Adam Pipe speaks with corporate immigration solicitor Shara Pledger about the recent and significant changes to the Skilled Worker rules and the challenges they create for UK employers and international recruits. Shara explains the effects of tighter skill and salary requirements, the emergence of a two-tier system for existing and new sponsored employees, and practical strategies for navigating these changes. She also covers sponsor licensing considerations, temporary shortage list roles, non-sponsored options such as internships and business visitors, and planning for the future recruitment of graduates and overseas workers.
Auto-generated using YouTube's transcript and OpenAI (accuracy cannot be guaranteed)
Hi and welcome to this latest immigration law conversation. Today I have the privilege of once again being joined by Shara Pledger. Shara is back to talk about the skilled worker changes because I'm sure for a lot of you there's been so much change this summer which is causing a lot of headaches. So I've subtitled today's conversation Navigating the Nightmare and Shara and I are going to talk about some of the issues, particularly sponsors are facing, with the new changes. At training events I'm often asked about this, but what we need is really somebody at the coalface who's doing this kind of work day in, day out. So Shara, thank you for taking this unenviable task of talking about the skilled worker changes. For those of you who haven't seen our previous conversations, tell us a bit about you and the kind of work you do.
Yeah, no problem. So, I'm a legal director. I work for a firm called Pinsent Masons and I lead the corporate immigration team for the practice. So, on the day-to-day, that's UK inbound immigration. I work with employers, educators, and organizations that need to sponsor individuals, whether that's for work or study. And then, sort of more widely, I also oversee our global immigration practice as well. So I get to tie in with my colleagues all around the world and sort of find out what's happening with immigration changes in their own jurisdictions, which sometimes are eerily close to ours, sometimes very, very different, which I get quite envious about at times. So, yeah, lots, lots happening.
No, that's fantastic, Shara. So a lot of us, we had the white paper in May, and then the government dropped the bomb on the 1st of July with the statement of changes HC97, with a lot of things coming into force from the 22nd of July. So just help us really—what are some of the key changes in terms of the skilled worker route which has been introduced by that statement of changes?
Yeah, I mean, I think what we've seen really, starting with the white paper and then moving through this first tranche of changes, has been a bit of a reset for the skilled worker route. So what we saw in 2020, at the very end of that year, was the transition away from the previous version of skilled worker sponsorship into the new post-Brexit world. And in many ways, that was quite surprising to a lot of sponsors because it wasn't necessarily deregulation, but it was a real loosening of some of those rules.
So we saw reductions in skill level, we saw reductions in salary level—all aimed at making sure that the employment market basically stayed buoyant post-Brexit, that people were still able to get in the individuals that they needed to fill those skills gaps. Now, what we're seeing several years later is the retightening of those screws. So we've seen a return to the skill level from pre-Brexit days, for example, and we're also seeing salary requirements that we've really never experienced before—the highest salary requirements that this route has ever actually seen.
And what this has really led to has been a bit of a shock for a lot of employers, because it is now a real sort of seismic change from where we were even just 12 months ago. And we've also, unhelpfully, ended up with almost a two-tier system, where we now have one route that's sort of running on what I call the lower track for individuals who were originally sponsored before April 2024, and then everyone that was sponsored after that date, which is when we saw the first of those big salary increases kick into skilled worker—and that's only really increased. But what it's meant is now that we sit here in today, August of 2025, there's a real gulf between those two groups of individuals, and now we have skill differences to add into the mix as well.
Yeah, this twin track also sort of causes confusion amongst a lot of people—amongst sponsors, immigration advisers, probably amongst the Home Office too, the caseworkers who are trying to decide these applications. So in terms of sponsors, you work a lot with sponsors. What are the issues that they're starting to face under the new regime? What are the specific challenges you've noticed?
I think really it's trying to get a good feel for which of our roles are actually now suitable for sponsorship. In the pre-July 2025 rules, it was pretty open because there was a huge range of roles that were suitable for sponsorship. There have always been positions that you're not able to sponsor for, but it was a relatively small number in what are traditionally called skilled occupations. What we now see is a real kind of bright line that is: these ones are okay, and these ones are not.
And it's quite surprising if you actually look through the differences of some of the roles that are no longer classed as being sufficiently highly skilled. There are ones that will really trip people up—things like data analysts, some HR-level roles, for example. These kinds of positions that a lot of the time need experience, skill, and qualification to do, but they're no longer suitable for sponsorship. And employers have found that transition quite tricky, particularly when they've been roles that they've traditionally sponsored before, to suddenly find out that actually the rules that now apply to somebody I'm already sponsoring will be very different from somebody that's seeking sponsorship for the first time.
Yeah. And the sponsors you work with, I presume, have to put together some sort of recruitment strategy going forward. What are some of those issues in terms of trying to now plan recruitment in the light of these new changes?
I mean, this is where it starts to get really tricky for employers, I think, because ultimately what they want to do is try and streamline processes for recruitment, whether that's for themselves or for the applicants that are applying for those roles. And ultimately, nobody wants somebody to submit an application for a position that they ultimately can't fill because they don't have the right permission to work and they can't be sponsored to do that job.
But what's really tricky for employers is trying to find the right balance between making clear when sponsorship isn't possible, but also being mindful of these different requirements for different individuals. What you might need to be paid, for example, as an individual who has already been sponsored in skilled worker before, but is looking for a change of job, is very different from what you might need to be paid if you're brand new to sponsorship and you're perhaps transitioning out of a dependent route, for example.
