Policy paper

Restoring control over the immigration system: technical annex (accessible)

Updated 6 June 2025

May 2025

1. Introduction

1. This technical annex provides more information on the impact of policies set out in the Immigration White Paper.

2. The analysis does not attempt to quantify the full impact of policy proposals given the uncertainty surrounding the details of implementation, such as timing, and the complexity of behavioural responses within the immigration system. The analysis focusses on a subset of the policy proposals where a quantitative assessment of the potential impact has been made, based on available information and indicative behavioural responses.  It considers the number of migrants that might be in scope of those policy proposals and provides an initial, illustrative analysis for the potential impact on inflows. Where required, further analysis will be included within the relevant Impact Assessments accompanying the rule changes.

3. This paper sets out the estimated change in inflows that might be associated with policies considered in the Immigration White Paper against a baseline in the absence of policy intervention. Recent policy responses across the immigration system, including the Spring 2024 rule changes, have begun to lower inflow volumes across targeted routes. The analysis therefore uses latest data on inflows after the implementation of these measures; resulting in lower estimated baseline inflows than if data were used prior to these policy changes.

4. There is considerable uncertainty within the analysis (all impacts must be read in the context of these uncertainties and be treated as illustrative estimates only) including:

• Assumptions – the analysis presented is based on a range of assumptions, including the baseline volumes and the composition of different cohorts of migrants that would be impacted by the policy proposals. These assumptions are subject to a high degree of uncertainty.
• Behavioural response – where possible, the analysis tries to account for behavioural responses in response to policy proposals. However, given the significant degree of uncertainty associated with responses from employers, universities and migrants themselves this is not always possible. Any estimates which attempt to account for behavioural responses should therefore be treated as indicative only.
• Data sources – imperfect data, such as the use of survey data on the attitudes of Skilled Worker visa route users towards bringing dependants, may not generalise to the entire cohort affected by proposals.
• Policy detail – at this point in time, there is uncertainty on the exact detail of some of the policy proposals and their implementation dates.

5. The policies considered here are set out below:

i. Skilled Worker route – raise Skilled Worker threshold to RQF level 6 (graduate level) with appropriate salary increase, exempting some occupations in priority or shortage sectors for whom dependants will not be permitted. Other occupations that wish to access the immigration system below RQF 6 must have their sector looked at by the Labour Market Evidence Group who will assess workforce shortage and skills / training needs and have a workforce strategy.

ii. Adult social care – close social care visas to new applications from abroad.

iii. Graduate route – shorten length of visa grant to 18 months.

iv. Student route – introduce a 6% Higher Education levy on tuition fees for international students.

v. Student route – raise the minimum pass requirement of each Basic Compliance Assessment metric by five percentage points.

vi. English Language proposals – (i) increase language requirements for Skilled Workers and workers where a language requirement already applies from B1 to B2, in accordance with the Common European Framework. (ii) require all adult dependants of workers and students at level A1 (Basic User) to align to spousal and partner routes, and work towards increasing this requirement over time.

vii. Expansion of some of our routes for the most highly talented migrants.

6. The analysis has focussed on those proposals that can be quantified at this point in time and where the impact is expected to be significant. There are further proposals that both seek to increase and decrease the number of people coming to the UK where the current evidence base is more limited. Very illustrative numbers have been included to give a sense of scale of the impact of the expansion of growth routes, and the change to settlement rules.

A.1 Illustrative growth route impacts

7. Proposals to ensure that the very highly skilled have opportunities to come to the UK by expanding routes for the brightest and best global talent (e.g. making it simpler and easier for top scientific and design talent to use our Global Talent visa, and by extending the eligibility of the capped Future Technology Research and Innovation Government Authorised Exchange scheme) are being considered.  They could affect volumes issued on relevant high skilled routes; however, the size of the increase is highly uncertain and will depend on the behavioural response of potential migrants.

8. High skill routes have been comparatively low volume since their introduction. Therefore, while aiming to attract more of the most highly skilled migrants and deliver significant economic benefit, the overall impact of this change on inflows in the context of this package is expected to be small. A total of 6,698 visas were issued to main applicants and dependants on the Global Talent route in 2024. Only 2,011 visas were issued for main applicants and dependants on the High Potential Individual (HPI) route in 2024. ^{[footnote 1]}

9. Illustrative figures based on the doubling of the size of the Global Talent route have been included.  Home Office evaluation of the Global talent route reported that had the Global Talent visa been unavailable, 66% surveyed would have applied for a different visa, suggesting a degree of displacement between visa routes by migrants.  Illustrative figures in the summary table (Table 1) assume a 50% displacement impact.

