Written evidence submitted by Tianne Haggar (Research Associate at The Policy Institute, King's College London); Marypaz Ventura-Arrieta (Research Assistant at The Policy Institute, King's College London); Kirstie Hewlett (Senior Research Fellow at The Policy Institute, King's College London); Suzanne Hall (Director of Research at The Policy Institute, King's College London) and Heather Rolfe (Director of Research and Relationships at British Future) (RTS3420)
The Policy Institute at King’s College London works to bridge the gap between research, policy, and practice by using evidence and expertise to address major societal challenges.
British Future is an independent think tank working to build a confident, welcoming and inclusive Britain by finding common ground on issues of identity, immigration and integration, and promoting constructive solutions that unite rather than divide.
1.1. The inquiry invites evidence pertaining to, and evaluating the impact of, the proposed changes to eligibility criteria for indefinite leave to remain.
1.2. Whilst our research took place before these proposed changes, the ideas and priorities reflected remain relevant for understanding how the current changes land with the public and the acceptability of potential reforms in the future.
2.1. This submission presents the views of a citizens’ jury convened in November 2023 to discuss the UK’s points-based immigration system. The jury was convened and run by the Policy Institute at King’s College London, in partnership with British Future, a think tank conducting research into public attitudes towards issues like immigration.
2.2. Citizens’ juries are a deliberative approach that involve a small group of members of the public (usually between 12-25), who are selected to reflect the diversity of the population. Jurors work together over two or more days to deliberate on a specific question, reaching a collective, informed verdict in response. Citizens juries are often used to address values-based dilemmas or controversial questions.
2.3. Taking place three years after the UK’s points-based immigration system was first introduced, the jury was an opportunity to reflect on whether the UK’s economic migration system was seen to be fit for purpose, fair and/or delivering what people in the UK value about those who move to the UK for work. We asked our jurors to deliberate on the following question, culminating in a vote at the end of two days:
Does the UK’s points-based immigration system capture what the public value about people coming to the UK to work, or should it be reformed?
2.4. The Jury took place over two consecutive weekends in November 2023 in St Albans – an area chosen because its immigration rate broadly matched that of the UK average. 15 people living in
St Albans and the surrounding area were recruited to take part, spending a total of 12 hours, over two days, working together to scrutinise evidence, exchange views and come to recommendations about whether and, if so, how the system should be reformed.
2.5. The work was funded through a research grant from Unbound Philanthropy as an exploratory, proof-of-concept exercise, testing the potential for deliberation on migration in the UK.
3. Key findings3.1. The Conservative’s points-based economic migration system was generally welcomed in the UK, but there was general consensus among Jurors that the system was ineffective, overly complex, slow and rigid. Whilst a points-based system was favoured in theory, all Jurors wanted reform to the ways in which points are allocated, to attract the necessary skills and talent for the UK to thrive, and to help people build a life here. 3.2. Jurors largely viewed the potential of the economic migration system through the lens of how it supports the UK’s economy. Most Jurors felt that economic immigrants contributed positively to the UK, including through building a skilled workforce, filling labour market shortages, and supporting public service roles, particularly in health and social care. 3.3. Jurors advocated for a person-centred approach. For people who want to 3.4. Jurors wanted to see a fair route to permanent residency for economic migrants in the UK. This was considered to bring value to both immigrants and the country, signalling a mutual investment in one another and promoting integration and cohesion. 3.5. Jurors wanted an economic migration system underpinned by long-term migration strategy, avoiding changes across political cycles, to provide greater economic, political and social stability. |
4.1. Always offer fair routes to permanent residency for economic migrants.
The jurors – a sample of the general population – wanted to see fair routes to permanent residency for economic migrants. Whilst they favoured a high barrier of entry for economic migrants to be able to come to the UK, they expressed that it is only fair that those who do come should have a route to permanent residency.
Offering fair routes to permanent residency was considered to benefit both the UK and immigrants, and signal a mutual investment in one another that promotes integration and social cohesion. It was considered to show immigrants that they are welcome, valued, and have opportunities in the UK, which in turn supports immigrants to build a life in the UK, and to contribute to society, the economy, and public services.
One juror suggested that offering permanent residency provided a rationale for greater time and resources to be spent assessing economic visa applications and taking a closer, more personalised look at who is moving to the UK.
It is also worth noting that this work came during a period of unprecedented increases to net migration, suggesting that the current context – of rapidly and significantly decreasing net migration – would only strengthen our findings.
“It seems unfair that you could be living here, paying national insurance and tax, and then they’re like ‘bye’’ – Juror, born in UK
“It feels like the temporary routes are causing the issue, whereas if we looked at everyone as a permanent application, we’d think a bit more about what they’re bringing but also what we can offer them.’ – Juror, born in UK
“Allowing them to think long-term and plan ahead. It’s annoying to come here and then you’ve spent all that money in two years, but we don’t want you. I feel a bit like what’s the point? Was it really worth all the stress and hassle and money?” – Juror, born in UK
4.2. Avoid making existing policies even more punitive for economic migrants.
Two years ago, Jurors considered the economic migration system to already be overly complex, slow, rigid, expensive, and inaccessible for lower earners (many of whom may still be highly skilled, e.g., post-doctoral scientists). Substantial debate focused on how the economic migration system could be made more accessible for economic migrants that would offer value to the UK, such as not raising the health surcharge, or charging dynamic fees that change depending on the type of job and salary of the person immigrating.
Although jurors were not probed on what they considered to be a fair timeline for permanent residency, they did not express any concerns with, or propose any changes to, the existing 5-year eligibility period. There existing system was seen as already very difficult, and we therefore suggest avoiding making existing policies even more punitive.
“They make it hard anyway… you have to show you’ve got money to sustain yourself, that you have a plan… they are contributing… so I think I would lean towards [allowing] long-term stay’ – Juror, first generation immigrant
5.1. In the ‘Fairer Pathway to Settlement’, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood MP writes “fairness is the most fundamental of British values”. In our work, deliberating evidence on the UK’s economic migration system with the public, people told us that they thought it was only fair for economic migrants in the UK to have a reasonable route to permanent residency, that enables them to genuinely invest and build a life in the UK, and contribute to society, the economy and public life.
6.1. This work was funded by Unbound Philanthropy. This response has been prepared by The Policy Institute at King’s College London and British Future. The citizens’ jury was carried out with contributions from experts from the House of Commons Library, The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford and British Future.
6.2. Further information about the jury’s findings can be found here: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/research/citizens-jury-economic-migration
Dec 2025