Written evidence submitted by the Scottish Government (RTS4398)

Summary of Call for Evidence Response

1. What evidence is there on the effect that pathways to settlement have on immigration and rates of settlement?

Evidence shows that pathways to settlement influence immigration and integration outcomes, with family and financial factors playing a central role. Proposed changes risk increasing poverty and reducing settlement rates due to extended timelines and high costs.

2. What is the likely impact of longer routes to settlement on businesses and employers, including international recruitment of higher-skilled workers?

Longer routes to settlement would negatively affect recruitment and retention across key sectors in Scotland, including health and social care. Businesses widely support tailored migration solutions, and restrictive policies risk exacerbating labour shortages.

3. What is the likely impact of longer routes and stricter requirements for settlement on migrant households already in the UK?

Extended settlement routes would impose significant financial burdens on migrant households and prolong insecurity. These changes could disrupt family life, create unequal timelines within households, and discourage long-term commitments.

4. What potential effect could changes to eligibility for settlement have on integration?

Stricter eligibility for settlement would undermine integration by delaying security and participation in society. Prolonged uncertainty risks isolation, mental health challenges, and reduced community cohesion.

5. What evidence is there from other countries on the above issues?

International evidence shows most EU countries require five years of residence for permanent status, with some offering fast-track options. Contribution-based systems vary but generally combine language, employment, and civic engagement criteria.

6. How should “long-term contribution” to the UK be defined and quantified, when considering pathways to settlement?

Long-term contribution should be assessed through transparent and proportionate measures that balance economic and social factors. Fiscal contributions must not be based solely on income, and social contributions should recognise barriers faced by lower-paid workers.

7. What exemptions should there be to the new rules?

Exemptions are essential for vulnerable groups and to uphold equality and human rights obligations. Place-based exemptions could help address depopulation and sustain rural and island communities.

8. How have other countries applied contribution-based systems?

Other countries apply contribution-based systems through points or fast-track schemes linked to language, employment, and civic participation. Models in Denmark, Germany, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand demonstrate varied approaches to balancing economic needs with integration.

Introduction

It is the view of the Scottish Government that framing migration solely as a discussion about whether numbers go ‘up’ or ‘down’ is unhelpful. Instead, our shared focus should be on the needs of both Scotland and the whole of the UK’s economy, public services and communities, acknowledging that in certain economic and demographic contexts, including the one in which Scotland finds itself, migration can support those needs.

Scotland’s demographic challenge

Scotland's Population Strategy sets out the distinct demographic challenges faced by Scotland, driven by ongoing record low birth rates, an uncertain future on migration, an ageing population and spatial distribution challenges. Within this context, we are clear of the positive and lasting impact created by people being enabled to settle in Scotland. We know that this supports our communities, economies and public services.

Our Addressing Depopulation Action Plan, published in February 2024, clearly sets out the Scottish Government's position on how tailored migration should be delivered to support Scotland's rural and island communities, and other parts of the country affected by population decline. In order to ensure thriving and sustainable communities and labour markets, many of which have been severely affected by the ending of freedom of movement, Scotland needs a migration system which creates the conditions for people to settle within Scotland now and for the long term.

This response to the Call for Evidence addresses each question outlined in the inquiry in turn, but we invite members of the Home Affairs Committee to note the Scottish Government’s existing publications outlining Scotland’s requirements of the Immigration system. Each of our tailored migration proposals is designed to be deliverable within the existing immigration system. Consecutive UK Governments have refused to adapt its migration policy to meet Scotland's distinct needs.

In our 2023 paper in the Building a New Scotland series, we outlined proposals for an immigration system that could increase Scotland’s working age population, support our rural and island communities, and demonstrate our respect for international law, human rights and social justice.

UK Immigration White Paper 2025: Scottish Government proposals - gov.scot
Rural visa pilot proposal: September 2022 - gov.scot

Migration - Meeting Scotland's Needs - gov.scot

Migration: helping Scotland prosper - gov.scot

Building a New Scotland: Migration to Scotland after independence - gov.scot

Potential impact of changes to pathways to settlement

1.     What evidence is there on the effect that pathways to settlement have on immigration and rates of settlement?  

Statistical Evidence

The Home Office published its Accredited Official Statistics for the UK immigration system covering the year ending June 2025.

