UKBA has been criticised for ushering in the new Tier 4 visa system before it had gained complete control of sponsors (education institutions). The National Audit Office (NAO) suggested up to 50,000 students might have been actually seeking access to the jobs market in Tier 4's first year of operation. The UK Border Agency (UKBA) has been criticised for ushering in the new Tier 4 visa system before it had gained complete control of sponsors (education institutions). The
National Audit Office (NAO) also complained about UKBA's ability to chase up possible visa abusers
in its recent report.
Noting figures that are sure to appeal to the alarmist sections of the UK mainstream press, NAO suggests that because of poor management and oversight by UKBA, up to 50,000 students might have entered the UK in the first year of Tier 4's existence with their prime intention to work, not study.
This estimate was based on college enrolment rates and changes in application patterns once Tier 4 was in force.
"The UK Border Agency implemented its new student visa system without key controls in place. The flaws in the system were both predictable and avoidable," said Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office today.
He continued, "The Agency regards students who do not comply with their visa conditions as a low priority compared with illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers, and is slow to take action to deal with such students.
"Action planned by the Agency to ensure that those with no right to remain in the UK are identified and required to leave must now be pursued more vigorously."
NAO revealed that 2,700 students and student overstayers had been 'removed' since 1 April 2009 when Tier 4 was in place. Its view is that this is the tip of the iceberg.
"NAO employed a specialist contractor to try and locate 812 people UKBA was looking for"
In response to any suggestion that tracking down possible visa overstayers or abusers is difficult, NAO had evidence that this is not the case: It employed a specialist contractor to try and locate 812 people UKBA was looking for. At a cost of £3,000, in one week the contractor found addresses for a quarter of the Tier 4 cases supplied, which the Agency is in the process of checking.
NAO did acknowledge that new controls introduced in December 2011 have further tightened up procedures. "But it will not be possible to determine the value for money of the Points Based System for students, unless the Agency establishes ways to measure its success in tackling abuse, including how it deals with overstaying, and to establish the full cost of its Tier 4 related activities".
It suggested re-evaluating the criteria for Highly Trusted Sponsor (HTS) status against data submitted by sponsors and considering introducing a fit and proper test for owners and operators of private colleges to hold a Tier 4 sponsor licence.
NAO also seemed cognisant of serious upheaval inflicted on the sector
NAO also seemed cognisant of serious upheaval inflicted on the sector. It
called on the government to consider introducing formal cost-effective means for sponsors to challenge a decision not to award HTS status; establish measures and targets for its compliance work to show its cost-effectiveness; and evaluate the true cost to colleges of recent changes and the cost- effectiveness of the new requirements.
The UK Border Agency (UKBA) has been criticised for ushering in the new Tier 4 visa system before it had gained complete control of sponsors (education institutions). The National Audit Office (NAO) also complained about UKBA’s ability to chase up possible visa abusers in its recent report.
Noting figures that are sure to appeal to the alarmist sections of the UK mainstream press, NAO suggests that because of poor management and oversight by UKBA, up to 50,000 students might have entered the UK in the first year of Tier 4’s existence with their prime intention to work, not study.
This estimate was based on college enrolment rates and changes in application patterns once Tier 4 was in force.
“The UK Border Agency implemented its new student visa system without key controls in place. The flaws in the system were both predictable and avoidable,” said Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office today.
He continued, “The Agency regards students who do not comply with their visa conditions as a low priority compared with illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers, and is slow to take action to deal with such students.
“Action planned by the Agency to ensure that those with no right to remain in the UK are identified and required to leave must now be pursued more vigorously.”
NAO revealed that 2,700 students and student overstayers had been ‘removed’ since 1 April 2009 when Tier 4 was in place. Its view is that this is the tip of the iceberg.
“NAO employed a specialist contractor to try and locate 812 people UKBA was looking for”
In response to any suggestion that tracking down possible visa overstayers or abusers is difficult, NAO had evidence that this is not the case: It employed a specialist contractor to try and locate 812 people UKBA was looking for. At a cost of £3,000, in one week the contractor found addresses for a quarter of the Tier 4 cases supplied, which the Agency is in the process of checking.
NAO did acknowledge that new controls introduced in December 2011 have further tightened up procedures. “But it will not be possible to determine the value for money of the Points Based System for students, unless the Agency establishes ways to measure its success in tackling abuse, including how it deals with overstaying, and to establish the full cost of its Tier 4 related activities”.
It suggested re-evaluating the criteria for Highly Trusted Sponsor (HTS) status against data submitted by sponsors and considering introducing a fit and proper test for owners and operators of private colleges to hold a Tier 4 sponsor licence.
NAO also seemed cognisant of serious upheaval inflicted on the sector
NAO also seemed cognisant of serious upheaval inflicted on the sector. It called on the government to consider introducing formal cost-effective means for sponsors to challenge a decision not to award HTS status; establish measures and targets for its compliance work to show its cost-effectiveness; and evaluate the true cost to colleges of recent changes and the cost- effectiveness of the new requirements.
