Written evidence submitted by the University of Cambridge (RTS3058)

The Government has announced plans to change the eligibility criteria for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), also known as ‘settlement’. Proposed measures include extending the standard period for qualifying for ILR from 5 to 10 or 15 years. As part of these proposals the Home Affairs Committee has launched an inquiry to examine the evidence base for making such changes. The following constitutes the official response from the University of Cambridge dated 1 December 2025.

Summary

• The University of Cambridge expresses serious concerns over the plan to increase the ILR qualifying period to ten years without considerable mitigations. Such a move, on an indiscriminate basis, would severely damage our ability to attract and retain talent.

• The University is a key investor within the region and within the UK as a whole, sitting at the heart of the ‘Cambridge Cluster’, which collectively contributes in excess of £18bn annually and employs more than 67,000 people. The University itself is a global leader in research and teaching and is a major attractor of international talent to the UK, which is a realisation of the Government’s vision as set out within their Industrial Strategy.

• Within this response, the University has provided narratives from our academic, research and skilled support staff citing the impact that the ILR changes would make to their lives, their career and ultimately their decision to remain in the UK. A summary of the key points from their responses are as follows:

• Any extension to the qualifying period would force individuals to re-apply for visas, continuously, over a longer period of time (an additional 5-10 years depending on visa type).

• This would add considerably to the expense incurred by these staff members, to the point of it being prohibitive for them to continuously re-apply and pay all of the attendant fees.

• Being on a temporary visa (or temporary visas) for longer would mean that these individuals cannot plan their futures in any meaningful way (for example, qualify for a mortgage to buy a property, or for government childcare schemes for younger children) – this is both a huge disincentive to come to or remain in the UK, and prevents people from fully integrating into the communities where they are living and working.

• Even those individuals who still do decide to spend some time in the UK will likely view it as a “temporary stop”, meaning we stand to lose their talent and knowledge, and any investment that UK education institutions put into supporting them, further up-skilling them, etc.

• We are also highly likely to lose entrepreneurs and the founders of start-ups who first launch their companies here in Cambridge, meaning we would enable these companies to launch but then lose them to competitor nations e.g. the US, Canada and France.

• We note within the Government’s ‘Earned Settlement’ proposals that one of the concessions offered is to maintain a five-year path to settlement where an individual earns a minimum of £50,270. We would ask the Committee to note that, especially within the University sector, salary is not a good proxy for skill level; the contribution our staff make to the UK in terms of the impact of their work is a more logical measurement than using the indiscriminate threshold of £50,270. We also see that there is a potential concession for those holding public service roles to maintain their five-year route to settlement. We would encourage further thought as to whether such a concession should also apply to research intensive Universities, recognising the lower earnings but high impact that constitute skilled roles at the University.

• On this basis, our recommendation to the inquiry is that all skilled employment within research-intensive UK universities including Cambridge, where that is facilitated through Global Talent, Skilled Worker or points-based dependant visas, should be recognised as constituting a long-term contribution to the UK, and on this basis should be included as an exemption to the new rules. This would be in line with the Government’s Industrial Strategy.

Introduction and background

The University of Cambridge is a Collegiate, research-intensive University, founded in 1209. It is the second-oldest University in the UK and the world's fourth-oldest surviving University. Cambridge is formed from a variety of institutions which include 31 constituent Colleges and more than 150 academic departments; we directly employ over 14,000 people. The University of Cambridge frequently ranks amongst the foremost Universities in the world, reflecting its position as global leader in teaching and research. The University has 126 Nobel laureates to its name, many of whom were non-UK nationals at the time of the award. Individually the University contributes nearly £30 billion to the UK economy and supports more than 86,000 jobs across the UK.

Cambridge’s tech ecosystem now has a combined value of $222 billion, which weighs in at 18% of the value of UK tech – making it second only to London in this regard.

