Barriers in the visa system for UK R&D organisations

The Crick predominantly used Skilled Worker and Global Talent routes 1 & 3 (academic appointments & endorsed funder). Visa costs are supported by us for employees above a certain level, so the health surcharge in particular is costly for us as a non-profit organisation. Some of the difficulties we find with the GTV:

1. The requirement for the academic appointment route that the role involves directing or leading a programme of research can negatively impact those just entering research-heavy postdoctoral roles, who may not be leading or directing research (at least not immediately) as part of their role, yet the research they do conduct has significant impact.
2. There is a lack of clarity around the other GTV routes such as peer review in terms of what is needed to apply and what the individual’s relative chances of success are in obtaining the visa. As such, we can provide limited support, and the non-refundable endorsement fee can be a financial barrier.

Over the last few years the costs of Visas have always been a discussion point when making an offer to a successful candidate at the James Hutton Institute. On a quick review of applications across the Science departments nearly 65% of applicants for advertised positions in 2023 were non UK citizens or those with Pre/Settled status. Of those appointed, nearly 50% were in this category. This highlights the importance of being able to recruit outside the UK for the Institute.

Brexit had already increased our need for Visas and reduced the pool we would previously have had access to because a lot of Europeans were reluctant to pay the visa cost prior to April 2024. Following the increase in costs to applicants coming in to the UK we have seen our pool reduced even more greatly making it difficult to find the necessary candidates to fill roles and meet our obligations to clients and stakeholders.

I have also had many a discussion with existing employees who are already here but will require to extend their Visas and there is a lot of concern and they do not see the UK as a welcoming country meaning they will likely consider moving to Europe where it is more accessible and cheaper. We have been fortunate to employ a number of high quality scientists over the last few years who are starting their journeys and bringing fresh prospective to science and making positive changes to approaches within the Institute. The increase in costs is seriously damaging our ability to retain these employees but also to recruit further ones.

Aside from the cost for themselves there is the additional cost for family. Many are young with young families and we have several who have not seen their families for more than 6 months because the previous costs were too high and they made a decision to travel alone until they could afford it. That possibility is now further away than before and this impacts on their mental health and wellbeing which in turn impacts their performance for the Institute.

We do see the benefit of the Global Talent Visa and are now using this route much more than the skilled worker route. It is faster and provides a quick turnaround. It is also cheaper and more flexible for individuals. We have also switched current employees from Skilled Worker/Graduate Visas onto Global Talent Visas. It would be better if the Global Talent Visa was more flexible.

We want to be at the forefront of science but that relies on obtaining the best talent and techniques from across the world and I’m sure the UK market depends on this too. The new charges and costs make this much less possible to a point of potentially stalling. There are not enough UK based scientists for whatever reason as our recruitment shows so we need to be able to use the wider market to keep up.

The John Innes Centre is an international centre of excellence in plant and microbial science. We hire and collaborate with the very best scientists from around the world, and our success is built on our international workforce, international collaborations and international outlook. Around 36% of our staff are from overseas, of which just under half are EU27 nationals. Most of our international researchers are on Skilled Worker Visas, and we also use Temporary Work Visas and Global Talent Visas.

It is vital that the UK’s immigration systems allow us to continue to recruit the best scientists from around the world so that the UK continues to be world leading. For the UK to be seen as a good choice of place to work, and to remain internationally competitive, we must not erect unnecessary barriers to the flow of researchers from around the world.

Impact on researchers and institutes

The requirement for international researchers to pay visas fees and the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) up front is a major disincentive for researchers to take up roles in the UK and risks damaging the UK’s standing in science. This is particularly difficult for researchers with families, who must cover additional immigration costs for dependents. It is also a major barrier for early career researchers and those from low-income countries who don’t always have sufficient savings, so could impact the diversity of the staff applying to work for us.

We are now missing out on high-quality job applicants and, since Brexit, applications from Europe have decreased. Of the 23 international researchers offered employment at the John Innes Centre within a recent year, nine (almost 40%) indicated difficulty accepting the post due to high IHS and visa costs. Retainment of international researchers is also challenging. Most researchers are hired on short-term contracts which require visa extensions if their contract is extended. Visa renewal is costly, especially for researchers who have families.

It will be unsustainable for research organisations to cover all visa and IHS fees themselves in the long term, particularly now that these costs also apply to EU citizens. We think it is imperative that this issue is addressed through Government reforms in the immigration system for international researchers.

