than for the stated purposes, which would remain permitted under the amendment, the clause appears to be too wide ranging.
The Minister will be aware that on Report in another place, my noble Friend Lady Hanham tabled an amendment that would have achieved much the same thing as my amendment. She argued that the clause does not provide enough safeguards and that an appropriate balance has to be struck. Other Members of the other place pointed out the practical pitfalls. Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, who is a professor at Cardiff university, observed that the clause would pose particular difficulties for medical students at Oxford, Cambridge and St. Andrews, who often do not know where they will pursue their clinical studies, and for all medical students following a six-year course. Amendment 57 is very practical.
Given the testimony by the Further Education Minister to the Home Affairs Committee this morning, I am glad that the Government seem to agree with the intentions of amendment 58 and new clause 10. The Minister spoke about the problem of bogus colleges—people using the word “college” to set up a bogus institution. I agree that it seems strange that by law we protect the term “university”—one cannot set up an institution and call it a university in this country—but one can set up an institution and call it a college. He said that he would undertake to reconsider the matter and that there will be an opportunity to do so in the autumn. I assume that he was talking about a Bill that the Government have planned on the matter.
Although I was grateful for those comments, bogus colleges are, as I have observed already, a big problem that has been a long time in the solving. It seems possible that we could solve it in the Bill and so save ourselves time in a few months when I assume that a different Department will be seeking to solve it with another Bill in the next Session.
That is not an academic point. It was not clear from the Minister’s testimony to the Home Affairs Committee whether he intends to introduce provisions in a new Bill or add them to an existing Bill. Given the stage in the electoral cycle, if there is a new Bill, it is conceivable that it will not reach the statute book before a general election, which could result in several years’ delay before it is introduced. That is quite a serious point, which I hope that the Minister for Borders and Immigration will address.
The new clause addresses the problem with the previous registers, which have proved inadequate in controlling bogus colleges. As with other provisions in the Bill, without proper enforcement, a register is just an empty gesture. I shall quote some figures that I think are constructive. By 1 October 2008, 541 educational institutions applied for licences to sponsor college students; only 19 are universities, 169 are further education colleges and 353—the vast majority—are “other educational establishments”. The border agency has requested attendance reports from 153 colleges and 48 universities since limited mandatory reporting was introduced in April 2007, and since January 2005, 256 colleges on the register of education and training providers have been investigated by the authorities. Of those, 114 have been found to be in breach of the immigration rules and have thus been removed from the register.
That illustrates the scale of the problem and of immigration. We also know that 770 higher education institutions have registered to be tier 4 sponsors in the points-based system. That figure will include universities and other organisations such as private colleges and schools.
The amendment would ensure that only educational establishments registered with Companies House could become a sponsor for foreign students. Currently, those with the word “college” in their title may apply to be a sponsor regardless of whether they are formally recognised under business law. I hope that the Government will support the amendment, particularly given the remarks of the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs this morning.
The Minister for Borders and Immigration will know that bogus colleges have been a problem for a long time, and that the problem affects different people. Obviously, it affects individual students, but it also affects the reputation of the UK educational system around the world and of the UK immigration control system. One issue to be tackled is the fact that businesses can use the word “college” almost at will. He will know that the Association of Colleges and the Association of Scotland’s Colleges seek to prevent UK and foreign students from enrolling in bogus colleges by making it compulsory to ask the Secretary of State’s permission before using the word “college” in a business name. The Bill offers the ideal opportunity to rectify that fault, which has been recognised by everyone involved.
When drawing up the new register for education sponsors, the UK Border Agency rejected applications from more than 300 institutions, many of which were bogus colleges. The Association of Colleges says that as a condition of receiving public money, all its member colleges are subject to stringent regimes of public audit and inspection. As a result, when students attend a bona fide college, they have certain expectations. Bogus colleges prey on unsuspecting students, who are predominantly from overseas. Once they have paid their fees for what are bogus qualifications, no recourse is available to them. Many students are scared to contact the authorities for fear of deportation, because they discover that although they may be the innocent victim of a scam, that will make them vulnerable. In the end, they are in a no-win situation. Either they return to their country of origin angry at the treatment they have received in the UK or they stay here illegally. I am sure the Minister agrees that neither of those results is satisfactory.
The new clause aims simply to protect the word “college”. Any organisation that wishes to trade under any name that includes the word “college” would require the express permission of the appropriate authorising official to do so. The Minister may wish to debate whether that would fit best into the new, multi-purpose Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or within his Department, but that is a second-order issue. When I look across Government, it seems to me that everything now comes under the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—indeed, there are people who wish that.
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
He does.
Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)
I am sure Lord Mandelson would prefer that, but it will be interesting to hear the Minister’s views.