A.2 Illustrative impacts of settlement changes

10. There are also further measures around family (e.g. raising standards and compliance to prevent visa misuse), workforce strategies for higher skilled migration, and raising the Immigration Skills Charge that are expected to reduce inward migration further in future. Those measures have not been modelled at this time.

11. However, an illustrative assessment of the measure to raise the threshold to qualification for settlement has been produced. For those cohorts affected by the increase in the standard qualifying period for settlement to ten years visa demand is likely to fall, as some will be deterred from coming to the UK as a result of the longer time to settlement. Also, a number of those currently in the UK are likely to leave due to it taking longer to gain settled status. In 2024 there were 121,602 grants of settlement excluding those whose initial category of leave was Asylum. ^{[footnote 2]} This number is likely to increase in the next few years as more migrants become eligible for settlement due to the high level of inflows since 2021.

12. The scale of these impacts is uncertain and will depend on the behavioural response of migrants to the policy change. To capture this impact an illustrative estimate of tens of thousands has been included, based on a 10% to 20% reduction in affected inflows. The final impact will depend on how the policy is implemented (e.g. which cohorts of migrants are able to reduce the qualifying period through Points-Based contributions) and the implementation date of the policy.

B. Inflow modelling

13. This section sets out an initial, illustrative methodology to estimate the impacts of policy proposals on inflows. All impacts contained within this section are subject to considerable uncertainty and should be considered as order of magnitude estimates only.

B.1 Work policy- Skilled Worker route

Skilled Worker route – raise Skilled Worker threshold to RQF 6 (graduate level) with appropriate salary increase. Some occupations below RQF 6 in growth sectors and occupations which have been assessed as being in shortage, for whom dependants will not be permitted, will be temporarily exempted until they, along with other occupations that wish to access the immigration system below RQF 6, have their sector looked at by the Labour Market Evidence Group who will assess workforce shortage and skills and training needs and then the Migration Advisory Committee who may recommend that they are able to re-access the immigration system.

Assumptions

14. Baseline inflow volumes for the Skilled Worker route are based on the 6-month period of between July to December 2024 (following the Spring 2024 Immigration Rule changes) ^{[footnote 3]}. As an illustrative baseline scenario, the analysis assumes annual figures to be double the July to December levels. This results in baseline volumes of 42,374 main applicants and 45,382 dependants.

15. To provide an illustrative estimate for the impact on inflows, the analysis uses latest insights from internal Home Office Management Information (MI) on the skills composition after the Spring 2024 rule changes. Between May 2024 and January 2025, 48% of entry clearance visas were issued to skilled workers in occupations below RQF level 6. ^{[footnote 4]}]

16. There are exemptions to the skills threshold for some occupations below RQF 6 in growth driving sectors and that have previously been assessed as being in shortage (for whom dependants will not be permitted). This will lessen the reduction in inflows following an increase in the skills threshold to RQF 6. Analysis suggests that around 23% of Skilled Worker entry clearance visas issued to RQF3-5 occupations after the Spring 2024 Immigration Rules are in growth sector occupations which may qualify for an exemption from the increase in the skills threshold.

Estimated impact on inflows

17. The assumption on the proportion of Skilled Worker visas issued below RQF level 6, as set out in paragraph 11, is applied to the Skilled Worker baseline set out in paragraph 10, to estimate the impact of raising the skills threshold to RQF level 6. This is estimated to translate into approximately 20,000 main applicants and 22,000 associated dependants in occupations below RQF6.

18. With exemptions then applying for specified occupations below RQF 6 in growth driving sectors and those assessed as being in shortage (subject to future review by the Labour Market Evidence Group and the Migration Advisory Committee) as discussed in paragraph 12, initial analysis indicates this could lead to an overall reduction in inflows of approximately 17,000 main applicants and 22,000 associated dependants, totalling an overall reduction of around 39,000 individuals (with a range of 35,000 to 43,000 individuals).

B.2 Work Policy- Health and Care route

Adult social care - close social care visa route to new applications from abroad

Assumptions

19. After expanding the Health and Care route to boost the social care workforce in 2022, total visas issued for main applicants and dependants fell by 68% to 110,800 from 2023 to 2024 due to more Home Office scrutiny on employers in the Health and Social Care sector, compliance activity taken against employers of migrant workers and the Spring 2024 policy measures no longer permitting Care Workers to bring dependants.^{[footnote 5]} The baseline modelling assumes that the current steady volume of visa applications for Care worker would remain at this level, without any policy changes.

