Research and analysis

Temporary Shortage List: Stage 1 report (accessible)

Published 9 October 2025

October 2025

Introduction

Background to this commission

On 12 May 2025, the government published an Immigration White Paper (IWP) titled “Restoring Control over the Immigration System”, which outlined the government’s strategy for establishing an immigration system that fosters economic growth whilst also “ensuring it is properly controlled and is not used as an alternative to fixing problems here in the UK.” Bringing down net migration is core to the IWP, with levels having risen to “a record high of 906,000 in the year ending June 2023 – a four-fold increase in the space of under four years.”

It is in this context that several significant changes have been made to work visa rules within the system, including increasing the threshold for Skilled Worker visas to graduate level. This change means that only occupations assessed at Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF) Level 6 (degree level) and above will now have access to the Skilled Worker visa, whereas previously the skills threshold was at RQF Level 3 (A-level equivalent). Other key changes announced in the IWP include replacing the Immigration Salary List (ISL) with a new Temporary Shortage List (TSL), ending overseas recruitment for social care roles, increasing English language requirements across work routes, and proposed changes to settlement rules. This suite of changes has also coincided with a routine uprating of salary thresholds for work visas in line with the latest 2024 Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) data.

The increase in skills and salary thresholds, implementation of the TSL, and the ending of overseas recruitment in adult social care came into force following the July 2025 changes to the Immigration Rules, with transitional arrangements put in place for those already on work visas in the UK.

On 2 July 2025, the Home Secretary commissioned us to carry out an in-depth review of salary requirements for work visas and to also advise on the new TSL. We are due to publish our recommendations on salary thresholds in December 2025. The setting of new salary thresholds for RQF 3-5 occupations on the TSL will be a key part of both the salary thresholds and TSL reviews.

Regarding the TSL, the Home Secretary has asked us to advise on three main aspects:

• Occupations that are “crucial to the delivery of the Industrial Strategy or critical infrastructure”.
• Which of the occupations identified as crucial to the delivery of the Industrial Strategy or critical infrastructure should be included on the TSL; this will include an assessment of sector Workforce Strategies to “maximise use of the domestic workforce”.
• The terms and conditions for the TSL visa, such as visa caps and visa lengths.

We have been asked to report back to the Home Secretary within 12 months.

This report concludes Stage 1 of our review and provides our recommendations on which RQF 3-5 occupations are potentially crucial to delivering the Industrial Strategy and critical infrastructure to take forward into Stage 2 of our review, and our recommendations on visa design. We will publish our final report in July 2026 which will include our final recommendations on which occupations should be on the Temporary Shortage List.

The two stages of the review

As described in our letter accepting the commission, we are approaching this review in two stages which we have mapped to the three main questions given to us by the Home Secretary.

Stage 1

During Stage 1 we have considered the terms and conditions which should apply to visa grants using the TSL in the context of why it was introduced and the overall aims of the IWP. Chapter 1 sets out our policy design considerations and recommendations for the TSL visa.

We have also worked to identify the occupations that are potentially crucial to the delivery of the Industrial Strategy or critical infrastructure, a guiding principle attached to the TSL in both the IWP and commissioning letter. Stage 1 has involved quantitative analysis and engagement with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council (ISAC) and sector experts across government to understand workforce needs for delivering the Industrial Strategy and critical infrastructure. We have worked closely with ISAC given their remit in advising government on the delivery of the Industrial Strategy. We provide a list of the occupations we recommend to progress to Stage 2 in Chapter 2 of this report.

Stage 2

Having made our recommendations on which RQF 3-5 occupations are potentially crucial to the delivery of the Industrial Strategy or critical infrastructure and visa design in this report, we will now move on to Stage 2 of our review. This will run to July 2026 and will centre around engaging with a broader set of stakeholders via a Call for Evidence (CfE) as a means of applying further substantial tests to determine which occupations we ultimately recommend for inclusion on the TSL. The IWP, when introducing the TSL, set out what these tests should be, and include the need for ambitious Workforce Strategies and managing the risk of worker exploitation.

Sector experts in government, in collaboration with industry, will lead the development of these documents, henceforth referred to as Jobs Plans, that outline plans for maximising the use of the domestic workforce and investment in training and skills. Occupations that proceed to Stage 2 will need to be included in Jobs Plans if they wish to be considered for the TSL, with the plans demonstrating the action that is being taken to support that occupation and reduce the need for migrant labour.

We have been consulting the Labour Market Evidence Group (LMEG) throughout the review to date and will seek their expertise in assessing Jobs Plans before submitting our final report to government in July 2026.

Policy background

Information on the TSL in the IWP

The TSL is introduced within the IWP in the context of increased economic migration to the UK, in particular lower skilled migration, in parallel to a drop in domestic training and an increasing number of UK residents not in work. The IWP argues that labour market policy and immigration have not been aligned, resulting in “a reduction in investment in skills, rising inactivity of the domestic labour market, poor future workforce planning and high levels of recruitment from abroad.” Furthermore, in the context of the government’s Industrial Strategy, the IWP flags “little sign of effective partnerships between government and industry in developing the key skills… that are needed to drive growth and support our economy.”

It is in this context, and specifically the increase in the skills threshold for the Skilled Worker visa, that the TSL was introduced as allowing access to the immigration system for “a narrow list of critical shortage occupations…alongside workforce strategies to increase training and participation rates in the UK.” Pursuing this agenda is within the broader goal of reducing “net migration further while boosting productivity, strengthening the UK economy and supporting growth.”

Interim arrangements

Whilst we carry out our review of the TSL, interim arrangements have been implemented by the Home Office via the July 2025 rule changes. This consists of both an expanded ISL and interim TSL.

The expanded ISL contains occupations which were already on the ISL prior to the rules changes, as well as occupations at RQF Level 3-5 which we identified as being in shortage in our October 2023 review of the Shortage Occupation List (SOL) and our February 2024 review of the ISL. Occupations on the ISL continue to receive discounted salary thresholds and other benefits such as reduced visa fees.

The interim TSL contains occupations at RQF 3-5 which the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and His Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) have identified as being important to the UK’s Industrial Strategy. Placement on the interim TSL serves to provide extended but time-limited access to the immigration system for those RQF 3-5 occupations.

An expiry date of 31 December 2026 has been set for occupations on both the ISL and interim TSL. The commissioning letter from the Home Secretary allows the MAC to recommend retaining or removing occupations on the current ISL and interim TSL on the next iteration of the TSL, as well as recommending any further additions. We expect our recommendations to be considered and acted upon before the 31 December 2026 expiry date. See Annex A for the occupations currently on the ISL and interim TSL.

Balancing policy aims

The TSL has been introduced in the context of competing policy priorities, including the drive to reduce net migration and the unveiling of a 10-year UK Industrial Strategy which has been designed to “increase national productivity, strengthen our economic security and resilience and support our environmental goals and net zero transition.” Therefore, in determining the occupations that get added to the TSL, our analysis and subsequent recommendations need to balance the government’s desire to supply the labour needed to meet these ambitions, whilst incentivising the use of the domestic workforce and curbing migration access to sectors that do not sufficiently invest in skills and training. We have designed our approach to the review and the CfE, setting out transparent and proportionate expectations for Jobs Plans, seeking to fairly balance these considerations. We have also sought to balance these policy objectives in our advice on the terms and conditions for the TSL.

Role and aim of the TSL

As stated in the IWP, the TSL has been explicitly designed to provide time-limited access to the immigration system for those RQF 3-5 occupations where long term shortages have been identified, and which have been deemed as crucial to the delivery of the UK’s Industrial Strategy or critical infrastructure. This implies a move away from occupations sitting on shortage lists indefinitely. The design and implementation of these policy intentions are considered in Chapter 1 of this report. Under most work routes, workers can bring their partner or children with them to the UK, but the July 2025 Immigration Rules changes confirmed that dependants would not be allowed for new applicants in RQF 3-5 occupations. This applies to roles currently on the ISL and Interim TSL.