The Minister will be aware that the restriction on the use of names is not without precedent. Companies House has the right to refuse to register certain words within a corporation name unless permission has been obtained from the relevant authority that holds the power to authorise use of that word. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has to be contacted for permission to use in a company name any of 54 restricted words including “institute” and, slightly more surprisingly, “Sheffield”. The various pieces of legislation enabling that power could also ban the use of other prescribed names without the permission of the relevant body. They could include words that relate to education, including “polytechnic” and “special school”. Another bizarre example to go with Sheffield is “contact lens”, the use of which also has to be approved by the Secretary of State. It is an interesting field of legislation, but it seems slightly perverse that we have specifically legislated to protect the name “polytechnic”, because I am not aware of any academic institutions that still refer to themselves as polytechnics, as they have all changed their names, and indeed their purpose. “Polytechnic” and “special school” are protected but “college” is not.
The Minister will be aware how important it is to protect the name “university”, and in the modern world it is equally important to protect the title “college”. I think that that would be a significant step forward both for the education world and in driving out the use of education as a means of circumventing our immigration controls.
The Minister, in a sense, is pushing at an open door. I do not think there is any opposition to the proposal—the Association of Colleges wants it and the Scottish colleges want it. Clearly, he will want to improve further the controls in that area. We have seen huge dangers arise recently inside the security world, as some of the most difficult cases of which we are aware have been related to educational institutions, so it seems to me not only that that is a good idea, but that it would be a good idea if it is done immediately. Even if other parts of Government move to that at some stage in the next few months, I advise him to agree to our amendments and new clause now, or engage to come back at a later stage with something similar, because the sooner we can get on with something like that and get those protections on the statute book, the better.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Gale. I rise briefly to speak in support of the comments made by the hon. Member for Ashford on amendment 58. I am normally an assiduous attender of the Home Affairs Committee, and I see other members of that Committee here today. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the Bill has somewhat got in the way of my attendance in the past couple of weeks, but the last sitting I attended focused on bogus colleges, and it was clear that the scale of abuse is completely unacceptable. It was also clear that that abuse has been going on for many years—10 years was the figure quoted for contact with successive Ministers to try to resolve the issue. It would appear that it has not yet been resolved, and witnesses giving evidence were able to provide the Committee with many examples of so-called colleges operating above fish and chip shops or pubs and clearly providing no education. They were a conduit for getting people into the country to work illegally.
The amendment’s wording might not be exactly right for achieving what the hon. Gentleman seeks, but I support his intention to ensure that only legitimate colleges can be sponsors and that simply opening an establishment that has nothing more than a letterhead and a sign outside stating that it is a college is not acceptable. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the proposals. He might see a way of refining the amendment to make it in order, if it is not currently in order, but I hope that he will at least accept that there is a significant problem and that the amendment is a sensible and friendly way of trying to address it.
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again in a Bill Committee, Mr. Gale—I think for the third time. I thank the hon. Member for Ashford for moving the amendment and will try to address the issues directly. We have had an introduction to the amendments, looking at the wider range of issues relating to colleges and students in the immigration system. Clause 52, and therefore the amendments to it, is restricted to a particular point, but with your agreement, Mr. Gale, I should like to address the general point first.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who has followed the Home Affairs Committee, to which I gave evidence on this issue, has mentioned the scale of the abuse that is going on. However, I hope he recognises that, with the introduction of tier 4 and the points-based system, particularly the requirement for people to have a sponsor licence—a student can only get a visa on the basis of an offer of a place from a specific sponsor, not on a more flexible basis, as previously—this problem in the system, which I recognise has been abused in the past, is being addressed. I prefer to debate this problem by referring to the past. Of course, there are students working their way through the system who came in under the old system, but the figures given to the Home Affairs Committee, which I will not repeat here, Mr. Gale, because you would not let me do so even if I had them at my fingertips, show that we can demonstrate that the number of institutions that are now able to bring in overseas students has fallen dramatically.
The clause supports the new system by addressing the issue of students wanting to transfer from one sponsored college, university or institution to another. Under the new system, a student cannot come into the country on a visa for study at a sponsored institution and then transfer to a non-sponsored institution, because that is not allowed. The clause states that, if a student wants to transfer to another sponsored institution, they can, but they must first seek permission. That will enable the UK Border Agency and the institution concerned to ensure that we can properly monitor whether the fact, or otherwise, regarding the purpose of the visa—that is, study—is being adhered to, because the abuse of the system in the past has been, partly, that students came in, started at college and then disappeared, and in some cases no check was made.
The amendment is in line with what the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), has been saying this morning in the Home Affairs Committee. That sequence of events follows my appearance, and that of my colleagues at UKBA, in that Committee, where, to offer a caricature, the Chair and the Committee were supportive of the system that we have put in place but thought that the definition of a college needed looking at. Indeed, the further education colleges have been campaigning on this point—there have been articles in the specialist press about this—to try to protect the name and reputation not just of the college, but of the UK as a whole, as the hon. Member for Ashford said.