Estimated impact on inflows

20. The impact on the volume of Health and Care visas granted, due to Care and Senior Care worker occupations being removed, is estimated to be an annual reduction of approximately 7,000 main applicants (with a range of 6,000 to 8,000 main applicants). This baseline is derived from Home Office internal management information covering the 12-month period March 2024 to February 2025. There is assumed to be no impact on dependants as Care Workers and Senior Care Workers have not been able to bring dependants since the Spring 2024 Immigration Rules changes.

B.3 Graduate route policy

Reduce the ability for graduates to remain in the UK after their studies to a period 18 months.

Assumptions

21. Baseline inflows for the Student route, and volumes on the Graduate route are based on the latest year of data available for the year ending December 2024. ^{[footnote 6]} The Spring Immigration Rules changes for the Student route were implemented on 1 January 2024, and therefore this full 12-month period can be used as a suitable baseline. The baseline volumes are:

• Student: 379,657 sponsored study visas granted to main applicants and 21,976 to dependants. These volumes provide an estimated 0.06 dependants per main applicant.
• Graduate: 170,371 Graduate route extensions to main applicants, and 65,188 to dependants. These volumes provide an estimated 0.38 dependants per main applicant.

22. Baseline study visa grants used for analysis of the policy option only consider those students who would be eligible for the Graduate route upon completion of their course.^{[footnote 7]}

23. The policy proposal is likely to impact visa demand through reducing immigration with fewer initial number of student visa applications if students are dissuaded from coming to the UK as a result of change in Graduate route eligibility. The scale of this impact is highly uncertain and will depend on the behavioural response of future student visa holders.

24. Findings from the second wave of the Home Office’s Student route evaluation suggest that 14% of surveyed student visa holders would have been potentially dissuaded from applying for a student visa if the Graduate route did not exist. ^{[footnote 8]} This is likely to overstate any deterrence effect, given the policy proposal reflects a change in the eligibility criteria of the route, rather than removing the Graduate route in its entirety.

25. In the context of the uncertainty described above, the analysis assumes a reduction in student inflows of 3.5%. This adjusts the estimate set out in paragraph 24 as the proposal is equivalent to a shortening of one quarter of the offering of the current route. No further behavioural response has been assumed and no further scenarios have been developed at this stage.

Estimated impact on inflows

26. Based on the assumptions set out above, the policy proposal could lead to an annual reduction of approximately 12,000 students and 400 dependants.

B.4 Student route policy

Student route policy – introduce a Higher Education levy on tuition fees for international students

27. A levy on Higher Education provider income from international students. Please note that the modelling assumptions provided here do not represent a final policy position. As set out in the White Paper the government is committing to exploring a Higher Education levy, and further details will be set out in due course.

28. Illustratively, a 6% levy on Higher Education tuition would represent an increase in the cost of coming to study in the UK if passed on by providers to students as increased tuition fees. The impact on individuals’ willingness to apply for a student visa and undertake a Higher Education course in the UK is uncertain. Provisional analysis suggests that student visa demand could fall by up to 7,000 main applicants per year in steady state, with a 6% levy.

Assumptions

29. Baseline international entrant numbers are based on the latest publicly available data. It uses:

• The latest HESA data which shows 253,475 undergraduate and 361,010 postgraduate international entrants at English HE providers in 2023/24, ^{[footnote 9]} and
• Home Office visa data to estimate 2024/25 international entrants – suggesting a 13% decline in international entrants overall between 2023/24 and 2024/25 ^{[footnote 10]}.

30. A further 3.5% decline is then applied for 2025/26 onwards, as per the above estimated impact from graduate route policy. No further interactions have been assumed between both policies.

31. Using historical data, in the central scenario, it is assumed that international entrants grow at a similar place as they did over the 2018/19 to 2024/25 period.

32. The impact of the levy on international student demand is modelled assuming that HE providers would pass on the cost of the levy to international students, and uses price elasticities from a DfE-commissioned London Economics report. ^{[footnote 11]} Although that report focused on EU student demand, it is assumed that the findings apply to all international students. There may be reasons why price elasticities might differ for non-EU students, or why behavioural responses might differ from what was estimated in the London Economics report. Therefore, these estimates are indicative and remain uncertain.

