Potential effects of Earned Settlement proposal for rural areas
In December 2020, the UK Government introduced the new Skilled Worker visa, replacing the former Tier 2 visa that allowed international skilled workers to live and work in the UK. Unlike the previous Tier 2 system, which largely restricted eligibility to occupations at Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF) Level 6 and above (typically graduate-level roles), the new route expanded eligibility to include RQF Levels 3 to 5 (typically jobs that require A levels but not an undergraduate degree) and removed the annual numerical cap of 20,700 applications.
As a result of this change, the profile of incoming migrants has shifted significantly: by the year ending June 2024, 53% of main applicant visas for the United Kingdom (UK) were issued to individuals with qualifications below RQF Level 6, compared to just 13% at the end of 2021 ( “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”, Pg. 15).
In November 2025, the Home Office published “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”, a consultation and accompanying statement outlining proposals to reform the UK’s immigration settlement rules. The proposal aims to replace automatic settlement after a fixed period with an “earned settlement” model, which may be achieved through meaningful contributions to UK society and the economy through four pillars: character, integration, contribution and residence.
The government has announced that the starting point for most people to obtain indefinite leave to remain (ILR) or ‘settlement’ will increase to ten years, applying these changes to everyone currently in the UK who have not yet applied or received ILR. This means that those due to reach settlement in the coming months and years would be subject to the new requirements as soon as the immigration rules change. Applicants in roles below RQF Level 6, such as certain technical and skilled trades, hospitality workers, health and care occupations, or other sub degree positions, are proposed to have a 15-year baseline period to qualify for ILR, instead of the 10-year baseline set for those in higher RQF tiers.
The stated goal of the proposed reform is to “ensure that those granted settlement and citizenship are well-integrated, economically self-sufficient, and committed to the communities they join, thereby strengthening social cohesion and public confidence in the immigration system.” (“A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”, Pg 6.) Additionally, the proposal explains that “It aims to reward those who actively support the country’s social and economic fabric, reinforcing fairness and public confidence in the immigration system.”( “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”, Pg. 7)
In addition to the longer settlement period, the new consultation proposal calls for a ‘benefits for citizens only’ approach – which would further exclude people who have settled status from accessing public funds and benefits until they become British citizens.
Rural and island community impacts
While the proposal presents pathways to shortening settlement timeframes for some individuals, such as those making active community contribution through volunteering, and those with language fluency and sustained employment, the proposed reform may also create unintended consequences.
In particular, these changes could have a noticeable impact on rural and island communities in Scotland. Many of these areas are already dependent on an ageing and declining population to sustain local services, employers, and community life. Given that migration is often viewed as a mechanism for addressing workforce shortages - and that international skilled workers are only admitted under specific conditions - it is important to recognise a key challenge: many rural and island communities already struggle to attract and retain local skilled labour; leaving them reliant on international skilled workers. As in many other countries, the reasons for that are related to shortages of affordable housing, limited job opportunities for partners, and reduced access to essential services.
Currently, if skilled workers are interested in taking up employment in rural and island areas, the odds are that the existing infrastructural challenges would affect the viability of their decision, as they might not be able to find suitable housing, transport or access to essential services that would make their move or stay feasible. Their decision to move might lead to community discontent as well, if the skilled worker takes up housing and does not fill a critical role in community, but rather takes up a position or housing that is considered to be ‘taking away employment from local residents’.
For example, communities that are experiencing population growth, particularly in the islands , are struggling with housing provision for locals and skilled workers, which has a direct impact on the community’s ability to retain human capital. Considering the geographic bounds of the island and its economy, it would be expected that the incoming population acquiring already scarce housing would fill critical gaps in terms of the community’s needs instead of bringing skills that might be already well represented in the community. In comparison, some mainland areas have more capacity and therefore offer potentially more opportunities to cater for a wider array of incomers and commuters, including international skilled workers. However, even in communities that are struggling less with housing and employment provision, the new settlement proposal may further reduce the ability and willingness of both employers and international skilled workers to take up employment opportunities in rural Scotland for two main reasons: a) employer’s constraints, and 2) worker disincentives.