What stands out as particularly striking is our performance relative to European universities and our competitors across the globe. The data shows that Cambridge ranks top in Europe for the number of ‘unicorns’ (startups worth $1bn+) per capita.

Moreover, Cambridge alumni have created more venture-backed startups than any other European university – some 2,600 startups, 136% higher than the Technical University Munich, our closest European competitor.

Some 752 Cambridge start-ups have attracted over $10 million in VC, eclipsing École Polytechnique de Paris’s 236. 

Cambridge has also incubated more unicorns per funded start-up than any other European ecosystem, including Zurich and Munich. When it comes to unicorns per capita, Cambridge is second only to the San Francisco Bay Area (82.2 vs 84.7).

More broadly, the statistics show a huge return on investment for venture capital attracted to Cambridge companies. For every $1bn VC investment, Cambridge has produced $17.7bn in enterprise value.

The University of Cambridge also plays a vital role at the heart of the ‘Cambridge Cluster’ (sometimes referred to as ‘Silicon Fen’), helping to sustain knowledge-exchange and connected employment within the region. The Cambridge Cluster is recognised as one of the most successful University innovation ecosystems in the world. At the heart of the cluster is the University of Cambridge, and many of the cluster’s home-grown successes have started life in the University.

The cluster currently comprises more than 5,000+ knowledge-intensive companies operating in a diverse range of market sectors, from Life Sciences to Advanced Manufacturing, to ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT). These companies are supported by a service ecosystem comprising 800 companies.

These companies alone turnover in excess of £18bn annually and employ more than 67,000 people, providing a major contribution to the UK. The cluster’s capacity to innovate and collaborate has resulted in 23 billion-dollar businesses being based in the city, including AstraZeneca, Amazon and Apple. The cluster will be strengthened by the Government’s recent announcement to invest £500m in the ‘Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor’ and the partnership between Cambridge and Manchester.

At the heart of this lies the University’s international talent base.  At the University of Cambridge, the recruitment and retention of the ‘brightest and the best’ talent has been critical to sustaining Cambridge’s position as a globally-renowned University and, hand in hand with that, fostering the cluster to the heights of its current success.

Within the academic year 2024/2025, the University of Cambridge recruited within the following staff types:

The above numbers broadly reflect our recruitment trends over the past five years. 

For the academic year 2024/25, the total research income for University of Cambridge was £618M. Of this, c.40% of the total grant/fellowship funding was awarded to Principal Investigators who were not UK nationals.

The University of Cambridge wishes to express serious concern over the plans to increase the current ILR pathway from 5 years to 10 years. The University currently employs in excess of 1,100 non-UK skilled staff holding a Global Talent, Skilled Worker or points-based Dependent visa. All of these staff, and our future recruitment though these visa routes, are potentially affected by the proposal to increase the qualifying period of ILR, yet they are the very staff that the UK is aiming to attract.

We submit evidence to this inquiry for the purpose of demonstrating the long-term,  valuable contributions that our international staff make to the UK economy, research and international standing through their presence in the UK and employment at Cambridge. Evidence is submitted under the two broad headlines provided by the inquiry – ‘Potential impact of changes to pathways to settlement’, and ‘How the new earned settlement rules could work’

Potential impact of changes to pathways to settlement   

To express the depth of the potential impact that increasing the ILR route to 10 years would have on our international staff, we have drawn on their personal accounts. Within these accounts they have expressed their views on the personal, financial, and work/career impacts that would result from the proposed changes. Please note that, for personal reasons, some of our staff have chosen to provide these accounts anonymously.

Dr. Noémie Combémorel, Postdoctoral Researcher, Stem Cell Institute, Tyser lab

My research project is part of a £5,400,000 Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council strategic Longer and Larger grant, based in the Cambridge Stem Cell Institute. In collaboration with two other teams here in Cambridge and two teams based in Oxford, we aim to decipher the cell-cell communications between different niches during heart development and compare these across different species. By improving our understanding of how the heart forms, this research have potential life-saving outcomes: for treatment and prevention of congenital heart defect, that represent 1% of live birth in the UK, but also of cardiovascular diseases such as heart failure, affecting over 7.6 million people in the UK and responsible for the death of 175'000 people each year. This strategic national investment relies heavily on international talent; four out of five postdoctoral researchers on this grant are immigrants. Forcing a shift to a ten-year Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) requirement would immediately destabilize our team.