Unless placed on the TSL (or the updated ISL which remains until 31 December 2026), RQF 3-5 occupations will no longer have access to the immigration system. Furthermore, no occupation below RQF 3 will have access to the TSL, including care and social care which became ineligible to new overseas applicants in July 2025.^{[footnote 1]} The increase in the skills threshold within the Skilled Worker route is intended to reduce net migration, and the changes to care and senior care workers also responds to high exploitation risks in this occupation. The IWP suggests that the “surge in lower skilled migration, particularly in the care sector” resulted in “an increase in the abuse and exploitation of workers.” 

The TSL can therefore be seen as serving a key role in providing access to skilled migration for occupations deemed crucial to the government’s Industrial Strategy and growth agenda. This remit means that the selection criteria for inclusion on the TSL is notably different to both the SOL and the ISL. The TSL criteria are motivated by defined policy priorities (delivering the Industrial Strategy and building critical infrastructure) and a drive to push employers to make greater use of domestic workers (via workforce plans), in addition to shortage and whether it is sensible for migration to have a role which have been the focus of past SOL and ISL assessments.

In essence, no occupations below RQF Level 6 will have access to work visas, except for a group of mid-skilled occupations which will have time-limited access because they are i) crucial to the Industrial Strategy or critical infrastructure and ii) sectors have demonstrated workforce shortages and the steps they are pursuing to utilise domestic workers, are investing in training, and effectively managing exploitation risks. Visa holders with work rights from other routes e.g. the Graduate route, may still choose to work in those occupations. As noted in previous MAC reports^{[footnote 2]}, aside from sponsored work visas there are large numbers of visas granted on other routes where the visa holder would have some form of work rights - these are people who could, though may choose not to, work in the UK at any skill level.

The IWP establishes key tests that must be met in order for an RQF 3-5 occupation to be placed on the TSL:

• Is the occupation crucial to the Industrial Strategy or critical infrastructure? (Stage 1 consideration)
• Is the occupation in shortage, now or in the near future? (Stage 2 consideration)
• Is it sensible for migration to have a role in reducing the shortage? (Stage 2 consideration)
• Do the sectors that rely on this occupation have credible plans to maximise use of the domestic workforce? (Stage 2 consideration)

The MAC, working alongside other LMEG members and skills bodies, will be expected to consider the following when assessing the Jobs Plans submitted by sectors, as defined in the IWP:

• How far the Jobs Plan is underpinned by a skills strategy.
• The extent to which it is underpinned by a commitment to work with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on a domestic labour strategy.
• How the sector will manage the risk of exploitation of workers, particularly migrant workers in the sector.
• Whether the strategy is sufficiently ambitious.

What is meant by “crucial to the Industrial Strategy or delivering critical infrastructure”?

As noted above, playing a crucial role in delivering on the UK’s Industrial Strategy or critical infrastructure has been established as one of the key criteria for an occupation’s placement on the TSL. Published on 23 June 2025, the Industrial Strategy set out plans for what it calls the eight “growth-driving” sectors (IS-8): Advanced Manufacturing, Clean Energy Industries, Creative Industries, Defence, Digital and Technologies, Financial Services, Life Sciences, and Professional and Business Services.

During our engagements with Devolved Ministers, they highlighted concerns regarding Devolved Nations’ Industrial Strategies not having a formal role in shaping the UK’s Industrial Strategy. While there is broad alignment across key sectors, there are some differences. As migration is a reserved matter, it is for the UK Government to consider how devolved strategies are reflected in relevant policy decisions and the MAC will follow the UK’s Industrial Strategy as per the commission from the Home Secretary.

For the UK Industrial Strategy, a Sector Definitions List was published in June with a breakdown of sub-sectors and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for most sectors (noting that some parts of the Industrial Strategy are identified as too niche to map to a SIC code). The Industrial Strategy also included a list of ‘Foundational Industries’. These “provide critical inputs and infrastructure across the IS-8 sectors” and comprise: Chemicals, Critical minerals, Composites, Construction, Energy networks, Materials, Ports and Steel.

Critical infrastructure is a not a UK Industrial Strategy sector and there is no universal definition of critical infrastructure sectors for use in analysis and policy development. We note that the commissioning letter did not provide a definition of critical infrastructure. We interpreted the commission to focus on the occupations (and sectors) involved in building critical infrastructure on the basis of that wording being published by the Home Office alongside the July Immigration Rules changes.^{[footnote 3]} This is also consistent with the inclusion of several construction occupations on the interim TSL.^{[footnote 4]} This interpretation is more focused than considering all 13 Critical National Infrastructure sectors, which includes sectors such as Food and Health. Our focus on construction does not include operation of services that may be in a broader definition of critical infrastructure. For example, occupations that are required to build a nuclear power station would be in scope, but occupations required to operate a nuclear power station would be out of scope. We will continue to proceed on this basis unless directed otherwise by the Home Office.

Throughout this report, we refer to “prioritised sectors” as shorthand for all sectors in scope of the commission, which includes the IS-8, sectors involved in building critical infrastructure and the Foundational Industries.

Our approach to identifying occupations that may be crucial to prioritised sectors has been to err on the side of inclusion. For the purposes of this report, ‘crucial’ may not necessarily mean that delivery of the Industrial Strategy or building critical infrastructure becomes impossible without access to labour in a given occupation, more that the occupation warrants further consideration in Stage 2. In practice, we are saying that we think that it is more worthwhile to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to make the case for an occupation to be included on the TSL by discussing them in Jobs Plans, rather than deny stakeholders that opportunity.

Contextualising the occupations considered within the review

When considering access to the TSL, it is important to remember UK workers make up the majority of workforces, meaning access to the TSL relates to a minority of the workforce. Table 0.1 below outlines the estimated share of employees at a sectoral level accounted for by UK nationals. Similar to the overall economy, at least 8 out of every 10 employees in each of the prioritised sectors are estimated to be UK nationals, both overall and looking at RQF Level 3-5 occupations only.    

We provide further detail in Chapter 2 on the sectors in scope for the TSL, including how we are considering the occupations needed to build critical infrastructure.

Table 0.1 Shares of Employees in Prioritised Sectors and the UK accounted for by UK nationals

Sector	UK national employee share – All occupations (%)	UK national employee share – RQF 3-5 occupations (%)
Advanced Manufacturing	87%	89%
Clean Energy	NA	NA
Creative Industries	84%	86%
Defence	100%	100%
Digital and Technology	84%	88%
Finance	86%	89%
Life Sciences	81%	85%
Professional and Business Services	86%	88%
Foundational Industries	90%	92%
Critical infrastructure	90%	92%
Industrial Strategy and critical infrastructure	87%	89%
UK	87%	91%

Source: MAC Secretariat analysis of Annual Population Survey (APS) 2022 – 2024

Notes: Please see Annex B for discussion of limitations of this data source. In addition, note as published Industrial Strategy Sector Definitions do not include a mapping for Clean Energy, no specific analysis of this sector is presented, and nationality is determined via the respondent’s self-identification meaning if the respondent has multiple nationalities the first they report is chosen and may not necessarily align with their nationality for immigration status.

Structure of this report

This report is organised into the following chapters:

• Chapter 1 presents our considerations and recommendations for TSL visa terms and conditions.
• Chapter 2 discusses the methodology and approach we adopted with regards to determining occupations potentially crucial to prioritised sectors.
• Chapter 3 outlines the next steps of our review in more detail, including our plans for the Call for Evidence and assessing Jobs Plans.
• The Annexes provide additional information on occupations and the analytical methods we adopted for this work.

