In a letter dated March 11, James Cleverly wrote to chair of the MAC, Brian Bell, outlining the terms of reference for the “rapid” review of the UK’s Graduate Route, commissioned by the government, requesting the findings be presented to him by May 14.

“We are deeply concerned by the accelerated timetable, which appears to be driven by political – not policy – concerns,” said Jamie Arrowsmith, director of UUKi, in a statement following the news.

“The government should give the MAC the time it needs to properly review the Graduate visa, allowing the committee to consider the full range of evidence and engage in meaningful consultation, rather than asking them to rush their response.”

Arrowsmith said the organisation would welcome the opportunity to engage with the MAC to make a “robust, evidence-based case on the value of the current system”, while reminding of the purpose of the Graduate Route – not primarily to address UK labour market shortages, but to enhance the competitiveness of the UK as a study destination.

Bell responded in a letter to Cleverly, accepting the commission, but noting that the timescales for this review are “much shorter than a normal commission”.

Bell said this will substantially limit the quality and quantity of evidence that the MAC can provide to answer Cleverly’s questions, and it will not be able to conduct a call for evidence given the timeframe.

“We also note that it has taken longer for the government to commission us than we have been given to complete the review,” wrote Bell.

The terms of reference outlined in Cleverly’s letter to Bell include any evidence of abuse of the route and evidence of it not being fit for purpose, as well as “demographics and trends for students accessing a study visa and subsequently accessing the UK labour market by means of the Graduate Route”, among other factors.

The government should give the MAC the time it needs to properly review the Graduate visa

“International students deliver huge benefits to the UK, and the Graduate visa has played a crucial role,” said Arrowsmith.

“Post-study work matters for many international students, allowing those who have invested in our country the opportunity to find work and contribute to the UK economy.”

Arrowsmith said that with the government publicly recommitting to the Graduate route on its current terms back in May 2023, any further changes would be “extremely damaging” to the UK’s reputation as a welcoming destination for international students.

It risks “undermining a UK success story that generates more than £20 billion a year in export earnings for the economy”, he added.

Responding to Cleverly’s claims, Diana Beech, CEO, London Higher, said that suggestions that the route is being used primarily for immigration rather than education purposes are “misguided and not supported by evidence”.

Cleverly pointed to data from the MAC annual report that showed the proportion of international students studying at lower tariff institutions rose to 32% in 2021/22, while the number of international postgraduate students attending institutions with the lowest UCAS tariff quartiles increased by over 250% between 2018 and 2022.

However, Beech highlighted that the rising numbers of international students at lower-tariff institutions is likely a reflection of the “increasing diversity of UK higher education their commitment to social mobility both locally and internationally”.

“Rather than taking a sledgehammer to a successful policy, we urge the government to embrace and enhance the Graduate Route as a powerful soft power tool and engine of economic opportunity,” she told The PIE.

“We hope the pending review objectively examines all evidence and perspectives before jumping into any rash policy changes that could irreparably damage the appeal and reputation of the UK as a welcoming study and work destination and its ability to cultivate highly-skilled talent pipelines for the benefit of the UK and the wider world.”