I am on track to apply for settlement in 2026, which would grant me the stability needed to complete our five-year grant, which concludes in 2029, and offer me the possibility of staying afterwards to take on different projects. The 10-year rule would force me to abandon this plan and instead apply for a costly visa extension. Instead of making a single investment into permanent status (ILR fee of £3,029), I would have to pay an extension fee (£766) plus the massive Immigration Health Surcharge (£1,035 per year). The visa application process itself requires long processing time (up to 8 weeks standard), during which I am legally unable to leave the UK. This has and will prevent me from visiting family and friends abroad for months at a time, causing stress and uncertainty.

I would also like to note that with a 5-year contract, I am one of the lucky postdocs that have some visibility over their future. Most of us only have short-term contracts, which makes the visa application process an even greater challenge. Extending ILR to 10 years would send a clear message of precarity, forcing me and others to view the UK as a temporary stop and actively seek permanent research positions in competitor nations. This policy would inevitably lead to a brain drain, wasting public investment and ensuring that critical, life-saving research is completed elsewhere.

Dr. Luis F. Cobar Zelaya, Senior Research Associate, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellow, MRC Metabolic Diseases Unit

My name is Luis Cobar; I am from El Salvador and I am currently a senior research associate at the Institute of Metabolic Science. I migrated with my wife to the UK in July of 2025 and my contract is valid until 2031.

The changes to the Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) qualifying period have made me reconsider my long-term plans and career development. My work focuses on developing innovative setups and tools to measure brain activity together with other metabolic parameters, which will be essential to develop new approaches to fight obesity, diabetes, and related conditions both in the UK and globally. I am also exploring the commercialization of these tools and how to contribute to the development of the UK biotech scene.

The potential changes of ILR have made me reconsider whether the UK can provide the stability I need for me and my family. The financial burden of a doubled Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) and increase in taxation, combined with the uncertainty in our residency status makes my family and I feel unwelcomed, and is making us evaluate other places in which our contributions to society may be valued differently.

While my current contract runs until 2031, my intention is to remain in the UK beyond that period to continue advancing research and innovation. Extending the ILR requirements makes me doubtful about my ability to do so and limits my personal investment in long-term collaborations in the UK.

I urge the policy makers to reconsider these changes, since it discourages people like me, other skilled workers from a long-term commitment to the UK. It is fair to expect stability when we continue to contribute to the scientific, social and economic development of this country.

Dr. V, Postdoctoral Researcher, Faculty of Mathematics

I am a postdoctoral researcher in the Faculty of Mathematics, currently working in physics-based computation. The purpose of my research is to develop novel computational architectures using physical systems that are less resource intensive than conventional computers. Such next-generation computers would lessen the hardware and power requirements of industrial and consumer-grade machine learning applications in a broad number of fields, from drug-discovery via simulated protein folding to financial portfolio optimization. As a matter of fact, this is already a priority for the British government, as shown with the recent inauguration of the UK Multidisciplinary Centre for Computing in the House of Lords. 

In my opinion, this line of research is of key national importance for the UK to become competitive in the artificial intelligence arena without the enormous lead time and infrastructure spending necessary to catch up to the leading countries. I believe that the University of Cambridge certainly has the prestige and research excellence to attract and retain the talent that can make the development of this cutting-edge research possible. However, this work requires personal stability and long-term thinking for researchers doing it, and it might be hindered by the current proposal of increasing the Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) to 10 years.