Chapter 1: Design of the Temporary Shortage List

Summary

1. The government has signalled that the Temporary Shortage List should act as a targeted, time-bound migration route to help address labour shortages in specific occupations crucial to prioritised sectors.

2. The default duration for an occupation to be added to the Temporary Shortage List is recommended to be three years, although we may initially recommend occupations are added for a shorter period if Jobs Plans are lacking in detail but likely subject to rapid improvements.

3. It could be appropriate for visa durations to be between 3-5 years. We do not recommend renewals beyond five years if the government decides that the Temporary Shortage List should not be a route to settlement. We support in country switching to higher-skilled (RQF 6+) roles within the Skilled Worker route to encourage progression.

4. We recommend English language requirements no lower than B1.

5. While we refrain from making formal recommendations on settlement rights, sponsorship models, fees, or cap mechanisms, we outline considerations to inform a Home Office decision. The committee stresses the need for simplicity and flexibility in design, and for the Home Office to continue exploration of alternative sponsorship models, particularly for occupations which have a high share of small employers and self-employment. The committee have differing views on whether the reintroduction of a Resident Labour Market Test could support the government’s aims for the Temporary Shortage List. We keep the option open for nation-specific additions to the Temporary Shortage List but would have a high bar for inclusion due to operational and policy risks.

6. The IWP and subsequent Immigration Rules changes have ruled out dependants for Temporary Shortage List occupations, and we therefore do not comment further on this.

Our recommendations

This section explains the considerations that we have taken into account when making our recommendations for designing the Temporary Shortage List (TSL).

Duration an occupation is on the TSL

In the commissioning letter, there was ambiguity in the meaning of the TSL being ‘temporary’. Following the experience of previous lists such as the Shortage Occupation List (SOL), where occupations remained on the list for long periods, we have taken this to mean occupations will be on the TSL for a temporary period, subject to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) certifying ongoing progress on the delivery of Jobs Plans. Note that this is a separate consideration from how long each individual TSL visa lasts, a point discussed later.

We believe that an initial three years on the TSL strikes the appropriate balance between remaining flexible to developments in labour market conditions and government priorities while giving sectors enough time to progress their Jobs Plans.

A full review of the TSL every three years would assess whether TSL access is revoked or extended for each occupation on the list or whether additional RQF 3-5 occupations should be added. It could consider all the same criteria as this initial review as well as further information on whether Jobs Plans have been effective or if there have been factors outside of the sectors’ control which have reduced efficacy.

We recognise that the process of sectors providing Jobs Plans in this way is new, and that in this first instance, they might lack evidence or need more time to be improved. In some cases, instead of an initial three years, we may recommend TSL access for a shorter period for these occupations (up to 18 months) to give sectors more time to develop a convincing strategy. After the 18-month period, we would make a judgment on whether TSL access was continued for another 18 months, to bring the occupation in line with the default of three years, or removed.

The Home Secretary may of course ask us to conduct off-cycle reviews for occupations or sectors of particular interest. There is precedent for this in the past such as the MAC reviews on the Health and Social Care and IT and Engineering sectors. The Home Office should actively monitor other risks such as exploitation and systemic overuse and reserve the right to take occupations or sectors off the list at any point.

There may also be occasions when sectors request fresh consideration of an occupation that has been refused membership of the TSL because circumstances have changed. We suggest that a formal procedure and a high bar be put in place to consider such requests. Requests could be submitted publicly to the MAC by the relevant government department with a brief explanation as to the significant and exceptional change in circumstances since the last TSL review. We would review the request and engage with the relevant department as needed. We would then make a recommendation to the Home Secretary as to whether a review should be conducted.

Duration of TSL visa and settlement

The TSL being ‘temporary’ could also refer to the length of time that a migrant is able to stay on the visa and whether the TSL provides a route to settlement. UK work visas that do not provide a route to settlement include the Seasonal Worker Visa, which allows individuals to work in the agricultural sector for up to six months, and the Global Business Mobility Visa (GBM), which allows individuals to stay for up to five years for Senior or Specialist workers. There are arguments for and against offering a route to settlement for TSL visa holders.  

The arguments for TSL occupations not offering a route to settlement are:

• Employer incentives for training domestic workers: A fixed length visa might add a greater incentive for employers to utilise the domestic workforce as a longer term and more stable solution than hiring overseas workers;
• Fiscal impacts: If only allowed to stay for a fixed period of time, workers qualifying for a visa on the TSL would in aggregate be overwhelmingly fiscally positive given they would never have entitlement to welfare benefits and would not impose long-term costs on the taxpayer as they age. If long-term stay or settlement were permitted, entitlement to welfare and costs of ageing would be factors to consider, meaning that higher earnings would be needed to be fiscally positive. A number of occupations recommended to proceed to Stage 2 of this review may pay below that point. In either case, net fiscal contributions would be further enhanced by payment of the Immigration Health Surcharge;
• Net migration: Not offering a route to settlement reduces net migration by significantly increasing emigration of visa holders qualifying on the TSL (although net migration would not necessarily be zero, as some may switch to other work routes or to family visas). It is also possible that having no route to settlement would make the TSL less attractive to migrants and employers. However, as noted in the MAC’s recent Net Migration Report^{[footnote 5]}, the evidence on how settlement policies affect immigration flows is limited. Home Office research suggests that access to settlement is one of many considerations for moving to the UK with 37% of Skilled Worker visa holders stating it was a reason. There were however a number of more prominent factors – the top three being career progression (61%), a higher quality of life (53%) and familiarity with the English language (52%)^{[footnote 6]}; and,
• Occupational retention risk: Not offering a route to settlement could be appropriate where there is evidence or concern that migrants may leave the occupation shortly after gaining settlement.

The arguments for the TSL being a route to settlement are:

• Greater appeal to workers: As we say above, the evidence on settlement rights influencing immigration flows is limited, and settlement is likely a less important factor for prospective migrants than economic factors, but it may be that temporary visa permissions fail to attract the best qualified workers, especially in globally competitive sectors;
• Lower turnover in communities: High churn from temporary visas could disrupt community cohesion, although this risk is limited if migrants are coming to TSL occupations in relatively small numbers, which is what we expect. These issues were discussed further in MAC’s 2018 European Economic Area report^{[footnote 7]}; and,
• Greater progression and lower turnover in businesses: Frequent staff turnover due to temporary visa limits may reduce productivity, increase training costs, and weaken institutional knowledge, whereas permanence supports wage progression (which will gradually increase fiscal contributions).^{[footnote 8]} If migrant workers remain in the same occupations after settlement, they add to the stock of workers in TSL roles, reducing the number of additional domestic workers that are needed to meet demand in the long term.

Because of the multiple political considerations on either side, and because the government is yet to conclude exploration of wider changes to settlement policy signalled in the IWP, we do not make a firm recommendation on settlement.

If the government decides the TSL visa should continue to offer a path to settlement, then the length of the visa, including renewals, will need to be aligned with the duration of that pathway. If the government decides against a path to settlement, it will need to decide what visa duration strikes the right balance between providing stability to individuals and business while also influencing sectors to improve pipelines for the domestic workforce. There is no perfect data-driven answer to the question of optimal visa length in this scenario, although we suggest that a visa duration of 3-5 years may enable employers to attract workers and reduce the disruption of frequent employee turnover, while also providing reasonable timelines for employers to invest in domestic skills.

Analysis of Annual Survey of Hours and Earning (ASHE) 2024 and Annual Population Survey (APS) pooled data across 2022-2024 estimates that the median length of time employees in RQF 3-5 roles have been with their current employer was around four to six years, with this dropping to around three to five years if focussing on those working in prioritised sectors only. This suggests that visa lengths for RQF 3-5 work in prioritised sectors not exceeding the current Skilled Worker five-year maximum length may be broadly appropriate.

