Taking the categories in the question in turn. 1) On students, policy changes have resulted in significant reductions in international students in the FE sector; while there was undoubtedly some abuse, this also translates into lower exports. In HE, universities have largely adapted to the new system for undergraduates, but the abolition of the Post-Study Work Route means the UK is deliberately excluding a significant group of potential highly skilled and well integrated immigrants with good labour market prospects; this is entirely irrational from both an economic and social perspective. 2) On skilled workers, the system is now considerably more bureaucratic, although the expansion of the ICT route and the avoidance of a binding numerical constraint has mitigated the direct economic consequences so far. 3) On family migration, new income rules have probably increased the average income/skill level of family migrants, although obviously some UK citizens have suffered serious personal consequences. More broadly, of course, the obvious contradiction between the government's "open for business" rhetoric and its rhetoric and policy on non-EU migration has clearly not helped efforts to deepen economic links with some non-EU countries (India, in particular) although it is not possible to quantify any such impacts.

Macroprudential tools are largely untested in the UK. However, it is clear interest rates alone are far from an ideal instrument to deal with housing-related risk; and there are good reasons on empirical and theoretical grounds to prefer macroprudential instruments.