Why is this man being allowed to preside over the wilful destruction of a major British export industry?

Imagine, if you will, a Government in the midst of a recession that chooses to insult investors who bring £8 billion a year into the UK economy. And it does so purely for reasons of ideology and prejudice, with little regard for the economic consequences. Such an approach would surely be the subject of widespread ridicule, and the minister responsible given the opportunity to spend a little more time with their constituents and their backbench colleagues.

That is precisely what is happening to our universities and colleges, as they strive to compete with Australia, Canada and the US for the brightest and best students in the world. This week, nearly 70 university chancellors have written to the David Cameron urging him to back UK universities in their efforts to recruit genuine international students. What other major export industry would have to go on bended knees to beg the PM's backing?

Yet the coalition's ill-considered immigration policy is turning students away. Already numbers from India have fallen, and other major countries are likely to turn elsewhere unless they see Britain welcoming international students rather than treating them like pariahs. Essentially the problem is this: the coalition is committed to reducing net migration at a time when the number of Britons migrating is falling. There are already strict controls on overseas workers, so the only way to achieve this is to cut student numbers.

Yet as the universities point out in their letter:

In an age of increasing global mobility, the number of individuals considering a university education abroad is growing rapidly. In this market for talent – and export income – the UK performs exceptionally well, with 9.9% of the total market share in 2009, and export earnings of £7.9 billion. International students also play an important role in towns and cities up and down the country, and contribute significantly to local economies. There is a clear opportunity to build on this success, with forecasts suggesting that export earnings from this activity could more than double by 2025.

Since the formation of the coalition, the Home Office has tried to cut immigration to the UK in several ways. It was perfectly reasonable to clamp down on 450 bogus colleges and prevent them from sponsoring students.The Border Agency claims that this has meant 11,000 fewer bogus students coming to the UK. At the same time, universities and colleges are licensed as Highly Trusted Sponsors to admit overseas students and must take responsibility that students will turn up to and attend courses, and that they are legitimate. Institutions that fail in this quickly lose their status, so they have a strong incentive to do so. It is not always easy, as the wholly inept Border Agency is often behind on the paperwork, but it makes some sense. 

What makes no sense is keeping students within the net migration figures: it is like capping manufacturing exports or saying we have enough tourists this year, thanks.

Moreover, the impression from outside is not that there is a sensible balance being struck between recruiting legitimate students and barring bogus ones. Rather it is that an increasingly zealous minister at the Home Office, Damian Green, the man most responsible for the chaos at the borders last month, seems hell bent on discouraging students from coming here in the first place. The Home Office has dusted down all its old wheezes and finally found a willing buyer in the once moderate and mild-mannered Kent MP. As a result, an £8 billion export industry is playing second fiddle to their fantasy targets. So much so that Green told a Policy Exchange event in February that

there is scope for further examination of whether and to what extent foreign student tuition fees boost the UK economy and, crucially, how UK residents ultimately benefit from that. 

Universities UK has argued that the total ‘export earnings’ of higher education, including tuition fees and spending by non-UK students, could grow from £7.9bn in 2009 to £16.9bn in 2025 with the right policy environment.Its research also highlighted the extent of growth in Indian postgraduates, as well as higher international student mobility from China, the Middle East and Nigeria. A recent IPPR report has calculated that current Government targets could see losses of up to £3bn a year from students: in truth it could be a lot higher if the Green message reaches those growing markets. Moreover, these students are not just an invisible export, as the IPPR adds

The difference in terms of the dynamic contribution to the economy over 20 years, in terms of losing so many young, highly qualified and motivated migrants is hard to calculate, but would likely be very large.

It is time for David Cameron to take a decisive stance on this issue, and to back British higher education. If he wants a simple solution, he could start by emulating the Australians - one of our big competitors for East Asian, Indian and Chinese students by treating students differently in the statistics. The IPPR explains:

Australia keeps a record of international students in its estimates of total net overseas migration (NOM), but these fall within the ‘temporary’ category (alongside business long-stay migrants, working holidaymakers and long-term visitors) and there are few formal caps on these numbers, although the government is able to exert some control through policy, such as by raising English language requirements.

Then he should borrow another idea from Tony Blair, and launch a major Downing Street campaign actively to promote UK higher education in overseas markets. The message should be that Britain welcomes international students - and he should show that his government means it.

The anti-police party

There was a time back in the 1980s when some so-called 'loony left' London boroughs acquired a reputation for their opposition to the Police. Some schools kept them off the premises. Extreme left leaders made a fetish of their opposition to the Police, providing an easy target for a Tory government determined to reduce the powers of local government.

Now it would appear that the Tories have decided to become the anti-police party, as the Damian Green affair has already shown. I'm indebted to Toby Harris for some shocking evidence of how much contempt the current Tory chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority has for the rule of law.

Time for a new Speaker

Until yesterday, I had subscribed to the view that the constant sniping against the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, was the result of class prejudice. I would therefore have defended him against the jabbering from the Tory backbenches. After his utterly ungracious statement yesterday, where he sought to shift the blame for the decision to allow the Police to search Damian Green's office without a warrant onto the Serjeant at Arms, Jill Pay, I am no longer of that view. It is time for Mr Martin to go.

Has Cameron's attack on the police hurt the Tories?

After some disappointing polls for Labour following last week's PBR, along comes one to put a spring back in Gordon Brown's step. That's Tories 37, Labour 36. The Independent sees it as a positive verdict on the PBR. But as the only poll conducted after the arrest of Damian Green, could the voters be telling David Cameron that they don't want politicians to be trying to undermine the police in their investigations?