For the past few years, the Swedish government has been implementing broad migration laws that have resulted in a brain drain of Non-EU academics and PhD holders, such as myself and my partner. Based on migration trends, it is clear that facing an uncertain migratory future, highly skilled labourers choose to migrate to countries with better long-term assurances, bringing along their talent and funding. I think the UK is one of such places and my decision to move here was greatly motivated by the existence of the Global Talent Visa and the possibility to apply for ILR after just three years rather than Sweden's 4+ years. It is an opinion shared with my former colleagues that decided to leave Sweden: broad migration laws hurt the competitive edge by incentivizing talented individuals to leave. For these reasons, I support the University's position to allow us to retain the old scheme for settling (3 to 5 years). Let us show our value to British society at large and permanently settle here so we can plan accordingly. Stability will enable us to do our best work in the interest of science and society.

Dr. Rizwana Ahmad, Postdoctoral Researcher, LiFi Research & Development Centre, Department of Engineering

Before moving to the UK in 2022, both my spouse and I received competitive job offers from Germany, Italy, Finland, and Abu Dhabi. We had even signed employment contracts and obtained our German national visas. However, we ultimately chose to relocate to the United Kingdom due to the perceived advantages of the English language, better professional opportunities, and smoother social integration.

Our first UK visa application was entirely self-funded and cost approximately £3,500 for two people. Subsequently, my spouse’s employer sponsored our next visa, paying around £15,000 for a 5-year visa for our family of three. Should the government retain the current 5-year ILR eligibility period, we will still need to pay an additional £9,000 to apply for ILR for our family — bringing our total immigration-related expenses to approximately £27,500.

Because we are on temporary visas, we cannot purchase a home. We had saved a sufficient deposit and intended to buy a property this summer, but the uncertainty surrounding ILR eligibility has left us in limbo. Without any family support network in the UK and access to government childcare schemes due to our visa status, we pay £1,600 per month (£19,200 annually) for our daughter’s nursery. This is a significant financial burden despite both of us working full-time and contributing to the UK economy.

Visa restrictions also limit our access to certain public sector and civil service roles that require higher-level security clearance. For example, my spouse was offered a role that required such clearance but could not take it up due to visa ineligibility — a clear example of how immigration status can restrict skilled migrants’ career progression and limit the UK’s access to their expertise.

Since arriving in the UK, both of us have worked continuously in full-time employment. Over the past three years, we have collectively contributed over £85,000 in income tax and National Insurance. Despite our consistent contribution to public finances, we remain excluded from many of the benefits and opportunities that citizens and ILR holders enjoy.

Our experience illustrates how the current ILR route creates significant financial, social, and professional barriers for skilled workers and their families. We urge policymakers to consider:

• Maintaining ILR qualification to 5 years for continuously employed skilled migrants.
• Lowering or subsidising visa and ILR application fees to align with international standards.
• Recognising dependants’ employment and contributions in ILR eligibility, especially in dual-income households.

Dr. Luis Fernando Bernardi Junqueira, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of History and Philosophy of Science

I am currently a Leverhulme Trust Research Fellow at the Department of History and Philosophy of Science and at Clare Hall, University of CambridgeBefore this, I completed a Wellcome Trust-funded PhD in History at UCL (2019–2023) and worked as a Research Associate at the University of Strathclyde (2024).

I have contributed to the UK economy for nearly 8 years, first as a student and since 2024 as a researcher, and I am among the very few scholars in the country specialising in the history of science and medicine in East Asia. My work has been recognised through several highly competitive international awards, including the 2024 Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland Bayly Prize in Asian Studies, the 2024 British Association for Chinese Studies Best Doctoral Thesis Award, and the 8th Dissertation Prize of the Division of History of Science and Technology, distinctions that not only reflect my scholarly contributions but also raise the international standing of British universities, as all of this has been achieved while I have been based in the UK.