Within our staff, these issues particularly impact postdoctoral researchers but also affect recruitment into technical roles and group leader positions. In addition, international group leaders can be deterred from establishing their research groups in the UK for fear of struggling to recruit to their teams, so we don’t just lose out individuals, but entire groups of researchers.

• We recommend that Government abolishes visa fees and Immigration Health Surcharges for anyone coming to the UK on a Global Talent Visa, as well as their accompanying partners and dependants. Reciprocal agreements with other countries could potentially be negotiated as part of international trade deals.
• We recommend the criteria for the Global Talent Visa are widened to allow a greater range of funding types.
• We would also like to see increased awareness of the GTV as a potential option amongst international applicants by increasing external promotion of this route.

Funders

We note that funders also have a role to play in creating an environment that supports international researchers, and in the interim, while the Government is assessing and developing its future approach, funders could play a greater role to support recruitment of international researchers.

Currently, there is an inconsistent approach across funders regarding the eligibility of visa and Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) fees on grant applications. Some funders will only cover visa fees, while others extend this to include the Immigration Health Surcharge. In addition, some funders will cover only the employee’s costs, whereas others will cover costs for partners and dependents.

• We recommend that all research funders cover the costs of both visa fees and Immigration Health Surcharges for a researcher and their family within grant funding.

Another challenge arises with unnamed posts on grant applications, as the inclusion of speculative visa costs is not permitted. If you are writing a postdoc position into a grant but don’t know whether the post will be held by an international researcher or not, you can’t speculatively include costs for visas. Once a grant is awarded, you can charge the costs under ‘Directly Incurred’ costs, but at the expense of other essential research expenditures in the budget such as consumables, equipment, and reagents. This effectively forces researchers to compromise on vital resources to accommodate necessary immigration costs

• We recommend that where it is not possible to include a named individual on a grant application, applicants should be able to speculatively include these costs as a separate grant line, with any unused costs returning to the funders.

Messaging

Messaging around immigration rules must be clear and accurate in order to attract international researchers.

When the previous government announced changes to the salary thresholds for the Skilled Worker Visa, there was concern amongst some of our staff that they wouldn’t qualify to renew their visas. However, when we explored the detail, the new threshold was actually dependent on personal circumstances and there was not going to be an impact on postdocs applying for or extending visas to work for us.

Given the concern the public messaging had caused current staff, we expect it would have also impacted on potential staff interested in applying to work for us, and may have put international applicants off applying, even though in reality the salary threshold may not apply to them either. We obviously can’t quantify those who didn’t apply for roles with us, but anecdotally the drop in applicants we have seen from certain countries suggests it has played a role.

• We recommend that messaging the UK shares internationally must be more welcoming and accurately reflect the reality if we’re going to attract the best staff and build up our international workforce.

The Sainsbury Laboratory (TSL) in Norwich conducts fundamental research in molecular plant–microbe interactions – a highly specialised field that the UK talent pipeline alone cannot supply. Advancing plant health and life sciences depends on global collaboration, drawing on diverse expertise, perspectives, and the brightest minds worldwide.

User experience

The UK visa system is becoming increasingly complex, unclear, and time-consuming – especially for research institutes like TSL, which depend on international talent. Policy changes are poorly communicated, portals outdated and guidance inconsistent, requiring our HR to spend extensive time interpreting information. Visa support now demands a full-time HR post as well as external support (at > £16K per year in legal fees).

Tasks like calculating salary thresholds are unnecessarily complex due to a lack of official tools. Applicants often face contradictory instructions. One researcher returned home to apply for a Government Authorized Exchange (GAE) visa, only to be told to provide a now-defunct certificate number (COS) – leaving HR to resolve issues with outdated online information and inaccessible UKVI support. The system is stressful for applicants and unsustainable for employers.

International applications

TSL hosts ~125 staff and students, 60% non-UK. Post Brexit, EU representation dropped from 39% to 29% of international staff. International interest remains strong, but candidates hesitate due to UK visa costs and complexity – unless reassured we cover their expenses. Without providing financial support, we risk losing diverse talent due to more competitive offers elsewhere or income barriers.

Read more here: https://www.tsl.ac.uk/news/visa-fees-draining-science-funds

Wider visa policy

UK government rhetoric around immigration and constant policy changes (e.g. salary threshold announcements without clarifying adjustments for different roles) are harming the UK’s international reputation. Candidates and employees frequently ask us for reassurance after reading immigration-adverse government announcements, which they interpret to be directed at them.