Grants of an extension of stay in the UK onto work routes increased by 23% in the latest year; this corresponds with the rise in work visa grants observed in 2022 and 2023.

The Migrant journey: 2024 report published by the Home Office shows that in 2024, only 20% of the work cohort that arrived in the UK 5 years earlier had been granted indefinite leave to remain.

The UK Government consultation Earned settlement - GOV.UK proposes that settlement will no longer be granted automatically after a fixed period. The consultation expects settlement grants to increase over the next 5 years, with around 1.6 million people are forecast to settle between 2026 and 2030. This expected increase is driven by increased immigration between 2022–2024, mainly via the Health and Care visa route.

The independent Expert Advisory Group on Migration and Population published a report on family migration in 2021, analysing the role of families in migration and settlement and considering the ways in which policies at a local, Scottish, and UK level might support and promote immigration and settlement in Scotland.

The report summarised key points on families, integration and settlement, highlighting that:

• Families and relationships play a central role in decisions relating to migration and settlement.
• Family decisions are deeply influenced by policy frameworks for migrant workers.
• Families often move in a sequence.

The impact of proposed changes on rates of settlement

Proposed changes will lengthen the time which migrants are bound to the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) conditions, restricting their access to welfare benefits and public financial support. Whilst this may reduce the ‘benefits bill’, it may also increase poverty risks among migrants on temporary visas.

The Immigration Law firm Seraphus highlight 'The consultation's fiscal framing that settlement volumes must be reduced because lower-wage migrants present fiscal costs, ignores Scotland's demographic reality. The "fiscal cost" of not having care workers is greater than the fiscal cost of settling care workers’.

Costs of settlement

Migrants would pay immigration fees over a 10-year period. The highest cost would be the Immigration Health Surcharge, especially for families with children. The impact of impact of paying fees for at least twice as long, whilst not having access to public funds even after ILR status is achieved may result in either lower rates of settlement and/or higher rates of destitution, and possibly unreported destitution issues in migrant families.

Fragomen LLP was commissioned by the Royal Society to collect data on immigration costs in the UK and 17 other leading science nations.

The report found the UK's immigration fees are significantly higher than those in many other countries. The UK's costs are up to nine times higher than the average in other countries, and when excluding the UK from the international average, costs are up to 22 times higher.

Given the already comparatively high costs of immigration fees in the UK, the proposed reforms raise questions of fairness, clarity on how the changes apply to those already in the UK, and the balance between migration control, economic need and social integration. If existing costs already sit as an outlier when compared to other nations, there are valid questions around the efficacy of increasing costs yet further as a means to manage rates of settlement.

2.     What is the likely impact of longer routes to settlement on businesses and employers, including international recruitment of higher-skilled workers?  

Longer routes to settlement and a more restrictive approach to migration are broadly recognised by businesses and employers in Scotland to present significant challenges to recruitment, retention, and in some cases, the security of sectors themselves.

Scottish sectors with a larger reliance on migrant labour include: Accommodation and food services (19%), Information and communication (18%), Wholesale, retail, repair of vehicles (11%), Education (11%), and Admin and support services (10%).
 

Some sectors simultaneously have a high proportion of migrants and ‘low-skilled’ workers below the new RQF level 6 threshold required for the Skilled Worker Visa. These include Wholesale, retail, repair of vehicles (71%), Accommodation and food services (68%), and Admin and support services (52%). For these sectors specifically, the reduction in ‘low-skilled’ migration caused by changes to settlement routes may lead to labour shortages.

Businesses in Scotland

The June 2025 ‘Understanding Business’ survey of Scottish Businesses, conducted by the Diffley Partnership and 56 Degrees North, found that:

• 68% of Scottish businesses surveyed agree that migration is vital for filling critical skill shortages in Scotland.
• 76% agree that sectors with critical shortages should be able to recruit workers from abroad.
• 61% supported allowing employers to recruit from abroad for all job levels, not just high-skilled roles.
• 70% of businesses support the introduction of a “Scottish visa”, which would allow migrants to work in Scotland under a Scottish tax code.