33. The price elasticities from this report suggest that whilst both undergraduate and postgraduate international demand is sensitive to price changes in the short-run, postgraduate international demand may not be price-sensitive in the long-run.

34. Based on these price elasticities, an increase in international fees by 6% is illustratively estimated to lead to:

• 1.8% fall in international undergraduate demand, and 1.6% fall in international postgraduate demand in the short-run, and
• 2.4% fall in international undergraduate demand in the long run.

Estimated impact on inflows

35. Illustratively, based on the assumptions set above, provisional analysis suggests a 6% levy could lead to an estimated annual reduction of approximately 7,000 international students in the long run. However, this impact is likely to be larger in the short-run and amount to around 14,000 fewer international students.

Student route policy - raise the minimum pass requirement of each Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) metric by five percentage points

36. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that fail to pass the Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) are temporarily removed from the Register of Student Sponsors and are unable to sponsor international students for a period of up to two years.

37. Data relevant BCA window by institution suggests that 22 HEIs would not have met at least one of the tightened criteria set out in this paper. These institutions sponsored approximately 49,000 students while 3,100 visas were refused during their 12-month assessment period. ^{[footnote 12]}

Assumptions

38. Many institutions will be able to improve their compliance to pass the revised BCA, but in doing so will have to be proactive in addressing non-compliance. Actions could include, but not limited to, providing counselling or guidance, offering a probation period for attendance concerns, issuing formal warnings, and withdrawing sponsorship as the last resort. The analysis illustratively assumes that three-quarters of HEIs at risk (17) could raise their compliance. The remaining quarter (5) are assumed to be unable to sponsor international students for at least a year.

39. While some students at these institutions will be able to find an alternative institution to attend, the analysis assumes that two student cohorts may no longer be able to come to study in the UK: i) those who are non-compliant and no longer get sponsored as a result of the action of the 17 institutions, and ii) prospective students at the remaining 5 HEIs who are not able to find an alternative place to study.

Estimated impact on inflows

40. This analysis assumes that this could be approximately a quarter of the 49,000 students assumed to attend these institutions, equivalent to around 12,000 students (with a range of 9,000 to 14,000), many of whom are assumed not to have been genuinely here to study.

B.5 English language requirements

English language policy: (i) increase language requirements for Skilled Workers and workers where a language requirement already applies from B1 to B2, in accordance with the Common European Framework for Reference for Languages (CEFR) and (ii) introducing an English Language requirement for all adult dependants to correspond to a level of A1 (Basic User) on the CEFR framework.

Assumptions

41. The baseline for English Language Requirements (ELR) is derived from 2024 visa grants on each affected route for both main applicants and dependants. ^{[footnote 13]} For the Health and Care route, main and dependant ratios have been applied using a baseline prior to the introduction of Care workers. The ELR baseline considers the impacts of the other policy proposals in the Immigration White Paper; and further assumptions are applied for the proportion of adult dependants on routes to identify dependant visa holders who might be in scope of the A1 English Language proposal.

42. Available evidence indicates English language proficiency levels are likely to vary across nationalities. ^{[footnote 14]} As shown in Table 2, surveyed Skilled Worker main applicants from Asian countries, including India and the Philippines, are more likely to report not speaking English very well. Nationals from Europe, Nigeria and Zimbabwe are more likely to report speaking English very well.

43. Estimating the impact of raising English Language requirements for workers on relevant routes from B1 to B2 is highly uncertain. In particular, whilst insights are available on proficiency levels of surveyed Skilled Worker visa holders, they do not correspond to specific Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) levels; and there is also uncertainty as to what extent they may generalise to main applicants who need to demonstrate English language proficiency requirements on other routes.

44. In the context of these uncertainties, two illustrative scenarios for the potential pool of affected visa holders are constructed. In the low scenario, only those surveyed Skilled Worker visa holders with ‘basic ability’ are assumed to be affected by the proposal. In the high scenario, in addition to those with ‘basic ability’, half of those who speak English ‘fairly well’ are also assumed to be affected. These assumptions are applied to the nationality make-up of visa holders on relevant routes.

45. As shown in Table 2, dependants of skilled worker visa holders typically have lower proficiency levels than their main applicants. This is likely reflected in the lack of proficiency requirements for dependants, with generally relatively higher shares with basic ability. There are also significant differences across nationalities, with dependants from African countries, including Ghana, Zimbabwe and Nigeria more likely to report speaking English very well.