Contract extensions are generally offered with a view to permanent residency. Extending the settlement period to 10 years would add £6,300 in Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) costs despite 5 years of tax/NHS contributions. It is financially unsustainable and unjustifiable. Long-term sponsorship would also exacerbate employer-employee power imbalances undermining career development.

Visa costs

Visa fees and the IHS are the most significant barriers for international researchers. A 3-year Skilled Worker visa costs around £4,500 for a single person, of which £3,105 is the IHS. This can represent nearly 20% of an early career researchers’ annual income in some countries.

TSL reimburses all visa costs to remove this barrier, but it is becoming unsustainable. Immigration related spending at TSL was ~£15,000 in 2020 and is over £120,000 in 2024/25. The February 2024 IHS hike (66%) was especially damaging. In addition, £16,000 of our total immigration expenses was attributed to solicitor fees, which will rise next year due an already increasing need for external support to navigate government platforms. Upfront payment before arrival also creates additional cash flow issues for our recruits, which HR staff cannot cover on their behalf via UK online payments.

Visa routes

We usually avoid Global Talent visas due to higher costs and lack of sponsorship requirement, but use them for senior hires on long-term contracts.

Barriers to international talent

TSL leads globally in molecular plant–microbe interaction research – a field with limited domestic talent (only ~11 UK universities offer plant science degrees). For most of our research roles, it’s not unusual to have only 10-15% applications from UK nationals. International recruitment is essential.

Our lab remains committed to inclusivity and scientific excellence, but current visa policies, rising costs and negative messaging have placed immense pressure on our finances and HR support systems. As the government proposes more immigration changes, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to see a viable path forward. Without a fair and functional visa system, we risk reaching a breaking point in our ability to attract global talent and sustain world-leading research.

Recommendations

• Provide up-to-date, centralized guidance on visa requirements and salary thresholds across all platforms and include helpful tools such as government-provided calculators and checklists.
• Retain the 5-year path to settlement for skilled workers, or allow them to transition to a work visa that doesn’t require sponsorship or further IHS payments.
• Reduce the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) to align with international norms and allow annual payments rather than requiring full upfront payment. The current high cost is hard to justify when NHS GP services are almost inaccessible in certain locations, particularly for newcomers who work full-time.
• Allow more in-country visa transitions to reduce the need for applicants to return home.
• Improve UKVI response times and applicant support to reduce reliance on employer HR teams and immigration solicitors.
• Avoid hostile rhetoric in immigration policy communications.
• Recognize the strategic value of international research mobility and embed it in immigration planning

Introduction

The Wellcome Sanger Institute is a world leader in genomics research. We apply and explore genomic technologies at scale to advance understanding of biology and improve health. Making discoveries not easily made elsewhere, our research delivers insights across health, disease, evolution and pathogen biology. We are open and collaborative; our data, results, tools, technologies and training are freely shared across the globe to advance science.

The Wellcome Sanger Institute has a diverse workforce with staff from over 70 different nationalities. Approximately 70% of our postdoctoral researchers and 72% of our PhD students are non-UK citizens, highlighting the strong international reputation of both the UK and the Institute in training early career researchers. However, the UK immigration system is burdensome for both research organisations and researchers. These barriers mean missed opportunities – not only for our institute, but for the wider UK research and innovation sector. A more transparent, affordable, and well-supported visa system would significantly improve our ability to attract and retain top international talent, reinforcing the UK’s position as a global leader in research and innovation.

Experience of the current visa system, focussing on Global Talent and Skilled Worker visas

The Wellcome Sanger Institute uses a range of visa types for different groups; most commonly the Skilled Worker and Global Talent visas. We also use Government Authorised Exchange visas (for supernumerary temporary placements of under 2 years), Standard Visitor visas (academic category) and – very occasionally – Charity Worker visas.

We use the Global Talent visa extensively and prefer it to the Skilled Worker route wherever eligibility allows. Awareness has grown, and we are seeing more applicants request it proactively. This is partly due to change in government policy – we saw a sharp increase in applicants wanting to switch from Skilled Worker visa to a Global Talent visa after thresholds rose in April 2024, and we expect a similar spike following the July changes.