Switching to other visa types

We support in-country switching to RQF 6+ roles in the Skilled Worker route, with such a switch needing to meet all the relevant criteria for that route. This supports labour market flexibility and upward progression.

We also do not see any reason to explicitly ban switching from RQF 6+ roles onto the TSL, but do not imagine this being popular because of the lack of allowance of dependants and potentially less favourable settlement conditions of the TSL when compared to higher-skilled occupations on the Skilled Worker route.

Another issue the Home Office may wish to consider is whether those on TSL visas should have the ability to switch between TSL occupations. If the ambition is to ensure people coming through the TSL work only in the occupation in which they originally applied to utilise their specialist skills, switching between occupations may not be appropriate. However, there may be a small number of occupations on the TSL where broadly similar skills are required and preventing switching between occupations in these cases may prevent desirable mobility. In either scenario, we support the ability to switch between employer sponsors as this supports labour market flexibility and reduces the risk of exploitation.

Sponsorship

The Skilled Worker sponsorship model requires employers to hold a Home Office sponsor licence and issue a Certificate of Sponsorship for each migrant worker. The sponsor acts as a guarantor and has a duty of care for the migrant. This is likely to be the only viable sponsorship model to operationalise the TSL in the near term, however it will not necessarily work well for occupations with a high proportion of small businesses or self-employment.

Analysis of APS 2022-2024 data shows that several occupations recommended for progression to Stage 2 of this review have high shares of self-employment, where adaptation in employment practices may be needed to best utilise access to visas under the TSL. For example, over 90% of ‘Artists’, ‘Musicians’ and ‘Dancers and Choreographers’ in prioritised sectors were self-employed while the proportions for ‘Plasterers’ and for ‘Bricklayers’ was over 70%.^{[footnote 9]} Equally, sectors where work can be seasonal or where working hours are not guaranteed, such as the construction sector, may not fit as neatly with this sponsorship model. Direct employer sponsorship may also be a concern in industries with higher risks of exploitation, such as construction.

Other sponsorship models are available and have been used in the Seasonal Worker visa for example. In that model, the visa does not allow direct employer sponsorship and instead requires a registered ‘scheme operator’ to act as a broker between employers and workers. The scheme operator acts as an extra safeguard for the migrant workers and is required to adhere to strict safeguarding legislation in order to ensure migrant safety. This system is not perfect and exploitation in the Seasonal Worker scheme still occurs in some cases, although the model could nonetheless be more appropriate for higher-risk industries than direct sponsorship—as we saw in the case of direct sponsorship in the care sector.

We suggest that the Home Office explore other models of sponsorship which could be more beneficial for some occupations in the TSL, particularly the construction sector. In the short term we recognise that it will take time to explore and operationalise alternative models and vet prospective sponsors. We also recognise that setting up umbrella sponsorship models brings upfront costs, which will only be worth incurring if the government expects a reasonable number of visas to be granted over time. Therefore, we do not recommend any immediate change from the Skilled Worker sponsorship model.

Caps on the number of visas  

We do not think it is viable to try to set a cap according to the optimal or required number of migrants that are needed in an occupation. Such a cap would be incredibly hard to set, with any estimates for occupational demand provided for the purpose of Jobs Plans likely to be extremely uncertain and impacted by broader economic factors. The number employed in a given occupation is not fixed and can be volatile due to unexpected shifts in supply and demand.

There is also a risk that visa issuance to prioritised sectors is crowded out by non-prioritised sectors who would also be able to access occupations on the TSL. As we have previously commented, other mechanisms such as salary thresholds and visa fees are likely to be preferable methods for controlling the volume of migrants.^{[footnote 10]}

However, if it is concerned about the risk of unexpectedly high visa grants (as occurred in the care sector in 2023), the Home Office may wish to consider a pre-defined cap which acts as an overall limit on visas granted for TSL occupations. Still, it must be recognised that this is a blunt tool which we would be wary of setting without strong evidence on the appropriate level. Rather than such a binding cap, the Home Office may alternatively consider pre-defined thresholds which if breached trigger an investigation and potential action. For example, these could be set at the occupational level based on historic volumes of visas with the aim to prevent significant unforeseen increases, acting as an emergency break.

Visa fees and charges

For the Skilled Worker route, the main fees are the application fee, the Immigration Health Surcharge and the Immigration Skills Charge. The visa fees are used to cover the processing costs of application and fund wider immigration and border services and are ultimately a Home Office budgetary matter. However, we do have some observations on the factors that should be considered when setting fees for the TSL.

All else equal, fees are expected to discourage employers from hiring overseas workers, although there is currently weak evidence on the size of this effect. The government has said that a key purpose of the TSL is to reduce structural reliance on the visa system. As a result, TSL fees should be no lower than on the Skilled Worker Route.

The simplest option is to align the fees associated with the TSL, including the Immigration Skills Charge, with that on the Skilled Worker route. This would provide continuity for business and simplify the system.

English language requirements

Recent policy changes in the IWP have stated that the Home Office will increase the English Language Threshold to B2 for occupations on the Skilled Worker Visa. This new threshold might be higher than needed or realistic for occupations on the TSL, which require a lower skill level at RQF 3-5. But the threshold should be high enough to reduce the likelihood of exploitation and abuse because individuals would be better placed to understand their employment rights. We believe the Home Office are best placed to make that judgement. At a minimum, the committee suggest that the English Language Requirement for the TSL is not lower than the pre-Immigration White Paper level of B1.

Nation specific additions to the TSL

The Home Office TSL commissioning letter asked us to consider the prospect of nation-specific TSLs as was the case with the Immigration Salary List (ISL). We observe however that nation-specific TSL’s would be a significantly different policy lever to devolved ISL/SOL lists which the MAC have recommended on in the past.

Fundamentally this is because of the nature of the TSL compared to the ISL/SOL. The TSL provides access to the visa system for occupations under its remit, while the ISL/SOL provided salary discounts and reduced fees to occupations already having access. All the UK’s constituent nations had access to migrant labour in occupations whether they were on the SOL/ISL or not.

In effect therefore a TSL which only included some occupations for certain nations would create a separate visa in different nations of the UK e.g. if welders were put on a Wales-only TSL but not the UK-wide TSL, someone on the TSL visa would only be able to work in Wales as a welder and not in the rest of the UK. This could create operational and policy risks, such as individuals claiming to work in Wales while actually residing or working in another region.

Equally we have concerns about the ability to assess shortages at devolved and regional levels because of inadequate data. We do however acknowledge that labour market conditions can differ significantly across the UK, so if compelling enough data and evidence can be provided then we are open to the inclusion of occupations at the devolved level. Given the operational and policy risks outlined, we keep the option open for nation-specific additions to the TSL but would have a high bar for inclusion.

Resident Labour Market Test

In general, the MAC have tended to argue against the imposition of a Resident Labour Market Test (RLMT), arguing that: “A robust approach to the salary thresholds and the Immigration Skill Charge are a better way [than the RLMT] to protect UK workers against the dangers of employers using migrant workers to under-cut UK-born”.^{[footnote 11]} This recommendation was made in the context of a Skilled Worker route dominated, at that time, by graduate level occupations.

In the MAC’s recent IT and engineering report we explained why we do not believe that the RLMT provides significant protection for domestic workers in professional occupations. Although recent evidence from Finland^{[footnote 12]} found that lifting labour market testing for non-EU workers reduced native wages by between 2% and 4%, these falls were primarily amongst low-wage and service orientated occupations suggesting that there could be some benefit to the RLMT in certain parts of the economy.