Under the current rules, I would be eligible to apply for ILR in January 2027. However, if the qualifying period is extended to 10 years, I would not be eligible until 2032 or 2033. As an academic in the mid-30s, such a delay in securing permanent residency would seriously impact my career prospects, as many long-term positions in the UK require or favour candidates with the right to live and work here indefinitely. The uncertainty of prolonged temporary status would also affect key aspects of life, from securing a mortgage to planning for retirement.

My husband, who is from Hong Kong and works in finance as a Risk Manager, would also be affected by the proposed change. Extending the ILR timeframe to 10 years would strongly discourage him from relocating to London. As a result, we would certainly move together to another country, either in Europe or Asia, in the near future, in order to achieve long-term stability.

Dr. Raffaele Bonadio, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Earth Sciences

I am a seismologist at the University of Cambridge, where my research focuses on understanding the mechanics and dynamics of the Earth's system at both regional and global scales, with particular emphasis on Britain and its surroundings. Over the past decade, my collaborators and I have contributed significantly to improving our understanding of the structure and evolution of the lithosphere and crust beneath the UK; how it formed, how it has evolved, and how it behaves today.

This research has important scientific and societal implications. Understanding better the structure beneath the UK helps to improve our knowledge of possible earthquake hazards and how the country can respond to them. Although Britain is not located on an active plate boundary, history shows that even intraplate regions can experience damaging earthquakes. Through my research, we are improving the understanding of how earthquakes could affect the UK, even in highly populated areas like London, and how to reduce the potential damage by making buildings and infrastructure safer. Additionally, this research supports exploration of sustainable geothermal energy resources, which aligns with the UK's goals for energy security and carbon reduction. In this way, my research could benefit both local communities and the wider national interest.

The proposed increase in the timeframe for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) from 5 to 10 years would have a profound impact on my professional and personal life, as well as on my family's long-term commitment to the UK.

From a professional perspective, research in Earth sciences is inherently long-term and collaborative. The uncertainty created by an extended ILR process could affect my ability to secure long-term research funding and lead major projects. It would also make it more difficult to plan future collaborations and research directions, especially those involving international coordination and commitments over several years.

On a personal level, my family and I have built deep roots in the UK. My wife also works at the University of Cambridge as a Research Strategy Coordinator, contributing to the success of academic research across disciplines. Our child attends a local school, and we are actively involved in school and community activities. I also serve as a Family Officer at Trinity College, helping to support the wellbeing of college families. We take great pride in being part of this community and contributing to both academic and social life.

However, the uncertainty surrounding long-term residency has made it difficult for us to fully integrate and plan our future. Extending the ILR timeframe to 10 years would intensify this uncertainty, making it harder to make essential life decisions such as purchasing a home, planning our child's education, or planning a stable future here, and we may have to consider moving to another country that provides more stability. We truly appreciate being part of the UK's research community and society, and we wish to continue making a positive impact in the long term. A clear and stable pathway to settlement would give us the confidence to plan our future and stay fully involved in the UK's academic and social life.

It is highly likely that, as a result of increasing the ILR route’s residence requirement to 10 years, we would lose the ability to attract and retain international talent. As clearly expressed by our staff, above, their skills and presence are in demand globally. The long-term cost to them personally and financially, and to their careers, in remaining in the UK on temporary visas for at least 10 years would be too high a cost for them to bear, and they would relocate to countries with less hostile rules. The reduction in our ability to recruit and retain would have far reaching consequences for the Government’s vision for the ‘Cambridge cluster’, the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, and its overall plan for UK growth within its Industrial Strategy.

We would urge the inquiry to reflect on the accounts expressed within this paper and the real, tangible risk of losing talent to other countries through the implementation of over-harsh rules and failing to provide appropriate concessions for highly skilled staff within routes other than Global Talent.

How the new earned settlement rules could work

The University of Cambridge’s mission is “to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.”

Our recommendation to the inquiry is that all skilled employment within research-intensive UK universities[1] including Cambridge, where that is facilitated through Global Talent, Skilled Worker or points-based dependant visas, should be recognised as constituting a long-term contribution to the UK, and on this basis should constitute an exemption to the new rules.