That said, the routes to securing Global Talent visa endorsement could be made simpler in several ways:

• Route 1 (Academic leadership): the phrase “directing and leading” is ill defined. Removing or clarifying this phrasing would increase accessibility, particularly outside academia.
• Route 2 (Prestigious awards): the list of eligible awards is limited, and the process for adding new awards is unclear. We rarely have candidates who hold these awards.
• Route 3 (UKRI-endorsed funders): the phrase “robust recruitment” is vague, with no definition provided by UKRI. This makes it difficult to assess eligibility.
• Route 3 (UKRI-endorsed funders): the endorsed funder list is too narrow, with no clear mechanism for how new funders are added.
• Route 4 (Peer review): the eligibility criteria, especially “equivalent work experience” causes confusion, particularly for PhD students who mistakenly believe they are eligible.
• Route 4 (Peer review): differences between disciplines (e.g. humanities vs. sciences) are not well addressed. More autonomy for each endorsing body would allow for clearer discipline-specific guidance.
• Immigration rules and guidance are difficult to navigate, with information split across several documents. The Royal Society Global Talent visa website would benefit from a simplified layout, with clearer FAQs.
• The transition between Stage 1 (endorsement) and Stage 2 (visa application) often causes confusion, with many applicants unaware that they can begin Stage 2 before receiving endorsement. More clarity would be helpful.

The Skilled Worker visa application process is more challenging. In particular, the salary thresholds are extremely complicated, with numerous exceptions and reductions and no easy way to determine which apply. A user-friendly tool (e.g. a calculator) would be helpful here. Further, the Immigration Salary List is difficult to interpret and not well integrated with the “going rate” salary tables. It would be helpful if these were in a single, consolidated, and regularly updated location.

Due to these complexities across the visa system, application timelines vary considerably, even though there are timelines provided in the visa specific guidance on the GOV.UK website. For example, Skilled Worker visas can sometimes be approved within a week, but government stated timeframes are often much longer. This inconsistency makes it difficult to provide accurate advice to hiring managers and plan start dates.

The Home Office Premium Service has been extremely helpful for navigating the complexities of the visa system. The Service allows us to speak directly to an assigned Home Office caseworker who understands how our organisation works. Unfortunately, this service is being phased out, which will significantly affect the support we can provide.

Applicants’ perceptions of different visa routes

Many candidates – particularly those without institutional support – find the visa system confusing and opaque. For example, the language used (e.g. “exceptional talent”) for the Global Talent visa can be intimidating, resulting in talented applicants dismissing this route unless they receive encouragement and guidance. Paradoxically, we understand that the endorsing bodies receive a large number of low-quality applications that do not meet the standard. These examples point to a wider issue of confusion and unclear messaging about who is eligible, resulting in missed opportunities and cost inefficiencies.

Sanger often hosts early career researchers (e.g. undergraduate and postgraduate students) on short-term research placements lasting 3-6 months – important early stepping-stones on many researchers’ career journeys. There is considerable confusion regarding the appropriate immigration route for these students to enter the UK. Many, particularly PhD students, assume they are eligible under the Standard Visitor (Academic) visa route. Yet, this route appears to apply exclusively to those employed in academic roles, not to students. To exacerbate matters, research institutes cannot use the Visit to Study route unless formally affiliated with a UK higher education institution. This creates confusion and discourages talented international students from pursuing career-enhancing placements in the UK. We recommend introducing a clearly defined provision within the Standard Visitor route for enrolled PhD students undertaking short-term placements at research institutes.

The impact of changing immigration policy

Rapid policy shifts, such as those set out in the recent immigration white paper, can cause significant panic and uncertainty for our current visa holders, particularly around settlement and long-term rights. This is particularly acute when the Home Office implements changes without transitional arrangements, or fails to provide advance guidance for employers. For example, the recent 22nd July changes were only announced three weeks earlier on the 1stJuly. This leads to considerable anxiety, with our institute’s resource directed to supporting current visa holders who request a switch to the Global Talent visa, limiting our ability to support new hires.

There is a severe need for employer-focused guidance, akin to the guidance notes available for caseworkers. This guidance should be issued well in advance of any changes to help us prepare properly and support applicants with clarity and confidence.

Visa costs and the Immigration Health Surcharge

The upfront visa costs and Immigration Health Surcharge are high, particularly in the context of cost of living concerns. This presents a barrier for many candidates, particularly where individuals wish to relocate with their family. It costs a researcher with a partner and a child an upfront cost of around £10,000, which is prohibitive for many researchers who work on fixed term contracts and expect to move every three years. Our organisation reimburses visa costs for employees on a contract of 12 months or more. If an employee is unable to cover the upfront visa cost, we offer an advance in order to provide flexibility in supporting new recruits. In doing so however, this poses an additional administrative burden on the Institute and can often be more time-consuming.