46. Introducing an English Language requirement for adult dependants of workers and students is proposed to correspond to a level of A1 on the CEFR framework, requiring a basic command of the English Language. A range of scenarios are also developed given the significant degree of uncertainty associated with the proportion of affected visa holders.

47. In the low scenario, only those adult dependants who report not speaking English at all are assumed to be affected. In the high scenario, in addition to those with no English language ability, some of those with basic ability are assumed to be affected.^{[footnote 15]} As above, given the lack of insights on other routes, insights on proficiency levels of dependants of Skilled Worker visa holders are used as a proxy to gauge proficiency levels on other work routes. Insights on proficiency levels of dependants of Graduate visa holders are used to gauge English language abilities of affected dependants of student visa holders, as set out in Table 3.

48. There could also be an impact on inflows of dependants who might have otherwise been attached to main applicants affected by the English language requirement of C1. However, there is uncertainty on whether some of these dependants might have also been affected by the English language requirement of A1 and therefore already captured in the analysis. The analysis therefore:

• Applies the dependency ratio on relevant routes, assuming dependants of affected main applicants would no longer come to the UK.
• Makes an adjustment which assumes half of those dependants assumed to be affected by the A1 proposal would be attached to a main applicant who is also affected by the B2 policy proposal.

49. Policy proposals might incentivise affected visa holders to learn the required standard of English to meet eligibility for visa routes. The analysis set out has made no attempt to model such behavioural responses. Finally, the analysis does not explicitly model a reduction in main applicants who might be dissuaded from coming to the UK as a result of their dependants no longer being eligible. These should all be treated as important caveats to the analysis set out below.

Estimated impact on inflows

50. The effect of this policy is measured against a baseline of inflows after the other policies’ affects have already been accounted for to avoid double-counting. Applying these assumptions to this baseline leads to an estimated reduction in inflows of around 3,000 main applicants and 3,000 dependants per year.

C. Overall estimated inflow impact

C1. Summary

51. Table 1 summarises the modelled impacts from changes to study, work, and English Language testing. Changes to settlement are expected to deter migrants across a range of routes, and an illustrative impact has been included, as has an illustrative increase from measures to expand growth routes. Given the number of behavioural and other assumptions used to estimates these impacts, they should be considered to be indicative. Given the caveats above, it is estimated that measures in the White Paper could reduce inflows by up to around 100,000 per annum.

Table 1

Immigration route and policy proposal	Change in inflows per annum
Skilled Worker – RQF change, exempting some occupations below RQF6 in growth sectors (for whom dependants will not be permitted)	-39,000 (-35,000 to -43,000)
Health and Care – no social care applications from abroad	-7,000 (-7,000 to -8,000)
Graduate – shorten the route to 18 months	-12,000 Range not currently estimated
Student – introduce 6% HE levy	-7,000 Range not currently estimated
Student – tighten Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) metrics by 5 percentage points	-12,000 (-9,000 to -14,000)
Increasing English Language Requirements for workers where a language requirement already applies and introducing an English Language Requirement for adult dependants of workers and students	-6,000 (-4,000 to -8,000)
Earned Settlement - increasing the standard qualifying period for settlement to ten years (illustrative estimate)	-18,000 (-12,000 to –24,000)
Growth route proposals (illustrative estimate)	+3,000
Total change in inflows per annum	-98,000 Around -82,000 to -113,000

Annex I: Findings from Skilled Worker route evaluation on English Language proficiency levels

Table 2: English Language proficiency levels of surveyed Skilled Worker main applicants and their partners before coming to the UK

Main applicants

	India	Nigeria	Zimbabwe	Ghana	Pakistan	Philippines	Africa (Other)	Asia (Other)	Europe	ROW (Aus/Americas)	All others
Very well (fluent or near fluent)	60%	95%	80%	90%	51%	40%	88%	45%	77%	89%	71%
Fairly well (could understand and communicate most things)	35%	5%	20%	9%	46%	55%	11%	47%	22%	10%	26%
Not very well (basic ability)	4%	0%	0%	0%	0%	4%	0%	7%	0%	0%	3%

