header-logo header-logo

02 September 2022
Issue: 7992 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Employment
printer mail-detail

Will the ‘Scale-up’ visa make a difference?

The Home Office has launched a ‘Scale-up’ visa route to help businesses recruit highly skilled employees

The two-year visa, available from 22 August, is aimed at ‘Scale-ups’―young, fast-growing, innovation-driven companies, as opposed to ‘start-ups’, which are recently established companies with potential to grow. To qualify, scale-ups should have a turnover or growth rate of more than 20% for the past three years and have at least ten employees at the start of the three-year period.

According to employment and immigration lawyer Gillian McKearney, senior associate, Fieldfisher, the individual will need to be sponsored for the first six months only and must be in a highly skilled role, earning at least £33,000 per year and at least £10.58 per hour.

Joanna Hunt, head of immigration at Fieldfisher, said: ‘With the headlines still dominated by stories of industry sectors struggling to source talent, the news of another launch of a new visa by the government would appear to offer some welcome relief.

‘However, the Scale-up visa is unlikely to have a major impact on companies facing recruitment challenges, particularly those who need to recruit low skilled workers.’

Hunt said the application process would be ‘less onerous’ than other sponsor licence applications but was still ‘a time and cost commitment which inhibits how responsive an employer can be when they have a new candidate they want to hire.

‘The other big issue with the scale up visa is that it will allow a visa holder to become “unsponsored” within six months, meaning they can freely move to any other employer.

‘It is also likely to mean a greater use of clawback clauses in employment contracts by employers to try and recoup visa costs from workers who leave a business early to try and incentivise them to stay. But the increased use of clawbacks is controversial as it could lead to workers being exploited by underhand employers.’
Issue: 7992 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll