Is the government shifting responsibility onto others instead of acknowledging its own failed policies and mismanagement of flawed immigration rules?

In the Government’s most recent attempt to shift its focus to reducing migration numbers, Labour has moved quickly to implement changes to the Immigration rules. Here’s a summary of the latest endorsed and proposed changes, along with our perspective on them:

• Shortening the list of jobs for which employers can sponsor a worker from overseas for a Skilled Worker visa: Jobs assessed as being medium-skilled – RQF levels 3-5 – will not be sponsorable. This now means that jobs such as Chefs, Teaching Assistants, Ambulance workers are no longer deem ‘skilful’ enough as the government does not consider their skills and knowledge comparable to Foundation Degree or HND, despite it being a ‘profession’ that you cannot enter without extensive training and considerable experience and knowledge.

• Existing exemption for social care workers has now ended: Employers will no longer be allowed to recruit them from abroad.

• Introduced tougher compliance rules for student sponsors

• Reducing the standard length of the Graduate visa, for international students to stay on and work in the UK, from two years to 18 months. The government has provided no explanation as to how reducing the period by six months will, in any way, help graduates secure meaningful employment. Why have a graduate visa at all?

• Stricter English language rules: higher standards for those already taking language tests and requiring the partners of people moving to the UK on work visas to have basic English to qualify for a ‘dependant’ visa. These are to be implemented by the end of 2025.

• Changes are suggested to be made to ease the rules for entry into the UK for highly skilled migrants through visas such as the Global Talent and High Potential routes. However, no clear explanation has been provided as to why these routes were initially so restrictive and difficult for genuinely qualified applicants to access in the first place.

The government is also considering a levy on English universities’ income from international student fees and possible fines if mass number of international students drop out of their studies to claim asylum. In our opinion, placing a heavy burden on universities to anticipate whether a student may later claim persecution in their home country is unreasonable. This is far from a simple tick-box exercise when selecting students for a course.

Finally, we know very little at this stage of the ‘earned’ settlement scheme which may be rolled out later this year but the government has indicated that the default will be settlement after ten years, rather than five years at present, but certain people who have shown to have made “Points-Based contributions to the UK economy and society” will remain on the shorter pathway – What is largely concerning here is that it feels like individuals and families with lower incomes, as opposed to those with greater wealth, would be seen as having made less of a contribution?

What other measures or parameters will be used to define who has contributed more? And does voluntary work count as a contribution, even if it isn’t financial?

If you’d like to hear our perspective, stay tuned for our updates, where we’ll detail how the government’s ill-conceived scheme unfolds over the coming year. In the meantime, if you would like to speak to a qualified solicitor about your situation, feel free to contact us.