Tories must answer some questions too in the Green saga

Both Matthew Taylor and Toby Harris offer some useful observations in the Green case, as some of the media join the Tories in a disgraceful attempt to turn Jacqui Smith into a scapegoat for her refusal as Home Secretary to interfere in an active investigation.

What is particularly bizarre is that today's latest twist in the saga concerns the 'outrage' felt at accusations apparently made by the police that Green had been 'grooming' his civil servant informant. But how do we know that the police used such terminology? Only because a 'friend of Mr Green' told the media about it. And while the language may be unfortunate, the Tories are well aware of the legal difference between passively receiving leaked documents and actively seeking them from civil servants.

Green strongly denies the allegations made against him, and I have said before that once the investigation is over, I believe there should be a full review of police procedures in these matters. I agree with a lawyer letter writer to the Times this morning that the police should think more carefully about the use of arrest in criminalising the innocent:

For many years police forces across the country have eschewed the practice of dealing with criminal suspects “on summons” in favour of the practicality and convenience of arrest and charge. This is especially the case since the latter procedure entitles them to enter and search premises without a warrant.....A small number, however, are guilty of neither criminal nor moral wrongdoing and have become the subject of suspicion through no fault of their own, that or they have made a genuine mistake or error of judgement. In such cases police reluctance to allow suspects to be dealt with as “non-casual visitors to a police station” coupled with the removal of restrictive powers of arrest in favour of the very wide power to arrest “to allow the prompt and effective investigation of an offence” occasionally criminalises truly innocent individuals. The decision to arrest in every case has become routine, even policy.

But the letter also suggests that Green was treated in the same way as ordinary mortals, however unpleasant the experience. And since the shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve and his party leader have been bombarding ministers with questions that must be answered now, here's a few for him:

1. If you are Home Secretary and a good friend is being investigated by the police for a crime, do you (a) take to the airwaves to demand his immediate release because you know he's a good egg, and apologise for any inconvenience caused or (b) let the police conclude their investigation without interference and say sorry afterwards if the police got it wrong?

2. If you are Home Secretary and you find that secret documents are being stolen on behalf of the Opposition on an almost daily basis, some of a sensitive security nature, do you (a) say: "well, that's democracy for you, not to worry" or (b) ask your permanent secretary to conduct a leak inquiry?

3. If you are Home Secretary and the Met Police Commissioner has strong reason to believe that an MP is actively and wholly illegally encouraging a member of your Private Office to steal confidential documents and pass them to him, do you (a) tell the commissioner to stop his investigations immediately because the MP is only exercising his democratic right to break the law or (b) allow him to carry on his investigations until they reach a conclusion, even though an MP is accused?

4. If you are Home Secretary and you are told that an opposition front bench spokesperson has been arrested, do you (a) go on the Today programme to denounce the police or (b) recognise that you do not run the police but resolve to review procedures after the investigation is complete?

5. If your answers are mostly (a) do you really think you are ready to be Home Secretary?

Police tactics may be heavyhanded, but no Home Secretary can start issuing apologies until the case is over

Imagine for a second that John Reid, Home Secretary at the time, had hit the airwaves to attack the heavyhanded actions of the police after they launched their dawn raid on a senior female Downing Street adviser, before arresting her in the cash for honours affair. That he might have been justified in thinking the actions wholly disproportionate - as her subsequent exoneration proved and those who knew her believed at the time - is beside the point. He would have been wrong actively to intervene during an active investigation. And I'm pretty sure the Tories would have been the first to say so.

The same is true of Jacqui Smith today with respect to the arrest of Damian Green. She should not and cannot take the course of action being advised by David Cameron and 'condemn' the police, nor indeed can Gordon Brown, though he could do more publicly to uphold the rights of MPs. And Smith certainly cannot start issuing apologies until the matter is closed. Whatever we may think about the police actions in this case - and I share the views of my former boss on these matters - no Home Secretary can get in the business of trying to take operational control of the police. Were they to do so, we would then be living in an authoritarian state. And I seriously doubt that any of those claiming that we are now living in a police state realise what that really means: for a start, we certainly wouldn't be hearing their claims on the airwaves.

Harriet Harman is right to say that there should be a review of procedures to develop much clearer protocol for police seizing MPs' files and computers, especially in the Houses of Parliament. But David Cameron and would-be Home Secretary Dominic Grieve are utterly wrong to suggest that either Jacqui Smith or Gordon Brown should intervene to overrule or rebuke the police in this case, just as they would have been wrong to do so - however unjustified the action seemed to many of us - when the police took similar action before. When this case is over - or if it is decided not to press charges against Green - there should certainly be a proper review of police tactics in this and similar cases. But not before.

The arrest of Damian Green

The arrest of Damian Green seems to be the latest in the heavyhanded approach of the police to politicians and those working in politics.

I don't recall hearing much outraged comment about 'heavy-handed' police tactics from the likes of Michael Howard and David Cameron when some of Tony Blair's advisers were arrested in even more bizarre circumstances, subsequently to be exonerated. And it is utterly disreputable of the Tory duo to suggest that the Home Secretary is lying when she inisists she was not involved in the police being called in to investigate leaks in the Home Office: the Tories have embarked on a strategy of shouting unfounded accusations as loudly as possible as a substitute for serious policy, as was evident earlier this week on the PBR.

Nevertheless, it does seem bizarre that the police have chosen to arrest an MP on this issue, as none of the documents cited in the papers today would appear to have had national security implications. And if charges are not made, the Metropolitan Police should be much clearer about why they made this arrest (rather than simply questioning Green if they needed to do so) and explaining the criteria they use before making such arrests for the future.