Dependants

	India	Nigeria	Zimbabwe	Ghana	Pakistan	Philippines	Africa (Other)	Asia (Other)	Europe	ROW (Aus/Americas)	All others
Very well (fluent or near fluent)	43%	83%	70%	73%	27%	33%	75%	31%	42%	77%	49%
Fairly well (could understand and communicate most things)	40%	15%	28%	21%	46%	60%	18%	43%	30%	14%	31%
Not very well (basic ability)	14%	0%	0%	5%	23%	8%	0%	21%	23%	0%	16%
Not at all	2%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	4%	6%	0%	4%

Source: Skilled Worker route evaluation, published 12 May 2025, accessible at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skilled-worker-route-evaluation

Annex II: Findings from Graduate route evaluation on English Language proficiency levels

Table 3: English Language proficiency levels of partners of surveyed Graduate main applicants before coming to the UK

Dependants

	India	China	Nigeria	Pakistan	Other
Very well (fluent or near fluent)	53%	30%	94%	57%	65%
Fairly well (could understand and communicate most things)	35%	40%	6%	35%	27%
Not very well (basic ability)	11%	30%	0%	7%	6%
Not at all	0%	0%	0%	0%	1%

Source: Graduate route evaluation, published 12 May 2025, accessible at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/graduate-route-evaluation

Footnotes

1. Home Office Immigration system statistics data tables, Entry clearance visas applications and outcomes detailed datasets, year ending December 2024, Table Vis_D02, Home Office Immigration Statistics, GOV.UK, published 27 February 2025. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67bc8251d157fd4b79addd86/entry-clearance-visa-outcomes-datasets-dec-2024.xlsx ↩

2. Home Office immigration system statistics data tables, Settlement detailed datasets, year ending December 2024, Table Se_D02, Home Office Immigration Statistics, GOV.UK, published 27 February 2025. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/immigration-system-statistics-data-tables#settlement ↩

3. Home Office Immigration system statistics data tables, Entry clearance visas applications and outcomes detailed datasets, year ending December 2024, Table Vis_D02, Home Office Immigration Statistics, GOV.UK, published 27 February 2025. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/immigration-system-statistics-data-tables#entry-clearance-visas-granted-outside-the-uk ↩

4. Home Office Management Information ↩

5. Home Office Immigration system statistics data tables, Entry clearance visas applications and outcomes detailed datasets, year ending December 2024, Home Office Immigration Statistics, GOV.UK, published 27 February 2025. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67bc8251d157fd4b79addd86/entry-clearance-visa-outcomes-datasets-dec-2024.xlsx ↩

6. Home Office immigration system statistics data tables, Extensions detailed datasets, year ending December 2024, Table Exe_D01, Home Office Immigration Statistics, GOV.UK, published 27 February 2025. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/immigration-system-statistics-data-tables#extensions ↩

7. Home Office Immigration system statistics data tables, Sponsored study entry clearance visas by course level, year ending December 2024, Table Edu_D02: Grants of entry clearance visas, by course level and nationality, Home Office Immigration Statistics, GOV.UK, published 27 February 2025. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/immigration-system-statistics-data-tables#sponsored-study-visas-by-course-level ↩

8. Student route evaluation (wave 2), GOV.UK, published 12 May 2025. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/student-route-evaluation-wave-2 73% of the 66% who aware of the Graduate route reported it influenced their decision (48%). As 29% said they would not have come to the UK if the route was unavailable, this is equal to 14% of surveyed student visa holders. ↩

9. Where do HE students come from?, Higher Education Statistics Agency, published 3 April 2025. Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/where-from ↩

10. Monthly statistical releases on migration, Home Office, published 8 May 2025. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/monthly-statistical-releases-on-migration ↩

11. Estimating the potential impact of policy changes on international student demand for UK higher education, London Economics, published February 2021. Available at: https://londoneconomics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DfE-Impact-of-potential-policy-changes-on-demand-for-UK-HE-Full-report-FINAL-SENT2CLIENT-Published-February-2021.pdf ↩

12. Internal Home Office data, year ending August 2024 ↩

13. With the exception of the Skilled Worker and Health and Care routes, where volumes are annualised based on the 6-month period of between July to December 2024, following the Spring 2024 Immigration Rule changes. ↩

14.  English language use and proficiency of migrants in the UK, Figure 4, The Migration Observatory, published 12 March 2024. Available at: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/english-language-use-and-proficiency-of-migrants-in-the-uk/ ↩

15. There is a high degree of uncertainty associated with what proportion of this specific group might no longer be able to demonstrate an A1 level of proficiency and an arbitrary assumption is therefore made that a third might no longer pass requirements in the high scenario. ↩