Of course, we have, through the points-based system, been able to introduce a sponsor-register system, backed up with accreditation from the approved bodies, to ensure that for immigrations purposes only the proper colleges, as they might be called colloquially, are now able to take in overseas students. Quite right too, and as some including me would say, about time too. However, the definition of a college is wider than that, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. Apart from the drafting points that I could mention, if Committee members wanted me to, an immigration Bill is not the place to consider that definition, although I appreciate that there is concern about this matter and I admire the ingenuity of bringing across the Company and Business Name Regulations 1981 in the amendments.
The intention behind the amendment is narrow to allow it to address the matter of transferring across, but it goes much further than that. The new clause will allow us to impose on a migrant a system in relation to his or her studies. It will operate in much the same way, with the immigration rules specifying where the restrictions will apply to other categories, so that the purpose of the visa is met. In other words, a person will not be able to transfer across from a work visa to a study, spousal or family visit visa.
A further obstacle to the amendments lies, as I mentioned, in the detail of subsection (1A), which amendment 58 suggests adding to the clause. It appears to seek to use an immigration Bill to introduce a power to make “college” a protected term under the current Company and Business Names Regulations 1981, which as the hon. Gentleman says, already protects the names “university”, “institute” and “royal”. I understand the motivation behind that and personally support it.
The new powers that the UK Border Agency has for a register of sponsors now provide a significant level of protection for institutions. They have significantly strengthened previous arrangements, by requiring all tier 4 sponsors to be independently audited, inspected and accredited by one of a limited number of approved accreditation bodies before they can qualify as sponsors. We are talking about non-EU students, if I can bring in that thorny subject. One of the issues that my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs deals with is that of students from the European economic area, which he must take into account. That can include language colleges and so on, as well as other issues that we in the Home Office are particularly concerned about.
In addition, a new offence is due to come into force with the Company and Business Names (Sensitive Words and Expressions) Regulations 2009—I kid you not, Mr. Gale—which will take effect on 1 October. That is part of the tranche of regulations that, quite rightly, are part of the new regime. The new offence relates to carrying on business in the UK under a name that gives such a misleading indication of the nature of its activities that it is likely to cause harm to the public. Under that offence, the Minister of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, acronym BIS—no comment—will be able to direct an organisation to change its name. That may include removal of the term “college” if that is considered to be misleading.
In short, the purpose of protecting the name seems to make sense. My colleagues are putting forward ideas, and have given evidence to the Select Committee. A regulatory power exists there, so I do not believe that it is appropriate for the immigration Bill to undertake that change. However, I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s wider point.
Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)
I thank the Minister for his explanation.
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
And the honesty.
Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)
Always the honesty. When he responds to questions, that is always a relief. [Interruption.]
Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)
I will carry on. The serious point is that the sensitive names and words order contains a test of public harm. I imagine that will have to be tested in court, and precedents will need to be set as to what constitutes public harm.
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is right. To be fair to him and the Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs told the Committee that he would look again at whether the term “college” should be protected, and if so, whether there ought to be a link with accreditation of some form, to ensure that the system of registration as a college is tightened up further, so that it would not rely just on that regulation. That was his commitment.
Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)
That is very helpful. It would be a small but significant step forward. There might still be a problem, because it is clearly only after the fact of regulation. If someone sets up a bogus college, over time people will realise that it is a bogus college, so it might be possible to close it down—if it passes the public harm test, or whatever has to be done—but nevertheless it seems likely that in the intervening period, if it has taken on students, either it has been used to evade immigration regulations or it is being used to take fees off people, with all the consequent damage to the educational reputation of this country and, indeed, the reputation of and confidence in the immigration system that we have all talked about. As explained by the Minister, I am not sure whether the regulations will do what is required.
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
Just to re-emphasise, it could not happen for an immigrant student now, because of our system. My hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs is looking at the regulation that the hon. Gentleman referred to and at accreditation as well, to meet the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)
I am delighted. I look forward to seeing it in Hansard that the Minister is claiming that that could not happen to an immigrant student. We cannot have any bogus colleges taking in immigrant students—that is what he has just said. I am not sure that he wants that read into the record.
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
Not bogus college—bogus students.
Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)
No bogus colleges at all is quite a strong claim that the Minister is trying to make. In the spirit of good will, we shall take him at his word. We accept that the Minister has assured us that there will be no more bogus colleges and that there will be no more students being scammed by those bogus colleges or using them for purposes of illegal immigration. We can return to the subject in the months to come, to see whether that promise has been fulfilled. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.