The introduction of longer and more restrictive routes to settlement would therefore work against the interests of most Scottish businesses, to whom international recruitment is regarded as an essential lever in meeting recruitment needs at ‘all job levels’.

Scotland’s widely recognised reliance on international migration to support its economic and demographic needs is reflected in the establishment of ‘Scotland’s Migration Service’ by the Scottish Government in 2024. The service represents a key deliverable of the ‘Attractive and Welcoming Country’ pillar of the Scottish Government’s Population Programme, aligned to the Scottish Government’s strategic approach to migration, set out in the January 2025 publication ‘Migration: Meeting Scotland’s Needs’.

Nursing

In a Royal College of Nursing (RCN) survey published in November 2025, of more than 5,000 migrant nursing staff, 60% of those who do not have ILR said the shake-up was ‘very likely’ to affect their plans to stay in the UK. The findings suggest more than 46,000 could permanently quit the UK. The RCN report says the proposals could deeply damage the pool of internationally educated nursing staff coming to the UK, with only 11% of respondents saying they would have come to the country had the route to settlement originally been 10 years.

The RCN have already previously highlighted the damaging impact of existing immigration rules which subject NHS nurses to 5 years of ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) conditions. Any extension of NRPF conditions, as is proposed by the Home Office, would likely exacerbate the already significant concerns and opposition raised by the sector.

The Care Sector

Scottish Care's Social Care immigration survey, published in May 2025, estimates that 26% of the workforce are international workers. The findings clearly indicate the sector has become highly dependent on international workers and ending international recruitment would have a profoundly negative and potentially catastrophic impact on the social care sector.

On 21 November, Scottish Care responded to the UK Government’s consultation on ‘earned settlement’, warning that the proposals threaten Scotland’s Care Sector. The response states that ‘These changes will have a profoundly negative impact on the sustainability and quality of care and support services across Scotland’ and ‘Such measures risk destabilising care provision, increasing turnover, and placing additional strain on already stretched services. Their impact especially in Scotland’s remote and rural communities is incalculable’.

The Immigration Law firm Seraphus highlight that a Care Worker ‘earning £24,000 annually (median for the role) faces immigration costs over 15 years equivalent to nearly four years' gross salary’ when the immigration fee costs for a family of two adults and one child over ten years old are accounted for on the newly proposed settlement routes.

3.     What is the likely impact of longer routes and stricter requirements for settlement on migrant households already in the UK?

1. Financial and economic impact:

The financial implications of extended settlement routes are significant.

Higher Visa Fee Costs

For example, Health and Care workers who arrived between 2022 and 2024, numbering over 600,000 people including dependants, anticipated they would achieve settlement between 2027 and 2029. Under the new proposals, settlement would take place between 2037 and 2039, with additional costs estimated at £45,000 per family, according to the Immigration law firm Seraphus.
 

Similarly, Skilled Worker visa holders from the same period, around 344,000 individuals, would face extensions of five to seven years and additional costs of approximately £32,000 per family.

Extension of NRPF Conditions

Seraphus have also highlighted concerns over changes to NRPF conditions and the impact on settlement for those accessing public funds during their route to settlement or citizenship status.

The introduction of No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) conditions even after settlement would mean that some Migrant households would remain excluded from benefits until citizenship was achieved, which could take 17 years or more from arrival. This would create a distinction between those who settled under previous rules and those settling under new conditions.

The consultation also proposes penalties for households who accessed public funds during their route to settlement. Receipt of benefits for less than twelve months would add five years to the settlement route, while more than twelve months would add ten years. This would extend settlement timelines for families who accessed legally permitted support during their route.

Earnings as a means of reducing settlement timeline

The Home Office’s proposal that migrants must earn a salary of over £50,270 annually for three consecutive years in order to reduce their pathway to settlement would limit opportunities for many individuals in Scotland, given current earnings patterns.