We note that within the Government’s White Paper “Restoring control over the immigration system” (May 2025) that the Government set out the following priorities:

“In the global economy, the race to attract the most desirable talent is fierce, with many countries seeking to improve their attractiveness to this highly prized cohort through various measures including their immigration system.”

“As part of our mission to promote growth, we will go further in ensuring that the very highly skilled have opportunities to come to the UK and access our targeted routes for the brightest and best global talent by… increasing the number of people arriving on our very high talent routes, alongside faster routes for bringing people to the UK who have the right skills and experience to supercharge UK growth in strategic industries” and “[making] it simpler and easier for top scientific and design talent to use our Global Talent visa”

This would be supported by the announcement by the Prime Minister on 22 September 2025 that the UK Government is exploring proposals to abolish  visa fees for Global Talent applicants with the goal of making the UK more attractive to top scientists, academics, and digital experts, and to boost economic growth. 

Further, and more broadly, we note within the “The UK's Modern Industrial Strategy” (June 2025) the intent to:

“Make it easier for innovators, investors, entrepreneurs, researchers and creatives to come to the UK to live and work by reducing bureaucracy and ramping up our international talent-spotting.”

Finally, we reference the following within the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s recent report (5 November 2025) entitled “House of Lords - Bleeding to death: the science and technology growth emergency - Science and Technology Committee”:

“We note that the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has recently expressed its grave concerns about the barriers for high-potential talent, including the cost of visa fees. These problems, and their impact on the highly capable and qualified individuals whom we hope to recruit and retain, will only be compounded by an extension of the qualifying period for ILR.”

Within the umbrella of the Government’s clear vision to continue to attract talent to the UK, it would be incongruous to remove the ability of our skilled workforce to apply for settlement after 3 years (where holding Global Talent visas) or 5 years (where holding Skilled Worker visas). The ability to settle within a reasonable timeframe is a major attraction point for our international staff, as many of our staff have alluded to in the accounts they have provided within this submission.

Successive governments have long provided generous Immigration Rule concessions for those categorised as being within ‘PhD level roles’ and for those on Global Talent visas, for the clear purpose of attracting and retaining talent within a globally competitive market; the presence of these concessions can be seen as an intrinsic recognition of the value of these roles to the UK, and of the fierce competition globally to recruit these individuals.

With regard to the concession within the Government’s ‘Earned Settlement’ proposals to provide a five-year path to settlement where an individual earns a minimum of £50,270, we would ask the Committee to note that, especially within the University sector, salary is not a good proxy for skill level/talent. None of our postdoctoral researchers are paid at this level, regardless of their nationality. Under these proposals, this would consign all of our PhD level researchers holding Skilled Worker visas to a ten-year route to ILR, which will certainly result in a failure to retain, and recruit further,  international talent.

Furthermore, notwithstanding ‘PhD level roles’, which are rightly recognised within the current immigration system, we would go further and state that without the skilled technical, specialist and support staff within the research teams, our academics and researchers could not succeed to the heights that they have achieved. These skilled individuals provide critical contributions to the University’s research mission and have unique skills and expertise which cannot quickly and readily be taught or garnered from within the UK workforce.

The ability to attract and retain talent throughout the entire University ecosystem, where such individuals are employed on Global Talent, Skilled Worker or points-based dependant visas, is influenced significantly by their ability to obtain settlement within 3 or 5 years. This is evidenced by the following accounts provided by our skilled support staff:

Mr. Jivitesh Ravi, Genomics Assistant, Cambridge Stem Cell Institute

This proposed change would significantly affect me both personally and professionally, despite my role being recognized as critical to the UK’s scientific and economic growth.