So for an employer, it's really tricky because what they don't want to say is: we can't sponsor in this role because it's not highly paid—if that's only true for 50% of the people that might want that sponsorship. So it means that they're in a difficult position. Employers have got a lot to think about here. It's not just about being effective in terms of managing that recruitment strategy. It's also about not exposing themselves to risk. The last thing that they want to do is to have something that says we will not sponsor in this role if actually they can sponsor in that role, and there's potentially then an indirect discrimination argument or something along those lines if there's a refusal to offer sponsorship where it's legally possible.
So really tricky, really, really difficult to have a clear strategy, whether that's in relation to a particular level of recruitment or a particular role or what have you. Very, very difficult now for employers to have a consistent message throughout all of their recruitment activity.
Yeah, that's really helpful because I often think just from sponsor license compliance, but actually bringing into play those risks in terms of employment law issues as well.
That's really helpful. Shara, a lot of people have depended on the graduate visa and graduates in the UK. Are there specific issues in terms of employing those graduates in the UK?
I mean, for the meantime, we've not really seen anything that's changed in relation to graduates, because those 22nd of July changes didn't necessarily directly impact graduates. But we do know that those changes are coming. The white paper back in May was very clear that graduates are going to have the duration of their status reduced from 24 months down to 18 months in most cases.
And what that's really going to do for employers is accelerate those conversations about sponsorship that they would otherwise be having. So in a sense, it's really compounding the difficulty that employers were already experiencing when it comes to graduates. Now there'll definitely be the case that some roles that they will have previously sponsored graduates to transition into skilled worker will no longer be eligible for sponsorship, whether that's because they're now assessed as being below that minimum skill level or because the salary that's on offer is not where it needs to be for sponsorship as of right now.
So it makes it quite tricky for an employer because they have a lot of different considerations. Now primary is often: do we want to hire somebody into this role now, when they can fill it now and they can continue to fill it for anything up to the next two years, but we know at that point they won't qualify to be sponsored? And again, this is where we start to see those other interests creeping in—this idea about, you know, will we discriminate against that person if we refuse them employment today because we're assuming what their requirements will be in 12 months’ time? People's circumstances change, you know—they might have a family member in the UK, they might be in a relationship in the UK, whatever it is—so it's really, really important that things are considered holistically.
Another conversation that we have a lot is: I would really like to retain this individual, whether they're a graduate or not, but their salary isn't sufficiently high—is it acceptable for us to bump up a salary because we really want to retain this person that we've, you know, we know is a great addition to our team? Again, real caution is needed. If you start increasing salaries for individuals to meet the new sponsorship thresholds, you could be accused of false inflation, which would be a sponsor compliance issue. You could create unequal pay within your workforce, which then again becomes an employment law issue.
So, we get loads and loads more overlap now, I think, with this new version of the rules than we previously did. They've always been sort of running alongside each other—employment and immigration law—but right now there's a real kind of blurring of those edges, where you can't take your eye off either of them because if you do something on one side, it might tip the balance for the other.
Yeah, so much to think about there, and that's fascinating in terms of graduates who you can employ now, but knowing that you might not be able to continue to employ them in the future. What about any other concerns or cautions? Anything that's come up that you're facing regularly arising from the new changes that it's worth making people aware of?
Yeah, we have this new temporary shortage list now. So, I mean, unhelpfully, another little acronym to add into the mix. I think a lot of people were sort of familiar with the shortage occupation list that morphed into the immigration salary list, and we now have the temporary shortage list, which is sort of running alongside that as well. Lot of confusion about what that means—to be under the temporary shortage list.
I mean, it does give a bit of respite, if you like, to the idea of: I can't sponsor in this role because it's too low-skilled, but you do need to be expressly included under the temporary shortage list. It doesn't cover everything that was removed from the acceptable list as of the 22nd of July. So needs to be very, very specific about what role is that person doing, what code does that match to, is that very specific code on the list? And also be mindful that some codes are only applicable to certain roles within that code on the temporary shortage list as well.
And while you can sponsor within that, it does have implications for the individual. They can't bring their family, for example. There's a big question mark over what happens to these individuals long term, whether you'll be able to sponsor them again, whether they'll be able to move through to settlement, for example. The Home Office have been clear that this version of the temporary shortage list is not static. It's subject to change at any point, and definitely no guarantees that it will be available to use for future sponsorship from the 30th of December of next year.
So it's a real kind of unstable way of sponsoring somebody, unfortunately, that probably is quite undesirable for an individual that wants to be sponsored as well. So while at the moment, if you sort of look at it at first glance, you sort of think, oh, great, it's there, it's on the temporary shortage list, it's really important I think that both the employer and the individual understand the limitations of that sponsorship and what that could mean moving ahead.
Yeah, that's fascinating that it's there as a temporary sticking plaster, and people might think great, but actually down the line again there could be those further problems coming up. Shara, that's so helpful—such helpful information today. If people want to, I'm sure there may be sponsors watching this, tell us how you can help sponsors and how people can reach out to you.
Yeah, I mean, we offer a variety of services. Obviously, a lot of it is day-to-day assisting with applications, making sure that the sponsorship is meeting all of the requirements, etc. But we also assist clients with strategic planning as well. So actually looking at, you know, what will our graduate intake actually look like in 2026, for example, what changes do we need to be making about our communication, that kind of stuff. So really, it's just if there's anybody that needs to have a chat about what their sponsorship strategy is moving forward, or even just some help with a specific individual, then we are there.
That's really helpful. I'll put your details below the video, Shara. And I think this whole idea of auditing where you're at and some strategic planning for the future in the light of these changes is so important going forward.
Yeah, definitely. Shara, thank you once again for joining me and such a heavyweight topic, but thank you so much—such useful information.
No problem. Thanks very much.