ASHE data shows that between 60–70% of employees in Scotland earn below £38,700. This means that only a relatively small proportion of the workforce earns at or above £50,270. Women and part time workers are disproportionately represented below these thresholds, which highlights equalities concerns if salary becomes the main determinant of faster settlement. For the majority of migrant workers in Scotland, it is likely that the £50,270 threshold would be unattainable. Most would therefore remain on the standard 10-year or 15-year settlement routes.

Table 1: Financial considerations that will reduce the baseline qualifying period. Gov.uk

Figure 1: Percentage of Employees with Gross Annual Pay Below £29,000 in Scotland, Februrary 2025. Gov.scot

2. Personal and social impact:

Seraphus advise that the impact of changes on personal and family lives in Scotland is likely to be significant.

This includes extended uncertainty for families who planned education, housing, and careers around the five-year timelines in place upon beginning their route to settlement. Migrant families may be less likely to make long term commitments when their future remains conditional.

The Home Office’s proposed changes to reduce settlement also introduce the potential for separation within households. Dependants would no longer automatically settle with the main applicant but would need to qualify independently. A care worker on a fifteen-year route could have a spouse on a different timeline, creating complex settlement journeys within families. Children admitted under eighteen may settle with parents, but cut-off points are proposed after which they must qualify independently.

The psychological impact of prolonged temporary status has been noted in research, with migrants under uncertainty less likely to integrate fully into communities, less likely to start businesses, and more likely to consider emigration to competitor nations offering faster settlement.

For Scotland, the impact is particularly relevant. For example, migrant households containing an adult recruited to fill essential roles in health and social care would face higher costs and longer periods of insecurity. Families in rural and remote areas, where recruitment is already difficult, may find it harder to remain under such conditions. The proposals therefore present challenges for community stability and workforce retention.

Further potential impacts on personal, social, and integration concerns are outlined in the response to the next question.

4.     What potential effect could changes to eligibility for settlement have on integration?   

Changes to the qualifying criteria and the introduction of additional criteria could have a significant impact on a person’s ability to integrate successfully. Having a secure immigration status enables individuals to plan for their future and participate fully in society. Without that security, individuals may struggle to invest in relationships, education, and civic engagement. Longer settlement periods or stricter eligibility requirements may delay a sense of belonging and discourage participation in community life. Uncertainty about future status can create stress and isolation, undermining community cohesion. As highlighted in the Scottish Government’s New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy early stability supports better integration outcomes.

Settlement security is closely linked to labour market participation. If eligibility is restricted, migrants may face barriers to employment progression, skills development, and long-term workforce retention. Employers may hesitate to invest in training for individuals without guaranteed long-term status. It is likely that there would also be additional costs for the employer related to updating Certificate of Sponsorships, limiting opportunities for migrant workers already in employment.

Research by Migration Policy Scotland found that financial disadvantage, often linked to immigration status, restricts access to housing, education, and community participation, all of which are critical for integration. Prolonged insecurity exacerbates these disadvantages, increasing reliance on emergency support and creating administrative challenges for devolved services.

Prolonged insecurity can negatively affect mental health and wellbeing, increasing isolation and stress. This may undermine community cohesion and create a two-tier system where some residents lack equal rights and opportunities. Research on refugee and migrant mental health by the World Health Organisation (WHO) found that refugees and migrants exposed to adversity through their host country’s entry and integration policies, and their resultant living and working conditions, are more likely than the population of their host country to experience mental health conditions. The WHO identify integration and settlement as a key area of potential stressors, specifically highlighting challenges with obtaining entitlements or navigating policies.

Scotland faces distinct demographic challenges, including an ageing population and rural depopulation. Migrant integration is essential for sustaining communities and supporting economic growth. Policies that delay settlement could exacerbate these challenges. The Scottish Government’s Population Strategy also highlights the role of migration in addressing demographic pressures and supporting economic resilience.