We do not have robust evidence on how a RLMT would affect TSL occupations. If the government wants to create a further firm-level disincentive for using migrant labour when compared to improving the domestic workforce, the reintroduction of a form of RLMT in the specific case of the TSL may do this by adding an extra cost to business in the use of migrant labour. This is distinct from the requirement to have a Jobs Plan for TSL access which provides sector-level incentives. The Committee had differing views on the merits of a RLMT in the context of the TSL and did not reach a consensus on whether an RLMT would be a good way to achieve the government’s goal of incentivising domestic recruitment in TSL occupations.    

Salary thresholds

We are reviewing salary thresholds and discounts across the Skilled Worker route in detail alongside this review and will report to the Home Secretary in December 2025. Here we set out initial conclusions to provide early clarity and support engagement as we begin Stage 2 of the TSL review.

The general threshold and occupation-specific thresholds serve different purposes. Occupation-specific thresholds prevent undercutting and encourage domestic hiring, while the general threshold improves workers’ fiscal contributions and ensures a minimum standard of living for those using the TSL.

Occupation-specific thresholds on the TSL should be set at least as high as they are on the Skilled Worker route. This is for several reasons. Primarily, firms using the TSL should be incentivised to employ and invest in domestic workers. Additionally, the nature of TSL occupations, being both in shortage and part of innovative and productive ‘growth-driving’ sectors, means wages should be rising.

The general threshold should ensure a minimum standard of living for users of the TSL and reduce the risk of fiscal cost to the taxpayer. We will confirm the exact level of this when publishing the response to our salary threshold review in December.

There should be no salary discounts on the TSL. A new entrant discount is not appropriate as the TSL is intended to allow employers to address short-term shortages, rather than to provide a path for younger migrant workers to enter the workforce. Workers who are already fully competent and need minimal additional training or experience are most suitable in this context. Given that the roles on the TSL are mid rather than high-skilled, any additional retraining or specialisation is likely to have shorter time requirements. The vast majority of pay-scale occupations are not eligible for the TSL, as they are not crucial to prioritised sectors.

Achieving policy aims

In making the above recommendations, we have sought to follow the objectives set out in IWP, in particular to reduce net migration and incentivise the use of domestic labour.

These incentives apply first at a sector level, with occupations having a fixed period on the TSL subject to certified Jobs Plans that seek to maximise use of the domestic workforce. Given the fragmented nature of sectors and the challenges of coordinating a fully unified strategy, as discussed in our report on IT and Engineering (p.82), we think incentives also need to apply at a firm-level, such as salary thresholds that limit undercutting of domestic workers, and visa fees and charges set at a reasonable level.

When all of the incentives and design aspects are combined, the policy also needs to avoid setting an impossibly high bar for the use of migration into RQF 3-5 occupations which risks delivery of government priorities including in prioritised sectors.

Chapter 2: Defining scope and identifying ‘crucial’ occupations

Summary

1. This chapter describes how we identified occupations that are potentially crucial to prioritised sectors.

2. First, we recommend refining the list of occupations currently treated as Regulatory Qualifications Framework 3-5 in the immigration system to more accurately reflect the skill level of the occupation.

3. Next, we analysed the prevalence of occupational employment within prioritised sectors. We considered crucial occupations to be those where 50% or more of employees are in prioritised sectors. This list was then supplemented with occupations identified through engagement with government departments representing key sectors.

Our overall approach is summarised in the diagram below, details of which will be explained in this chapter. Our recommended list of occupations defined as potentially crucial to prioritised sectors is included in Table 2.2 (on page 20).

Figure 2.1: Overview of defining scope and our method for identifying crucial occupations

Notes: (1) This includes care and senior care workers – who through access to Skilled Worker/Health and Care Worker visas were treated as if RQF 3-5 until July 2025 when they became ineligible to new overseas applicants.

(2) 50%+ in either pooled Annual Population Survey (APS) 2022-24 or Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) 2024 data. Analysis used the mapping of IS sectors to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 07 values published alongside the Industrial Strategy and considered the SIC 07 values for building critical infrastructure to be captured by the published SICs for Foundational Industries.

(3) Our assessment also considered whether occupations are on the interim Temporary Shortage List (TSL) and Skills England’s list of priority occupations. We also considered further analysis: concentration of employment within each prioritised sector, new hires rather than stocks of workers, and concentration of workers in geographic regions of the UK. Additional occupations arising from engagement with members of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council (ISAC) were also considered.

Defining Regulatory Qualification Framework (RQF) 3-5 Occupations

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) produces Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) frameworks to classify jobs. This categorises all jobs in the economy into a list of 412 occupations which have 4-digit codes – for example, the code 3532 represents insurance underwriters. The Regulatory Qualification Framework^{[footnote 13]} (RQF) defines the levels of different qualifications – for example an undergraduate degree is Level 6. The skill level of SOC 2020 occupations was determined by the Home Office to inform the April 2024 Immigration Rules changes^{[footnote 14]}, when the SOC code system used in the immigration system was updated from SOC 2010.

Occupations are assigned RQF levels based on a methodology set out in previous MAC reports.^{[footnote 15]}To be assessed to meet at a specific level, an occupation has to meet a threshold in at least two of three indicators: assignment of skill levels by the ONS, the share of employees in the occupation holding a qualification at or above the relevant level, and the hourly wage.

When implementing the update to SOC 2020, the Home Office chose to limit the impact of the updated classification framework where the reassessment could result in the skill level of occupations being downgraded.^{[footnote 16]}This meant that 31 occupations were assessed at RQF 1-2 but were treated as if they remained at RQF 3-5.^{[footnote 17]} A further five occupations were assessed at RQF 3-5 Level but were treated as if they remained at RQF 6+. This meant that whilst 152 occupations were objectively assessed at RQF 3-5, 178 occupations were treated at that level for the purposes of the immigration system (these occupations are highlighted in the tables published alongside this report in Annex A).

We recommend that this exceptional treatment should end and that occupations should be treated in the Immigration Rules according to their objective skill level. This means that 29 occupations^{[footnote 18]} which are currently treated as RQF 3-5 should be downgraded to RQF 1-2 and would no longer be eligible to be considered for the Temporary Shortage List (TSL).^{[footnote 19]} It also means that four occupations which are currently treated as RQF 6+ should be downgraded to RQF 3-5 and can be considered for the TSL.

Since SOC 2020 occupational skills levels were assessed to inform Spring 2024 Immigration Rules, Skills England has published a method for assessing the expected education level of occupations, for the purpose of identifying the most relevant training for entry into a given occupation. This provides a comparative measure to help assess occupational skill levels.

Of the five occupations assessed at RQF 3-5 level but maintaining eligibility for visas with RQF 6+ skills thresholds, only one occupation (2455 ‘Construction project managers and related professionals’) has both (i) a Skills England expected education level no lower than RQF 6+ and (ii) the highest skill level within ONS skills classifications reflecting “professional” occupations which typically require a degree.^{[footnote 20]} As such, we recommend occupation 2455 ‘Construction project managers and related professionals’ should be treated at an objective skill level of RQF 6+ for the purposes of the immigration system.

As a result of these recommendations, 151 occupations were identified as skilled at RQF 3-5 and in scope for consideration in this review. These are outlined in Annex A.

As outlined in the ‘Occupations deemed crucial and proceeding to Stage 2’ section below, only two of the 29 occupations^{[footnote 21]} recommended to be downgraded to RQF 1-2 would have met the threshold in quantitative analysis to be identified as crucial to prioritised sectors.

Identifying crucial occupations

Our approach to identifying occupations potentially crucial to prioritised sectors included both quantitative analysis and targeted engagement with sector experts across government.

Quantitative analysis

Quantitative analysis sought to identify occupations where the majority of employees, i.e. 50% or more employees, in that occupation work in prioritised sectors.

