Community

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has today published its 2025 Annual Report alongside a major review of work visa salary thresholds, and the conclusions land at a politically sensitive moment.

The headline message is clear: salary thresholds alone are a blunt and inefficient way to manage migration.

Key updates from today’s publications include:

👉 The MAC recommends keeping the Skilled Worker salary threshold at £41,700, arguing this level maximises fiscal benefit while still allowing employers to recruit for genuine skills shortages.

👉 It calls for reversing the 2024 increases in occupation-specific thresholds and returning them to the 25th percentile of earnings, noting that higher thresholds disproportionately excluded lower-paid roles without effectively protecting UK workers.

👉 A single new entrant threshold of £33,400 is proposed to preserve access for graduates and early-career professionals.

👉 PhD and postdoctoral salary discounts should be removed, due to the limited evidence that they deliver economic value.

👉 The MAC questions the value of underused routes such as the Scale-up visa, unless they clearly meet labour market needs.

👉 The report highlights the mixed and politically sensitive fiscal impact of family migration and flags exploitation risks in overseas domestic worker routes.

👉 It also reinforces the importance of English language proficiency for labour market outcomes, aligning with the government’s decision to raise the Skilled Worker English requirement to B2 from January 2026.

What does this mean for visa sponsorship job seekers?

For people seeking sponsorship, this is cautiously positive. The MAC is effectively acknowledging that higher salary thresholds have been excluding capable candidates without a clear economic justification.

If these recommendations are adopted, they would help stabilise sponsorship planning, reopen access to lower-paid skilled roles, especially outside London and protect graduate pathways through a clearer entry threshold.

At the same time, the message is realistic rather than generous: routes without clear economic value are unlikely to expand, and competition for sponsored roles will remain intense. For job seekers, employability, sector relevance and strong English skills will matter more than ever.

Overall, today’s reports are a strong call for evidence-led, economically rational immigration policy, rather than headline-driven measures designed to look tough while delivering limited results.

What are your thoughts?