Findings by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), show that there is significant international evidence to demonstrate links between naturalisation and increased social cohesion, civic participation and economic integration. A review of recent evidence by Gathmann and Garbers (2023) on citizenship rules in Europe highlighted that granting earlier access to citizenship and reduced barriers to applications have positive effects on migrants’ economic, educational, political and social integration. When researching the effects of naturalisation on long-term social integration, Hainmueller, Hangartner, and Pietrantuono (2017) found that receiving Swiss citizenship had a positive effect on the long-term social integration of migrants. This was particularly the case among marginalised groups and when citizenship was granted earlier in the residency period.

The existing evidence suggests that integration is most successful when migrants have security and clarity about their future. Changes that delay or restrict settlement eligibility risk creating barriers to social and economic participation, with knock-on effects for public services and community cohesion.

5.     What evidence is there from other countries on the above issues?  

Most EU countries require five years of continuous legal residence before an individual can apply for permanent residency.  This aligns with the EU Long-Term Residence directive, which sets five years as the maximum requirement across the member states. The economic, language and civic test requirements vary significantly among member states. Ireland and Denmark, however, opted out of the Directive and set their own length of residency requirements.

Ireland
Ireland does not have a permanent residency which is comparable to ILR.

‘Stamp 5’ provides long-term permission to reside in Ireland through a stamp on the individual’s passport (after 8 years of continuous residence for certain residence permits). This permission needs to be renewed when an individual’s passport expires. The main pathway for long term residence for migrants in Ireland is naturalisation (which requires five years of reckonable residence or 3 years for spouses of Irish citizens and refugees). 

Denmark

For permanent residence in Denmark, eight years of continuous residence is required. Details of the ‘fast-track’ option to receive permanent residence in Denmark is outlined in the answer to question 8: ‘How have other countries applied contribution-based systems?’

6.     How should “long-term contribution” to the UK be defined and quantified, when considering pathways to settlement? This could include how the following elements should be defined and weighted:   

1. social and community contributions; and 
2. fiscal and economic contributions.  

The Scottish Government remains opposed to the proposed increase in the ILR qualifying period but if introduced there needs to be a clear, simple and achievable pathway to reduce the ILR qualifying period.

The Scottish Government considers that any framework for assessing long-term contribution to the UK when determining eligibility for settlement must be transparent, evidence-based, and proportionate, balancing economic objectives with social cohesion.

Fiscal contributions, both direct and indirect, could be measured through individual employment, entrepreneurship, and tax contributions. However they should not be solely or primarily based on how much someone earns.

Social and community contributions could be measured, including active participation in civic life, volunteering, cultural and integration activities that strengthen local communities. There are issues in applying uniform measures of these contributions, however.

When considering volunteering for example, those on lower pay may be more likely to work longer hours. Care workers, for instance, are known to often work in very long shift patterns. The pressure to volunteer on top of this, compared to a worker with a more regular pattern of work, would not be a fair comparison of ‘contribution’.

There is the potential for Scotland to operationalise a flexible settlement framework that reflects demographic, economic, and service delivery needs, aligning with our existing proposed tailored migration routes, such as the Rural Visa Pilot, Scottish Graduate Visa, and Scottish Visa linked to the Scottish tax code.

These routes could be amended to further help address depopulation and workforce shortages in rural or island communities by:

• Introducing accelerated settlement eligibility for migrants who commit to living and working in designated rural or island communities for a minimum period.
• Applying settlement route ‘reductions’ for roles in sectors critical to rural sustainability (agriculture, fisheries, health and social care, health, and education).
• Offering fee reductions or visa surcharge exemptions for applicants in rural or island communities.

7.     What exemptions should there be to the new rules?  

Equality and Human Rights

All policies must be developed and implemented in a manner that is fully compatible with equality and human rights obligations. Under the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty, public authorities are required to prevent direct and indirect discrimination across nine protected characteristics and to actively consider and address inequalities. For example, a shorter pathway to settlement for higher-earners without exemptions or parity for individuals facing systemic barriers impacting their earning potential could be discriminatory.