One unintended consequence of recent policy changes is that loans are now included in the salary threshold calculation. For example, a Research Assistant on a lower salary might ask for a loan to help fund their dependants’ visa. However, this could then pull their effective salary below the threshold, causing eligibility issues. This is not well understood, adds further stress for applicants and employees, and simply forces employers to pay overseas workers higher salaries than employees from the UK, or raise all salaries. This adds further costs for the employer who may already be covering some or all of the cost of the fees.

Barriers the visa system poses to recruiting international talent.

Background

The University of Exeter is an A rated sponsor under the Home Office Points Based System. We have a small, dedicated HR Immigration Team who support new and existing staff requiring visas to work in the UK.

We currently sponsor 175 Skilled Workers, 250 Global Talent visa holders. As well as 26 Temporary Workers (sponsored researchers) under the Government Authorised Exchange Scheme. Most of our visa holders are academics or researchers, with some Professional Services staff.

Global Talent visa

Where possible, we use the Global Talent visa (GTV) for our researchers and academics. There are four routes to apply for a Global Talent visa but most of our applications fall under the Endorsed Funder route (31 so far this year), followed by the Academic and Research route (20 this year). This visa offers benefits to both the organisation and the individual.

Generally, it is quicker to obtain a visa under the GTV route due to fast-track options, allowing individuals to proceed with their visa applications promptly. In contrast to the Skilled Worker visa application, there are also less steps to complete – the GTV route does not require a ATAS certificate.  Although the published ATAS processing time is six weeks, our experience suggests it often takes two to three months. This delay can be particularly problematic for individuals who need to start work on time-limited grants.

Visa processing times vary depending on the application type and country of origin. The standard is eight weeks for in-country applications and three weeks for overseas applications. Additional steps—such as tuberculosis testing or providing evidence of English language ability—can also affect timelines. Skilled Worker applicants frequently report difficulties in securing timely appointments for English language tests. While I don’t have data to support this, it does appear to be a recurring issue that delays the overall visa process.

Applicants generally prefer the Global Talent visa because it allows them to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain after three years, compared to five years under the Skilled Worker route. This also reduces their costs, as they only need to apply for a three-year visa initially.

GTV – Endorsed Funder route

This route requires the University to provide an applicant with a written statement of guarantee, signed by the HR Director. This is used to obtain an endorsement before they can progress to the next stage – the visa application.

From my team’s perspective, given the volume of GTV’s we deal with, we find responding to emails from UKRI to confirm the authenticity of our statements of guarantee is an additional administrative burden. While we can send endorsements to UKRI in advance of the individual applying, this still creates extra work. It would be helpful to have a “trusted sponsor” option for high-volume organisations. Alternatively, a system allowing us to upload the statement of guarantee—similar to the Sponsor Management System used for Skilled Workers—would be beneficial, especially if we could also use this system to track the progress of applications.

Initially, we found it challenging to determine which grant paperwork was eligible under the Endorsed Funder route. Grant award documents vary in format depending on the funder and often lack the necessary information to support an application. Where possible, we now provide database links to the grant paperwork, which has improved the assessment process. However, HR and immigration staff would still benefit from additional support or training in this area. That said, the support we’ve received from UKRI has been excellent—they are always willing to answer questions and provide initial assessments to help us submit successful applications.

GTV – Academic and Research

As an organisation that regularly uses the various Global Talent routes, we are familiar with the different options. However, we often need to explain to early-career researchers that they are not eligible under the Academic and Research route. The Gov.uk website implies that all researchers are eligible, but it’s not clear that the research element must be significant. While the site states that applicants must be directing or leading an individual or team research or innovation project, this is often overlooked. We always refer individuals to the academies’ websites, which explain the criteria more clearly: Royal Society – Academic and Research Appointments. It would be helpful if this clarification were included on the Gov.uk website.

GTV – Peer Review

In cases where the Academic and Research, Endorsed Funder, or Individual Fellowship routes are not applicable, we ask applicants to consider the Peer Review route. While some staff have successfully obtained a GTV through this route, there appears to be reluctance to use it—likely due to the greater administrative burden and the perception that it is harder to achieve a successful outcome. Although the academies’ guidance is comprehensive, applicants would benefit from additional support in navigating this route.