To define the sectors used in this analysis, we used the Standard Industrial Classification 2007 (SIC 2007) codes that were published for the eight Industrial Strategy sectors (the IS-8) in the ‘Industrial Strategy Sector Definitions List’ alongside the Industrial Strategy in June 2025. We noted this SIC 2007 mapping may be too broad in some cases, too restrictive in others, and some definitions are subject to refinement over time^{[footnote 22]}, but these were the best definitions available at the time.

We considered the Foundational Industries identified in the Industrial Strategy to be in scope of this review because they are defined as providing “critical inputs and infrastructure across the IS-8 sectors” and “important to unlocking growth” in the IS-8.^{[footnote 23]} We therefore included the published SIC 2007 codes for Foundational Industries in our analysis, noting similar challenges to the IS-8 with applying SIC definitions.^{[footnote 24]}

We covered the issues related to defining the building of critical infrastructure on page 6. Following desk-based research and engagement with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), we deemed the core activities for building critical infrastructure to be captured by the construction sector (SIC codes 41, 42, 43), plus architectural and engineering activities (SIC code 71.1). Construction as well as many relevant manufacturing activities (e.g. manufacture of basic metals) and inputs such as steel and composites are captured by the published SIC codes for Foundational Industries, while professional occupations including architecture, civil engineering and quantity surveying, are captured by the published IS-8 SIC codes for the Professional and Business Services sector (71 and 74). We therefore considered the core activities to build critical infrastructure as captured by the SIC 2007 codes already identified. This avoided the need for subjective judgement on including additional SIC codes such as warehousing where only a fraction of the activity is relevant for building critical infrastructure, but robust information on the shares of activity that are relevant is not available.

Importantly, quantitative analysis using these sector definitions was only the starting point in identifying potentially crucial occupations and engagement with government sector experts invited suggestions for any occupations that our analysis may have missed (as described in the next section).

We analysed both Annual Population Survey (APS) 2022-2024 pooled data and Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings data (ASHE) 2024 data, supplemented by additional consistency checks. We looked for occupations where 50% or more of employment occurred in the prioritised sectors. Our view is that prioritised sectors should compete with non-prioritised sectors for domestic workers where they employ a minority (<50%) of people in that occupation, for example in cross-economy occupations such as HR functions, especially given the Industrial Strategy sectors were identified as having higher growth and productivity than other sectors of the economy. More information on the approach to quantitative analysis can be found in Annex B.

Given data limitations, such as uncertainty in the quality of APS data, and imperfections of SIC sector definitions, quantitative analysis was used as a starting point in identifying all the occupations that are crucial to the prioritised sectors. Aside from data limitations, occupations may represent a small volume of the employees in prioritised sectors but still be crucial to delivering the activities or outputs of those sectors.

Targeted engagement across government

To identify additional occupations, we ran workshops with sector experts from across government departments in August 2025. We ran one session with each IS-8 sector except Defence (who provided written evidence) and a combined session on Foundational Industries and occupations crucial to building critical infrastructure. Outputs from the quantitative analysis were shared in advance of these workshops and we invited sectors to send written submissions afterwards to justify additional occupations. The full list of departments representing sectors in these meetings can be found in Annex C.

We assessed submissions on the basis of the strength of the argument and the quality of the supporting evidence. Any occupation put forward by government sector experts that is currently on the interim TSL[^25] or the Skills England list of priority occupations^{[footnote 26]} was deemed crucial. More convincing arguments in submissions may have illustrated that an occupation was a large part of the workforce of a particular sector, or a small part of a workforce but had a disproportionate impact on sector output. For example, building control occupations (within SOC 3581 ‘Inspectors of standards and regulations’) may be a very small share of the construction sector workforce but essential for signing-off new building projects. Occupations where a minority of employment is in the prioritised sectors, and we did not receive clear arguments about how or why the occupation was crucial to sector activity, are not deemed crucial and therefore not proceeding to Stage 2 of this review. In general, we were lenient and gave sectors the benefit of the doubt when unclear whether to take an occupation through to Stage 2.

Our provisional list of crucial occupations was discussed with members of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council (ISAC) for their views, especially any important omissions. We also shared the provisional list of occupations with government sector experts.

Occupations deemed crucial and proceeding to Stage 2

Table 2.2 lists the occupations we will take through to Stage 2 unless directed otherwise. Of the 151 occupations we consider in scope as RQF 3-5, we identified 82 occupations as potentially crucial to prioritised sectors. 58 of these are due to the majority of employment being in the prioritised sectors and a further 24 due to additional submissions from government sector experts.

Of these 82 occupations, 45 occupations are on the Interim TSL only, six are on the ISL only and five are on both the interim TSL and the ISL. The interim TSL included two occupations - 5232 ‘Vehicle body builders and repairers’ and 5233 ‘Vehicle paint technicians’ - which do not progress to Stage 2 of this review because they did not meet our 50% threshold and were not advocated for by any government sector experts. The ISL currently has 25 occupations, 14 of which we do not recommend progressing to Stage 2 (10 of these occupations are out of scope given their skill level and for the remaining four no arguments were made by stakeholders to progress these occupations to Stage 2).

Table 2.2: List of SOC 2020 occupations deemed potentially crucial to prioritised sectors

4-Digit Code	Occupation Title
1243	Managers in logistics
1257	Hire services managers and proprietors
1258	Directors in consultancy services
3111	Laboratory technicians
3112	Electrical and electronics technicians
3113	Engineering technicians
3114	Building and civil engineering technicians
3115	Quality assurance technicians
3116	Planning, process and production technicians
3119	Science, engineering and production technicians not elsewhere classified (n.e.c).
3120	CAD, drawing and architectural technicians
3131	IT operations technicians
3132	IT user support technicians
3133	Database administrators and web content technicians
3213	Medical and Dental Technicians
3411	Artists
3412	Authors, writers and translators
3413	Actors, entertainers and presenters
3414	Dancers and choreographers
3415	Musicians
3417	Photographers, audio-visual and broadcasting equipment operators
3421	Interior designers
3422	Clothing, fashion and accessories designers
3429	Design occupations n.e.c.
3512	Ship and hovercraft officers
3520	Legal associate professionals
3532	Insurance underwriters
3533	Financial and accounting technicians
3534	Financial accounts managers
3541	Estimators, valuers and assessors
3543	Project support officers
3544	Data analysts
3549	Business associate professionals n.e.c.
3552	Business sales executives
3554	Marketing associate professionals
3556	Sales accounts and business development managers
3571	Human resources and industrial relations officers
3573	Information technology trainers
3581	Inspectors of standards and regulations
3582	Health and safety managers and officers
4121	Credit controllers
4122	Book-keepers, payroll managers and wages clerks
4129	Financial administrative occupations n.e.c.
4132	Pensions and insurance clerks and assistants
4159	Other administrative occupations n.e.c.
4214	Company secretaries and administrators
5211	Sheet metal workers
5212	Metal plate workers, smiths, moulders and related occupations
5213	Welding Trades
5214	Pipe fitters
5221	Metal machining setters and setter-operators
5223	Metal working production and maintenance fitters
5224	Precision instrument makers and repairers
5225	Air-conditioning and refrigeration installers and repairers
5231	Vehicle technicians, mechanics and electricians
5234	Aircraft maintenance and related trades
5235	Boat and ship builders and repairers
5241	Electricians and electrical fitters
5242	Telecoms and related network installers and repairers
5243	TV, video and audio servicers and repairers
5244	Computer system and equipment installers and servicers
5245	Security system installers and repairers
5246	Electrical service and maintenance mechanics and repairers
5249	Electrical and electronic trades n.e.c.
5250	Skilled metal, electrical and electronic trades supervisors
5311	Steel erectors
5312	Stonemasons and related trades
5313	Bricklayers
5314	Roofers, roof tilers and slaters
5315	Plumbers & heating and ventilating installers and repairers
5316	Carpenters and joiners
5319	Construction and building trades n.e.c.
5321	Plasterers
5322	Floorers and wall tilers
5323	Painters and decorators
5330	Construction and building trades supervisors
5441	Glass and ceramics makers, decorators and finishers
8113	Chemical and related process operatives
8133	Energy plant operatives
8134	Water and sewerage plant operatives
8143	Routine inspectors and testers
9249	Elementary sales occupations n.e.c.