As a molecular biology research scientist under job code 3111, my work contributes directly to the UK’s advancement in science and innovation. I am due to get married in February 2026 and wish to begin a stable life with my spouse. Extending the ILR qualification period to 10 years would double the waiting time for settlement, disrupting personal plans and creating uncertainty about long-term stability. It would also require me to cover visa and health surcharge costs for an additional five years, adding considerable financial pressure.

My position involves contributing to pioneering research and training future scientists—areas essential to the UK’s global leadership in science and innovation. Requiring continuous sponsored employment for a decade imposes disproportionate career pressures and limits flexibility to explore new opportunities within academia or industry. Moreover, the lack of clarity on possible reductions to the 10-year baseline increases uncertainty, making it difficult to plan a secure research career.

This policy change would also delay important family milestones, such as securing permanent residence, planning for children, and purchasing a home. Being tied to sponsorship for an extended period adds stress for dependents who rely on my visa status, thereby affecting overall family wellbeing.

Roles under job code 3111 [Laboratory Technicians] are central to advancing the UK’s research output, healthcare innovation, and economic strength. Skilled specialists in these roles drive discoveries, train future experts, and contribute to national priorities. Restricting their settlement prospects risks weakening the UK’s ability to attract and retain world-class scientific talent.

Extending the ILR qualifying period to 10 years undermines both personal stability and the long-term interests of the UK. It ties highly skilled scientific professionals to prolonged sponsorship, reduces flexibility, and increases financial and emotional burdens. These factors collectively deter global talent from committing to the UK’s research environment. A fair and transparent 5-year ILR route—or an equivalent, well-defined alternative—for critical skilled workers like those under job code 3111 would support continued scientific progress and help maintain the UK’s position as a global leader in research and innovation.

Mrs Becky Ioppolo, Researcher & Project Coordinator, Research Strategy Office

My research is about understanding how the UK can realise the goals of its R&D People and Culture Strategy (2021), which is about how to make the research sector more attractive to highly skilled people from all backgrounds. My interdisciplinary team works on this by identifying and evaluating interventions which can help improve research culture, and we work very closely with senior leaders in universities and funders to ensure our findings can inform actual change. Having the skills of a rigorous researcher, a pragmatic knowledge broker who can translate complex findings for senior leaders, and a collaborative colleague who can work with many personalities and disciplinary backgrounds comes from my long and varied work history up to now.

Many years of training and multiple international moves are common features of working in the R&D sector which we’ve experienced. These experiences are encouraged, benefitting our skillsets and the sector, but result in lacking the stability and ability to genuinely invest in our local communities for our whole adult lives until now. We intend to stay in the UK for the rest of our lives and become citizens when eligible. Imagining needing to wait 10 years on from when we arrived, for this fundamental level of belonging, is a tough ask. If these proposals were in effect, we would likely look elsewhere to settle long term: Australia or perhaps the Netherlands.

Dr A, Senior Scientific Associate, Cancer Research UK, Cambridge Institute

I am a technician under the skilled worker visa since August 2021and the proposal to increase settlement qualifying period to 10 years not only for new arrivals but also for people in the UK has had a profound effect on my mental health in the past months. And it will have a devastating financial effect if it does come into effect altering my future plans significantly. I am currently on track to apply for my ILR in the summer of 2026 which is also the end date for my current skilled worker visa. But if the rules come into effect, the goal post might just move for another 5 or even 10 years.

For such an extension I’ll have to pay a lump sum of Immigration health surcharge currently at £1035/year alongside other visa expenses and days off work. These would increase the amount I’d have to pay towards getting a settlement significantly.

I’ve done my part in contributing to the UK economy through my work and taxes, to the society through active participation in events and communities. The proposal feels like I am being punished despite doing everything right.

