The UK sector is still awaiting clarity from government on the scope of its review of the post-study work visa, amid fears the ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ 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 ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ 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 ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ 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 ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ Office is represented on the committee, and the committee receives its commission from the home secretary.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

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.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

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 ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ 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.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

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.