Table 2.2 assumes our recommendations on reclassification of occupation skills levels as set out in ‘Defining Regulatory Qualification Framework (RQF) 3-5 Occupations’ above will be accepted. We have not given thorough consideration to the occupations that are objectively RQF 1-2 but, if our recommendations are not accepted, the impact on the number of occupations considered in Stage 2 would likely be minimal. The following changes to the list of occupations in Table 2.2 would then be recommended:

1. Occupations 3415 ‘Musicians‘, 3534 ‘Financial accounts managers‘ and 3556 ‘Sales accounts and business development managers‘ would be treated as at RQF 6+ in the immigration system and therefore out of scope for the TSL and able to use the Skilled Worker route; and
2. Occupations 5317 ‘Glaziers, window fabricators and fitters‘ and 7214 ‘Market research interviewers‘ would be added to the list of recommended occupations in Table 2.2. Of the 29 occupations (i.e. excluding care and senior care workers) assessed at RQF 1-2 but which are currently treated as RQF 3-5 in the immigration system, these were the only two which met the primary indicator in quantitative analysis.

We will commence Stage 2 imminently in order to report in July 2026. We will proceed to Stage 2 on the basis of our recommendations from this stage including our interpretation of critical infrastructure and treatment of RQF levels. We ask the Home Office to advise us as soon as possible if they do not wish us to proceed on the basis of these recommendations.

We expect Jobs Plans to be produced by sector experts in government, as set out in the Industrial Strategy White Paper, to inform Stage 2 of this review. As well as reviewing these plans, we will proceed to assess the above occupations for evidence of shortage, the suitability of migration to reduce shortages and the risks of exploitation.

Chapter 3: Next steps

This report reflects the conclusion of Stage 1 of the Temporary Shortage List (TSL) review. We have made recommendations on the design of the TSL and the occupations that should proceed to Stage 2 of the review, these recommendations are listed across the report and are as below:

• We have made recommendations that would implement the Government’s vision of the TSL as a targeted, time-bound migration route to help address labour shortages in specific occupations crucial to prioritised sectors.
• We recommend ending the exceptional treatment in the immigration system applied to occupations that are not objectively assessed at RQF 3-5 level.
• We recommend occupation 2455 ‘Construction project managers and related professionals’ be treated at skill level of RQF 6+ for the purposes of the immigration system.
• We recommend 82 occupations proceed to Stage 2.

The list of 82 potentially crucial occupations proceeding to Stage 2 will be subject to further tests to be recommended for inclusion on the TSL at the end of Stage 2: whether the occupations are in shortage and whether they have an ambitious Jobs Plan in place, including a skills strategy, a plan to work with the Department for Work and Pensions on a domestic labour strategy, and steps to manage the risk of exploitation, particularly of migrant workers. We would not expect all 82 occupations to meet these tests and so expect to recommend a shorter list for inclusion on the TSL at the end of Stage 2. No occupation being taken through to Stage 2 should therefore assume that they will be recommended for actual inclusion on the TSL.

We will be undertaking quantitative data analysis of occupations proceeding to Stage 2 to provide contextual information for them, and to provide initial evidence on whether they face labour shortages and what could be driving shortages if they are present. Indicators are likely to include:

• Contextual information: historic use of the immigration system and trends in employee volumes.
• Information on presence and drivers of shortages: vacancy trends relative to workforce size; trends in hours worked; trends in earnings; trends in vacancy types (i.e. hard-to-fill, skills shortage or other); and trends in employee satisfaction (e.g. shares of employees reporting working on desired contract type or satisfactory hours).

We will be requesting Jobs Plans as a key aspect of the Call for Evidence (CfE) which we will be launching shortly. We have already been working with the Labour Market Evidence Group (LMEG) and the government teams that are responsible for plans on the content we hope to see. Further guidance, including how external stakeholders can input, will be published as part of the CfE. We note that the commissioning letter asks us to “apply the principles for inclusion on the TSL in relation to workforce plans as far as is reasonably possible at this time” and we intend to be pragmatic in what is reasonable over the timeframe available for this first TSL review.

The launch of the CfE will mark the start of Stage 2 of this review. When the CfE closes, we will scrutinise the submissions alongside other members of the LMEG and engage sector experts to ensure we understand submissions.

Stage 2 will conclude in July 2026 when we intend to publish recommendations to the Home Secretary on occupations to include on the TSL.

Annexes

Annex A – Occupation tables

Annex A is published as an excel attachment on the same web page as this report. It includes SOC 2020 occupations by measured skill level, whether the occupation appears on the Immigration Salary List (ISL), whether it appears on the interim Temporary Shortage List (TSL), is a Skills England Priority Occupation, our recommendation at the end of Stage 1, and out-of-country visa grants in the occupation in Skilled Worker / Health and Care routes in recent years.

Annex B – Method used in quantitative analysis

This annex sets out the methodology used for quantitative analysis used to identify occupations considered potentially crucial for prioritised sectors. As noted in the main body of this report, we combine our quantitative outputs with wider evidence to determine the final list of occupations potentially crucial to prioritised sectors.  

Analysis focussed on a primary indicator looking at ‘occupational importance across all prioritised sectors’ and ‘supplementary analysis’ used to test the consistency of findings in the primary indicator.

Any occupation passing the threshold in the primary indicator progressed to Stage 2 without the need for additional evidence, whereas additional occupations flagged via ‘supplementary analysis’ were used alongside wider evidence to inform the final list of occupations.

Occupational importance across all prioritised sectors

Our primary indicator to determine whether an occupation is ‘crucial’ to prioritised sectors was assessed by calculating the share of employees in each RQF 3-5 occupation who worked in prioritised sectors. 

We concluded an occupation to be crucial to prioritised sectors if this share was above 50% - i.e. the majority of an occupation’s employees work in prioritised sectors. For occupations below the threshold, it is expected that prioritised sectors should compete for labour with the rest of the domestic economy rather than require consideration for access to the migration system to supply labour.  

All occupations that passed the primary indicator using either the Annual Population Survey (APS) or Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) datasets were considered crucial to prioritised sectors. 

58 occupations were identified via passing this primary indicator. Whilst this indicator applied a ‘hard’ threshold at 50%, there were 17 RQF 3-5 occupations that had at least 40% of their employees work in prioritised sectors in either APS or ASHE analysis and thus did not pass the primary indicator in either of the datasets. Of these 17, 12 are recommended to progress to Stage 2 on the strength of supporting evidence provided for them.

Supplementary analysis

Supplementary analysis was undertaken to assess whether additional dimensions of analysis produced results consistent with the primary indicator. These dimensions included examining employment within individual sectors rather than prioritised sectors as a whole, focusing on recent starters, and considering English Regions and Devolved Nations. Where additional occupations were identified through this analysis, they were reviewed alongside wider supplementary evidence to determine whether the occupation was crucial to the prioritised sectors.

Individual prioritised sector occupational importance

This analysis provided an individual sectoral focus – identifying occupations that may be crucial to specific prioritised sectors but not when looking across prioritised sectors as a whole. 

Analysis identified occupations in the top five RQF 3-5 occupations by number of employees for at least one of the prioritised sectors and accounted for at least 1% of all employees in that individual sector. 