Trends in international applications and the impact of wider visa policy

Our recruitment activity has decreased, and as a result, we have seen a natural reduction in the number of visa requests. It is difficult to determine how much of this decline is due to reduced recruitment versus the broader impact of visa policy changes. However, recent Home Office changes are certainly making it more challenging to attract and secure visas for international staff.

The following policy changes are concerning:

Visa Costs and the Immigration Health Surcharge

The University offers a visa reimbursement scheme in recognition of the significant costs involved in obtaining a UK work visa. A typical three-year visa for one applicant now costs just under £4,000, including the visa fee and the Immigration Health Surcharge. However, there are several additional expenses associated with the visa process—such as appointments, Tuberculosis and English language tests, and travel to appointments.

While I’m not aware of any applicants withdrawing due to rising visa costs, we have seen an increase in new starters requesting financial support in advance to help cover upfront expenses—especially those relocating with dependents. Some applicants face visa-related costs exceeding £10,000 for their families, even before accounting for relocation expenses. As a result, some choose to delay relocating their families.

Until April this year, we offered an interest-free loan (up to £10,000) as part of the visa reimbursement scheme to help with dependent costs. However, the Home Office unexpectedly introduced a rule stating:

Any deductions in salary related to visa costs must be considered when assessing whether the employee meets the minimum salary threshold.

This means we must now factor in such deductions when determining a Skilled Worker’s salary eligibility. This change has added complexity to our compliance duties and administrative burden for our team—especially given the recent changes to Skilled Worker salary thresholds. Consequently, we have suspended the loan scheme pending a full review with finance and payroll colleagues to explore alternative support options.

Changes to Dependent Visas

In addition to rising costs, the White Paper proposals include an increase to the current £29,000 salary threshold for dependents. Adult dependents will also be required to meet English language requirements. These changes make relocating to the UK with family less attractive and risk disrupting family life – applicants often relocate six months ahead of their families.

Settlement

The White Paper proposal to extend the qualifying period for settlement (Indefinite Leave to Remain) from five to ten years for sponsored workers has caused significant uncertainty and anxiety among current visa holders.

Changes to the Skilled Worker Route

Since the salary threshold changes in April 2024, we have increasingly relied on tradeable characteristics to meet the reduced salary requirements. With further increases coming into effect on 22 July, it will become even more difficult to sponsor early-career researchers under the Skilled Worker route.

The new going rate for a researcher (SOC code 2119) is £41,700. This threshold can be reduced under the following tradeable characteristics:

• Applicant has a relevant PhD: £37,500
• Applicant has a STEM PhD: £33,400
• Applicant qualifies for the new entrant rate[1]: £33,400

For Graduate Research Assistants at the bottom of Grade E (£33,482), we may struggle to meet the salary requirements if they do not qualify for the new entrant rate or do not yet hold a PhD. Importantly, the PhD must have already been awarded to be used to reduce the salary threshold, so this could delay start dates.

[1] We can use the new entrant rate for students and graduates switching to Skilled Worker, providing the total time in the UK does not exceed 4 years. This is problematic if the contract is permanent.

Our organisation provides the UK with critical national capabilities that receive global recognition due to the inclusion of our experts on numerous international committees and research programmes. Our research underpins global activities and is therefore an inherently international scientific field. To maintain our position as a global leader it is essential that we are able to attract and retain the highest level of talent possible.

Currently ~25% of our workforce are international workers. As our discipline is a highly specialised field it has always been a challenge to recruit enough top-quality staff from the UK alone to deliver our national role.

We currently have not used the Global Talent Visa as it is only applicable to senior leadership roles, and we have not had vacancies / international applicants of this type to date.

Our most common visa route is the Skilled Worker visa which allows us to recruit high quality junior staff. However, due to the associated cost implications we are trying to avoid this where possible by recruiting from within the UK or recruiting those not requiring visas. It is also not an attractive route for European citizens and numbers of applicants from outside the UK who are European citizens have dropped considerably. This is reducing the potential pool of staff from which we can draw talent, and extending the time required for recruitment.

In keeping with the sector there has been a decline in the number of EU applicants and international applicants have increased.

We are providing increased financial assistance with visa and the health surcharge to encourage quality applicants and maintain our international diversity.