M, Commercialisation Associate, Cambridge Enterprise

The proposed change to increase the residency period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) from five to ten years would have a profound impact on both my personal life and my professional contribution to the UK. In my role at Cambridge Enterprise, I work at the intersection of research and industry, helping transform groundbreaking discoveries into real-world applications. Cambridge Enterprise plays a critical role in driving innovation locally and nationally, supporting spinouts, licensing intellectual property, and fostering collaborations that strengthen the UK’s knowledge economy. These efforts not only create jobs and attract investment but also ensure that the UK remains a global leader in science and technology. My work directly contributes to these outcomes, amplifying the impact of the University of Cambridge far beyond its campus.

On a personal level, extending the ILR timeframe to ten years would significantly disrupt my life plans and financial stability. I moved to the UK with the understanding that after five years of continuous residence and substantial visa costs, I would have the right to settle permanently. This change would mean an additional five years of uncertainty and expense, forcing me to continue paying for visas while others in similar circumstances are saving for a home or building long-term security. The financial burden is considerable, and the emotional strain of not being able to settle with my partner in the country we have chosen as our home is even greater. I contribute to this society through my work and taxes, and it feels fundamentally unfair to remove a right that was part of the basis for my decision to come here. Such a policy would make me reconsider whether remaining in the UK long term is viable, despite my commitment to supporting its innovation ecosystem.

Ultimately, this proposal undermines the principle of fairness and stability that attracts skilled professionals to the UK. By extending the ILR period, the government risks discouraging talent that is essential for sustaining the country’s leadership in research commercialisation and economic growth. For individuals like me, who have invested years of study, work and significant resources under the expectation of settlement after five years, this change would represent not just a financial setback but a breach of trust.

Under the Government’s proposals, skilled technicians and professional support staff, where earning below the upper limit for the basic rate of Income Tax (i.e. £50,270), would in some cases see their ability to settle in the UK extended to 10 or even 15 years. As we have indicated earlier, salary is not a good proxy for skill level within the higher education sector; the contribution our staff make to the UK in terms of the impact of their work is a far more logical measurement than using the indiscriminate threshold of £50,270. We also note that there is a potential concession for those holding public service roles to maintain their five-year route to settlement. We would encourage thought as to whether such a concession should also apply to research-intensive Universities, recognising the lower earnings but high impact that constitute skilled roles at the University.

Cost is another major concern for our staff. Based on visa costs as they stand at this time, a ten-year route to settlement would cost in excess of £16,000 per person; a fifteen year route to settlement would cost in excess of £23,000 per person. These costs are unsustainable for an individual and, even if met by the University would be an unnecessary drain on finite public funds where such funding could be better used to finance world leading research.

We recognise that all of our international staff contribute long-term to the University’s research mission and, on that basis, to the UK economy as a whole. In simple terms this can be through the millions of pounds of research investment funding that they attract, the job creation that such funding brings to the UK, the significant and meaningful impact of research projects through the UK, and through the skill development and knowledge transfer that our specialist, technical and skilled support staff bring to these projects to take them to fruition. 

Conclusion

The UK’s status as a world leader in research is unequivocal and needs to be protected. Our international staff make a significant, measurable and lasting impact on the University and our competitiveness as a global institution. Our research groups are comprised of a wealth of specialist and skilled staff as evidenced by the case studies we have provided within this inquiry. Put simply, without access to the skilled, specialist support staff, our academics and researchers (British or otherwise) would not be able to undertake their work successfully.

We appreciate the issues and challenges facing the Government, as presented within the ‘Fairer Pathway to Settlement’ consultation paper, but request that all aspects should be carefully considered.  Upon the basis of their significant financial and economic contributions to the UK, we recommend that all skilled employment within research-intensive UK universities including Cambridge, where that is facilitated through Global Talent, Skilled Worker or points-based dependant visas, be recognised as constituting a long-term contribution to the UK and, on this basis, should be exempt from an increase to the residency requirement for ILR. This would be a reflection of the contribution our staff make toward realising the Government’s vision as set out within their Industrial Strategy.

Should there be any clarification required relating to the evidence or proposals set out in this document we would be happy to discuss these in further detail with the Committee.

Dec 2025