New hires

Analysis for the primary indicator was repeated for recent joiners, to assess flows as well as stocks of employees. We define new hires as individuals joining their current employer within the same or previous year of the year they were surveyed.

Regional analysis

Finally, we conducted regional level analysis, again repeating analysis for the primary indicator, this time focussed on stocks of employees within each English region and Devolved Nation. From this we identified whether there are occupations considered crucial in specific English regions or Devolved Nations. 

Data sources

We used two datasets, APS and ASHE. Two data sets were used to mitigate the uncertainty attached with survey micro data, due to recent declines in response rates, for example. We used a pooled version of APS, combining three surveys from 2022-2024 to boost sample sizes and for ASHE we used the 2024 data. In comparison to the single year 2024 APS, the pooled APS and ASHE datasets have at least twice the observations for employees aged 16+ as outlined in Table B.1 below. We focus only on employees in this analysis, filtering APS data to reflect this (ASHE data is employees only by default) as the main work visas (i.e. Skilled Worker and Health and Care Worker) operate via employer-employee sponsorship. Analysis for the primary indicator and individual sectoral focus was undertaken in both datasets, whilst work for new hires and geography was only undertaken using APS data. 

Prioritised sectors are identified in the data using the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) values published alongside the Industrial Strategy and a bespoke definition for critical infrastructure. Occupations are identified at the 4-digit level in line with the policy design within the migration system.

Table B.1. Comparison of volume of observations in different sources

Source	Year(s)	All observations	Filtering for Employees aged 16+
Annual Population Survey	2024	160,000	60,000
Annual Population Survey	2022-2024	320,000	120,000
Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings	2024	170,000	170,000

Note: Data is rounded to the nearest 5,000.

Limitations  

As noted above, the quantitative analysis used multiple sources, employed consistency checks through applying different lenses through which to frame analysis, and was used in conjunction with wider evidence to constrain the impact of limitations in quantitative analysis in identifying occupations crucial to prioritised sectors. Some of the limitations sought to be overcome are noted below.

Sector definitions

The published Industrial Strategy Sector Definitions note limitations in the ability to use SIC 07, such as SIC 07 may not “capture the detail and fast-changing nature of (a) sector”, “many SIC codes are too high-level to define activity”, and definitions will be tested and iterated over time, meaning the quantitative analysis relies on imperfect proxies for sector definitions.

Notes on data quality

Both data sources used in quantitative analysis are sample survey data, meaning they are reliant on the sampling and weighting processes for these surveys returning representative samples of employees in the UK labour market with accurate grossing factors applied to estimate outcomes at a population level.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) have highlighted limitations in these data sources. In particular, in October 2024 the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) agreed to ONS’ request to suspend the accreditation of ONS outputs using APS data, where data quality had been particularly affected by “declining survey response rates” in the related Labour Force Survey (LFS) from which APS data is partly derived, and a “need to review and update the weighting approach used in the APS”.

The ONS highlight their “view on the quality of the APS is that, while it is robust for national and headline regional estimates, there are concerns with the quality of estimates for smaller segments of the population”. As such, where quantitative estimates focus on smaller population segments (new hires and geography) a minimum of 15 observations for the occupation is needed to be seen for results to be considered within wider evidence. At the national level, small sample sizes were only seen in two occupations assessed as meeting the primary indicator and given the scope for challenge via workshops and uncertainty as to whether larger sample sizes would affect outcomes no minimum number of observations was imposed.

Outputs from ASHE data maintain accredited official statistics status, and whilst affected by smaller sample sizes achieved post the coronavirus pandemic saw sample sizes in 2024 of 173,000 compared to around 180,000 before the coronavirus pandemic. Nevertheless, data is not perfect and ONS have noted discrepancies between ASHE and other earnings data, with ongoing methodological improvements planned.

Annex C - List of engagement with government departments

Between July and October 2025, we undertook significant stakeholder engagement across government to feed into our conclusions. Engagements were designed to provide information and gather evidence from relevant government departments. Specific engagements included:

• Stakeholder forums with our cross-government and external stakeholders where we provided an overview of this work;
• Workshops with the government departments responsible for IS-8 sectors, critical infrastructure and Foundational Industries, including:
  • Department for Business and Trade (DBT) on the Advanced Manufacturing and Professional and Business Services sectors;
  • Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) on the Creative Industries sector;
  • Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) on the Clean Energy sector;
  • Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) on the Digital and Technology Sector;
  • His Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) on the Financial Services sector; and,
  • Office for Life Sciences (OLS) on the Life Sciences sector.
• DBT, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Department for Transport (DfT), and the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) to discuss occupations relevant to the building of critical infrastructure and the Foundational Industries;
• Ministerial-level meetings with Devolved Governments; and,
• Visa design discussions with the Home Office to understand the operational context.

1. See Statement of changes to the Immigration Rules: HC 997, 1 July 2025 - GOV.UK ↩

2. See Migration Advisory Committee: annual report, 2022 - GOV.UK and Review of the shortage occupation list 2023 - GOV.UK ↩

3. Further information on our definition can be found in Chapter 2. ↩

4. Skilled Worker visa: temporary shortage list - GOV.UK ↩

5. Migration Advisory Committee report on net migration (2025) ↩

6. Skilled Worker route evaluation - GOV.UK. Based on an online survey with 1,016 respondents holding a Skilled Worker visa and residing in the UK, with the online survey carried out between 5 November and 9 December 2024. Respondents were asked ‘What attracted you to working in the UK?’. ↩

7. Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) report: EEA migration - GOV.UK ↩

8. Pardos-Prado, S. (2022). “Migrant economic integration”. Centre for Open Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/rzm6n ↩

9. MAC analysis of APS (2022-2024). Note data limitations as set out in Annex B. ↩

10. Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) report: EEA migration - GOV.UK ↩

11. Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) report: EEA migration - GOV.UK ↩

12. Regulating Labor Immigration: The Effects of Lifting Labor Market Testing (2024) ↩

13. Qualification levels are outlined at What qualification levels mean: England, Wales and Northern Ireland - GOV.UK ↩

14. See EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN IMMIGRATION RULES PRESENTED TO PARLIAMENT ON 14 MARCH 2024 (HC 590) ↩

15. See paragraphs 2.4 to 2.18 of ‘Review of the shortage occupation list 2020 - GOV.UK’, and paragraph 2.32 of ‘Microsoft Word - January report 023.doc’ for details ↩

16. See paragraphs 39 and 106 of 2024 spring Immigration Rules impact assessment for an explanation of criteria used to identify those occupations subject to this treatment ↩

17. Note the 31 occupations includes care workers and senior care workers which as of July 2025 are no longer open to new overseas applicants. ↩

18. Excluding care and senior care workers from this count of occupations due to Immigration Rules changes in July 2025 meaning they are no longer open to new overseas applicants. ↩

19. Of these 29 occupations, none of these are on the interim TSL and three of these are on the ISL currently (in addition care and senior care workers are also on the ISL but no longer open to new overseas applicants). ↩

20. See Table 1 of SOC 2020 Volume 1: structure and descriptions of unit groups - Office for National Statistics ↩

21. Excluding care and senior care workers which are ineligible for new overseas applicants in Skilled Worker / Health and Care Worker routes as of July 2025. ↩

22. Industrial Strategy Technical Annex, page 23. ↩

23. Industrial Strategy Sector Definitions List - GOV.UK; The UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy page 42. ↩

24. Published SIC codes for defining Industrial Strategy Sectors include some such as ‘SIC 2399: Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products not elsewhere classified’ where it is noted the SIC code may include elements outside of the Composites sub-sector it is used to represent. Analysis included these elements to ensure the Industrial Strategy elements are covered, even if also including wider areas of activity. ↩

25. The list is published in the July Immigration Rules changes: Statement of changes to the Immigration Rules: HC 997, 1 July 2025 - GOV.UK. ↩