In terms of employers’ constraints, the new minimum salary requirement for recruitment of international skilled workers is £41,700 (or £33,400 in special circumstances for younger candidates, degree holders, and essential workers) - or the “going rate” for the role, whichever is higher; and many employers do not even hold a sponsorship licence, preventing them from recruiting international skilled workers (Register of Worker and Temporary Licensed sponsors). In addition to going through the process of getting a licence with the affiliated costs, employers need to comply with the requirements and administrative workload to maintain the sponsorship licence – which may be difficult and time consuming for smaller businesses seeking skilled workers. In comparison, large employers like the NHS that are present in these areas, are often faced with the same challenges that affect their ability to retain local talent in the first place – housing shortages, limited professional development opportunities and isolation.
Potential international skilled workers may be further disincentivised to join the UK’s workforce as their settlement pathway may become longer, more expensive, and less stable for them and their families. Under the new proposal, international skilled workers will likely need at least one visa extension, will have to pay an additional annual NHS surcharge for the extension period (in addition to regular monthly National Insurance contributions), and will spend an extended period without access to public funds such as Universal Credit (unless they apply for this restriction to be lifted but this would be penalised under the new proposal), as currently, international skilled workers do not have access to public funds (which is also known as the ‘No recourse to public funds’).
In cases of individuals moving to rural and island areas for employment, these factors might make the relocation even more difficult, particularly in the areas where essential services and housing are already overstretched. Without a governmental safety net, moving to a rural or island community requires an international skilled worker to take the associated risks related to higher living costs, limited support and access to public and essential services, isolation and vulnerability in case they lose the job (as they have a 60 days requirement once the Home Office issues a curtailment letter to either leave the country, change the visa stream or find another licensed employer that is willing to hire them).
In rural and island communities, finding an alternative employer that is also licensed to hire them might be substantially more difficult than in urban areas, naturally pushing international skilled workers towards urban areas. These disruptions can also affect their long term eligibility to apply for the ILR, which under the new proposal would be further extended by multiple years – putting this demographic group in a precarious position.
These factors combined might affect the ability of rural and islands communities’ ability to equitably participate in the labour market and recruit or retain international skilled workers, further exacerbating existing labour shortages and deepening the divide between urban and rural communities.
Considerations for Rural Areas
In rural and island communities, some proposed levers for reducing the settlement pathway may be unviable, such as employment in public service roles or achieving earnings of over £125,000 per year. However, other levers, such as volunteering and community engagement, could be highly relevant for drawing international skilled workers. To make this effective, the policy should provide a clear guideline, including the definition of qualifying volunteering activities, while reflecting rural realities. For example, volunteering in a local men’s shed, community centre, or using trade skills to support community projects could be recognised as meaningful contributions. This approach would ensure fairness and practicality, particularly given the current salary thresholds that might be challenging for rural employers.
Another way to level the playing field for rural and island communities would be to introduce a set of conditions that trigger accelerated settlement pathways for international skilled workers who commit to working in designated areas for a minimum period. However, implementing such a programme would require safeguards to prevent it from becoming a shortcut to settlement at the expense of the receiving communities – particularly for communities experiencing housing crisis.
These safeguards could include stricter requirements and monitoring for both the designation of included areas, and employers seeking sponsorship licences. This approach would ensure that; the incoming international skilled workers are filling critical roles in designated areas, the focus remains on retention vs employee turnover, there is an oversight of registered UK sponsors, clear guidelines in case the sponsorship scheme fails for either employer and employee, and a sufficient support that does not fall solely on the receiving community to ensure meaningful integration and contribution to the receiving communities.
While it would also be useful to acknowledge the seasonality of some areas for certain groups of international skilled workers, the nature of the skilled visa would generally tie a migrant to one employer (e.g. NHS) or allow them to set up their own business (with restrictions). There are examples of other countries such as Australia and Canada attempting to do this through Regional Skills programmes and visas, allowing the UK to learn from their implementation.
However, in this context, expecting international skilled migrants to relocate to places where even locally trained professionals find it difficult to settle and remain may not be realistic, and the new proposal might even further hinder these efforts. While the new proposal aims to prioritise British citizens and their wellbeing by prolonging the settlement pathway for international skilled workers, this policy will not necessarily resolve structural recruitment and retention challenges in rural and island areas.
If this proposal progresses, it will be essential to incorporate rural-proofing policy throughout the development, implementation and evaluation phases of the process to ensure that geographic diversity and the capacity of rural and island areas to adapt to emerging immigration policies, particularly those affecting mobility and skills utilisation, are taken into consideration. Alongside this proposal it may be necessary to develop a broader approach that addresses underlying issues, such as housing availability, service provision, transportation and long-term community viability, to make these areas more attractive to both local and international skilled workers.