Most of our employees who require a visa are employed under the Skilled Worker Visa. We do also use Temporary Work and Global Talent Visas (GTV).

To make the Global Talent Visa more attractive it would help to widen the criteria for the funding type as for some of our positions we are unable to use the GTV as there is not the necessary grant documentation.

We would also like to suggest that communications about the GTV are widened to ensure applicants to the UK have a greater awareness about this route as a potential option.

Global Talent Visa – we have only had one staff member recently with this visa – academic and research. The staff member said the process at the time seemed straightforward as was extending their time in the UK. They now have unlimited leave to remain and work in UK. The visa cost itself is affordable but the health surcharges are extensive across visa types, including this one, where the cost is borne by the staff member.

Skilled Worker Visa – we have recruited 3 or 4 early career researchers this year so far and they have advised that with the health surcharge which has to be paid with the visa, they just don’t have these types of funds early in their careers – some have just completed their PhDs for instance and have very little or no savings to cover this for a 2-3 year post doc post – this is appx £4k before booking any travel arrangements to the UK and paying any deposit in accommodation once in the local area where their employment is. Sometimes in science, these costs can be eligible with certain types of research grants but just for a first visa and surcharge. For subsequent renewals, the cost has to be borne by the individual as research projects don’t cover this. Also, staff can no longer borrow these types of funds from their employer and pay back each month through payroll, for instance, as you are not allowed to deduct from the salary where it may be set at the threshold level so if you reduce it then the salary falls below that.

Youth Mobility Visa – we have had some staff come through this route. It seems to work quite well and the costs borne by individuals are less. You do need to have some savings and provide that evidence but it seems a straightforward process where you are eligible. Thereafter, it may be difficult to switch to another category. With a Youth Mobility visa there is no minimum salary threshold but there is for other visa types so may be difficult to stay in the UK longer than the 2-3 years they met the qualifications and salary thresholds which in most cases is unlikely in that short period.

Graduate Visa – these provide a return in investment for students completing studies in UK and are for 2 years or 3 years – with PhD. The issue thereafter is switching into another category. The likelihood is that this would be to a Skilled Worker visa but the issue would be the gap in salary between an individual completing a PhD and their starting salary and when switching over they may not meet the employment criteria for the salary threshold required for the job code/salary threshold for a Skilled Worker visa.

GAE (student internships) – we have used these from time to time. We are listed as an approved organisation under UKRI. This has been a useful scheme for international students to come to the UK to do some training or learn particular techniques to assist with their degree and future career choices. This has been quite straightforward and students have only stayed for up to 6 months at a time.

We are observing a trend in our data indicating that the rising visa costs, coupled with the Health Surcharge, are negatively affecting visa holders’ decisions to stay, as well as the availability of skilled non-UK applicants.

This is supported by retention data, sentiment analysis from exit questionnaires, applicant pipeline data, and candidate feedback. We also collect sentiment analysis from current employees, and concerns about visa costs are cited more frequently than in previous years.

The Global Talent Visa (GTV) is a more attractive route for skilled workers due to its simpler process and greater cost-effectiveness, particularly for those with children. We have seen an upward trend in employees opting to switch to a GTV at the time of renewal. However, in some cases, a GTV cannot be obtained retrospectively due to panel composition restrictions (a minimum of three people on the panel), which were not considered during recruitment when the individual was placed on a Skilled Worker Visa.

For GTV applicants, employees typically contact us for a reference. Unless our sponsoring body, the Royal Society (RS), has specific questions, the process is smooth from the employer’s perspective. It’s also worth noting that the RS has been very supportive with any queries we’ve had in the past.

In most cases, candidates have accessed relevant information and approach us already well-informed about their visa route options.

Regarding the broader impact of visa policy, it will have a material effect if applicants are not permitted to relocate with their families.

Additionally, the increased minimum salary requirement for the Skilled Worker Visa is affecting our ability to recruit early-career talent from abroad in key and emerging skill areas. The new salary threshold aligns more closely with experienced hires (typically with 4+ years of experience), thereby limiting opportunities to engage Early Career Researchers and benefit from their expertise.

To continue attracting and retaining top talent, a government scheme that supports skilled candidates or those with emerging technical skills—either through financial assistance for visa costs or a simplified application process—would be highly beneficial. Often, individuals (especially those newly qualified) lack the financial resources to cover visa expenses.