Legislation including the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Scotland Act 1998 require public bodies to act compatibly with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights; settlement pathways that have negative implications on rights to family life could breach these obligations. Additionally, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 requires public authorities to uphold children’s rights and special care should be taken to ensure children, including care leavers, are protected within exemptions to guarantee security into adulthood even where parents cannot meet standard requirements. Such safeguards should be embedded within policy rules rather than left to discretionary application.

Vulnerable groups

Certain groups face acute risks that make prolonged or insecure immigration status particularly harmful.

Exemptions for groups including children, care leavers, victims of domestic abuse, bereaved partners, survivors of trafficking, those affected by disability or illness, carers and those with a form of humanitarian protection are essential. Without exemptions, policies would risk breaching equality and human rights obligations, increase vulnerability to poverty, exploitation, and family separation, and undermine integration.

These groups face challenges beyond their control that make meeting standard settlement requirements unrealistic. Prolonged insecurity for these groups could also create systemic disadvantage, heighten reliance on emergency public services, and damage social cohesion.

Table 2: Exemption considerations and risks to vulnerable groups

Place-based exemptions

Scotland’s rural and island areas face acute demographic challenges, with projections showing nine council areas projected to decrease in population over the 10 years to mid-2032. The largest decreases are projected for: Inverclyde (-5.4%), West Dunbartonshire (-4.6%) and Na h-Eileanan Siar (-3.6%). Rural and island areas tend to have an older age profile presenting challenges for economic viability and public services within communities. Research by SRUC found 70% of rural residents believe their communities need more newcomers, provided housing and services improve.

Without targeted, place-based exemptions, depopulation will likely accelerate, undermining health, social care, and education services. Accelerated settlement pathways could be awarded for local contributions, such as volunteering in projects that strengthen community cohesion, support development or address depopulation, and participation in schemes like the Rural Visa Pilot. This could help attract migrants to areas most in need, promote integration, and support Scotland’s demographic resilience.

8.     How have other countries applied contribution-based systems?

Denmark

In Denmark, a fast-track option to receive permanent residence exists for applicants who meet all four criteria:

1.                             passing the Danish 3 Exam (equivalent to CEFR B2 level),
2.                             four years of employment,
3.                             passing a citizenship test or demonstrating active citizenship,
4.                             average annual income above a minimum threshold (currently set at DKK 331,249.35, equivalent to ~£39k)

Active citizenship can be demonstrated through one years’ membership of boards and organisations which align with Danish ‘democratic values’.

Germany

Germany provides two routes for accelerated permanent residence for holders of the EU Blue Card (for non-EU workers in certain highly-skilled professions). The length of residency requirements for EU Blue Card Holders differ depending on the language proficiency of the permit holder:

1.                             Standard: If the permit holder demonstrates A1 level German proficiency, they can apply for a settlement permit after 27 months of qualified employment and contributions to the statutory pension scheme.
2. Fast-Track: With demonstrated B1 level German proficiency, this period reduces to 21 months.

Canada
In Canada, the Express Entry scheme provides a route to permanent residency. It is based on the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) which is assessed on factors including age, education, language proficiency in English and French, and work experience.  Additional points can be earned for spouses’ skills and prior Canadian study or work experience. Almost 70% of individuals invited to apply in 2024/25 were already in Canada.

Australia
In Australia, the General Skilled Migration programme uses a points-based system to select skilled workers with certain visas leading to permanent residency.  Applicants can gain points for their age, language skills, skilled employment experience, recognised qualifications, state or territory nominations or family sponsorship.

New Zealand
Migrants in New Zealand can apply for a permanent residency permit after two years of having a continuous resident visa, and through showing a ‘commitment’ to New Zealand. ‘Commitment’ to New Zealand can be shown through one of the following:  time spent in the country, tax residency, maintaining an investment, owning a business, or establishing a base through home ownership or full-time employment.
In New Zealand, ‘The Green List’ offers a streamlined residence pathway for migrants in specific skilled occupations, either on a Straight to Residence or Work to Residence pathway. Occupations include health and social services , IT, and engineering.  The majority of occupations on the list offer a route to Straight to Residence (Tier 1). There is no available data on the % of individuals granted the visa who were already in New Zealand.

Dec 2025