How earned settlement will affect UK research

Home secretary Shabana Mahmood’s proposals for a new system of “earned settlement” – the immigration reforms designed to make it more difficult for most categories of economic and humanitarian migrant to settle in the UK – came in for opprobrium for many reasons, and from many within her own party.

This week some of the more draconian elements were finally softened, to an extent – but the new rules will still have no small bearing on the UK’s attractiveness to overseas scientists, researchers and other staff. And this is to say nothing of the effect on the people who themselves are caught up in the changes.

For international researchers working in or planning to come to the UK, one source of considerable uncertainty was how their family members would be affected. While last November’s initial proposals were at their harshest for refugees and low-paid workers, it was also suggested that the new system would break from the current arrangements under which adult dependants (such as a spouse) generally have the same route to settlement as the main visa holder:

“We expect it to become the position that the qualifying period for settlement for a person granted entry and stay as the adult dependants of an economic migrant will be separately determined according to their own attributes and circumstances.”

The Home Office’s original proposals were (relatively) generous to those on global talent or innovator founder visas, recommending that they would in many cases have a pathway to indefinite leave to remain after three years in the UK. For those on skilled worker visas, in some circumstances it would have been five years – again, not too dissimilar to current arrangements (though the use of salary to determine waiting period was unwelcome news for many working in research).

But given that dependants would not enjoy the same reduced waiting time – potentially having to wait ten years or more before being able to settle permanently – the Home Office’s plans sparked a great deal of concern among those working in the UK, compounded by the fact that the rule change was, and still is, intended to apply retrospectively. The government consultation did ask whether the dependants of those on global talent visas should get an easier route to settlement, but it was still very unclear. This article from earlier in the year explores some of the consultation responses from the UK research sector.

On Monday the Home Office confirmed its plans, almost a year after the initial proposals. For some of the precise consequences it will be necessary to read the new immigration rules themselves, which have not yet been published. But there has been a change of heart around dependants:

“Having considered the consultation responses, the Government has moved away from a wholly individualised model for dependants [...] under Earned Settlement, a partner who arrives with the principal applicant will continue to be able to settle at the same time, provided they meet the relevant requirements. A partner who joins later will need to complete the same qualifying residence period before settling.”

This gives a degree of clarity around what could otherwise have been an enormous disincentive to relocating to the UK. But other aspects of the final decisions remain somewhat up in the air.

Talent review

As we saw above, the original plan was for those on global talent visas – a route increasingly popular with universities and other research institutions for bringing staff to the UK – to have a three-year route to settlement.

This is likely to remain the case, but the consultation response has muddied the picture. The three-year pathway is now for those making an “exceptional economic contribution” to the UK, either by earning more than £125,000 or qualifying through what is dubbed the “highest talent group”.

But this group is left undefined, and is described as “subject to review pending MAC report.” This presumably refers to the Migration Advisory Committee’s review of talent routes, which the committee itself commissioned earlier this year. The terms of reference said that it would cover topics including what constitutes global talent and the endorsement body model (which currently has various strands). So the details of how this will work remain unconfirmed pending the MAC’s conclusions.

For those on skilled worker visas, the illustrative modelling in annex A makes clear that the Home Office expects some to receive a three-year pathway, some five years, and the majority ten years. This will largely depend on salary, though there will also be a “public service discount”. Annex C shows that the definition of public service will, for the most part, not apply to staff working in higher education and research.

The salary requirement to access a five-year path to settlement is set at £50,271 (in at least three of the five previous years). It will escape few readers’ notice that this is above what many postdocs, technicians and other research staff are likely to be earning, leaving them waiting for ten years before being able to permanently settle in the UK.

This point was raised by MPs in the parliamentary debate following the Home Secretary’s statement to Parliament. Science committee chair Chi Onwurah asked for a meeting with the government, highlighting the effect of the reforms on early career researchers “who will not be earning £50,000 a year but will be contributing to our scientific understanding.” Labour backbencher Stella Creasy made a similar point:

“If I understand rightly, around 200,000 people who are working but do not earn more than £50,000, do not have a British spousal connection and are not working in the care sector or public sector – scientists, researchers or skilled technicians, for example – will now face a 10-year wait to get settlement in this country. She says that there is going to be an economic impact assessment. Does she expect these proposals to have a positive or negative impact on our economy?”

Neither intervention garnered much in the way of a substantive response from Shabana Mahmood, though she said she would be happy to meet with Onwurah.

The exact effects of the earned settlement reforms still need to be puzzled out once the legislative documents and MAC report arrive. But it feels hard to dispute that the stricter rules will have a negative impact on the UK’s attractiveness to international research staff, in particular those on skilled worker visas who are not on high salaries. And it’s important to stress that the changes will not only affect prospective applicants, but the lives of those already here.