The user experience – when supporting our candidates through the Global Talent visa process, our main involvement is creating the endorsement letters to support an employee’s visa application. I’d personally say my main barrier is surrounding the GtR (UKRI) website and finding the projects on that database to allow us to link them in our letter of endorsements (which is a requirement). Further to this, depending on the funder and criteria, not all eligible projects are listed on here so it can be time consuming and difficult to gain the correct paperwork to support the endorsement letter. In terms of timing for the actual visa processing – I would confirm that the turnaround is sufficient and reasonable, and I haven’t heard otherwise from our prospective employees.

Trends in international applications – our Talent Acquisition Team have confirmed that there hasn’t been a noticeable impact on international applicants, however, due to sponsorship rules getting stricter, we are having to decline more applicants (where the role isn’t eligible for a Global Talent visa).

The perception of different visa routes – it is generally clear to applicants and to our organisations which routes are open to them. However, I would say that there are so many caveats and different criteria that can result in different options being available (depending on the situation) so I don’t always feel fully equipped to support our candidates to the best level. I do acknowledge however, that that is why immigration specialists are available.

The impact of wider visa policy – it impacts international applicants largely, I’d say. Perhaps not so much policy on dependents but the potential settlement changes have for sure caused anxiety and uncertainty.

Visa costs and the Immigration Health Surcharge – again, I would say these have a high impact. As an organisation not in a position to cover these costs for the candidates, it’s a factor that can be make or break to a candidate.

What visa routes you do and don’t use – we use the Global Talent visa a lot more frequently since the Skilled Worker visa is becoming a lot harder for our roles to fit into the eligibility criteria (with higher salary thresholds etc). So, all in all, these two are the most common for our org.

Significant changes in the global employment landscape have influenced perceptions of the UK as a place to live and work. Most notably, Brexit has increased the proportion of new hires requiring work visas, subsequently raising costs for both employers and employees.

We are under pressure to keep pace with ongoing legal changes to the immigration system and escalating costs associated with Skilled Worker and Global Talent Visas. These factors have imposed a substantial financial and administrative burden on both our recruitment processes and those seeking to relocate to the UK for work. The continually rising cost of living and evolving government immigration policy have created a sense of unease among international candidates, with the UK becoming a less attractive destination for employment.

We offer assistance with both Global Talent and Skilled Worker Visas. While we do not generally encounter issues with processing times from application to decision, many new recruits find the immigration rules complex and confusing, often requiring step-by-step guidance and additional support to navigate the system.

The Global Talent Visa, in particular, is perceived as especially difficult due to its four different routes, each with a two-stage application process. Some routes—specifically the Peer Review route—require applicants to submit a significant number of references and supporting documents, making the process considerably more time-consuming.
Navigating ongoing changes to immigration policy—such as adjustments to minimum salary thresholds, the introduction of the Immigration Salary List, and the more recent Temporary Shortage List—is both daunting and time-consuming. It can also lead to additional legal costs when formal advice is required.

These increases represent a substantial financial burden on the organisation, making it difficult for us to fully support relocation and Immigration Health Surcharge costs. In many cases, this becomes a deciding factor for candidates when considering whether to accept an offer, particularly for those with dependants, where associated costs are significantly higher.

Further, the new salary thresholds introduced on 22 July 2025 will impact our ability to recruit for certain roles. For example, an entry-level Research Software Engineer is now required to earn a minimum of £38,300, which is significantly higher than typical starting salaries for such roles and creates internal equity issues.

Feedback from our international staff indicates that taking up a position in the UK is a difficult decision—not due to the scientific opportunity, but because of the high upfront costs and the cost of living. For individuals with families, the challenge is even greater, as all visa and IHS fees must be paid in advance and again at the time of renewal if contracts are extended. These costs are extremely high in comparison to other European countries and are not seen as good value for money.

Should settled status change from 5 to 10 years we believe this will have a significant impact on peoples decisions on coming to the UK. In addition entitlement to social benefits, such as healthcare and childcare, only applies after achieving settled status. For those with young children, childcare costs are extremely high, with no financial support due to no recourse to public funds. Even for those on a global talent visa there is no support with childcare costs, disincentivising people from coming to the UK and raising families here.

In the UK we have a fantastic ecosystem in which scientists and technologists can build their careers however our immigration policy and escalating costs for both employers and individuals is working against this and not supporting our ambitions. As a government funded Institute we want to promote the UK in the best light we can creating opportunities and putting our funds into developing our people.