More than 60 Transport for London (TfL) employees, many of whom have built their lives and careers in the UK, now face possible deportation following sweeping changes to the country’s skilled worker visa rules. The new regulations, which came into effect on July 22, 2025, have sent shockwaves through London’s transport community and reignited debates about the government’s approach to immigration, fairness, and the future of essential public services.
According to BBC News, the revised visa rules raise the salary threshold for sponsorship and remove several key transport roles from the eligible list, leaving scores of TfL staff in a precarious position. The changes, which will remain in effect until at least the end of 2026, mean that many of these workers—who arrived on skilled worker visas—no longer qualify to stay in the UK. TfL’s starting salary for graduates stands at £31,000, while trainee station staff earn between £35,300 and £41,800. The new minimum salary threshold is £41,700, meaning that even some experienced staff are now only just above the line—or, in many cases, fall short.
The impact of these changes isn’t just a matter of numbers or policy. For those affected, the consequences are deeply personal and, in some cases, devastating. One anonymous employee, speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, described the emotional toll: “What did I do wrong? What did any of my 60 colleagues facing the same fate, do wrong? I have seen them go above and beyond their normal work duties, even preventing vulnerable members of the travelling public from committing suicide on the network. Getting the news that my job was now not on a list which would make me eligible to stay in the country, has taken an enormous toll on me and my family. It was like a nuclear bomb going off in our household.”
Union leaders and London Assembly members have been quick to criticize the new rules. Eddie Dempsey, general secretary of the RMT union, told BBC News, “Our members took these jobs in good faith, on the understanding that they could progress and continue building their futures here. Now the new government rules risk shattering these workers’ lives and leaving gaps in employment for London Underground.”
Political figures have echoed these concerns. Hina Bokhari, leader of the London Assembly’s Liberal Democrat group, called the move “unfair and short-sighted,” emphasizing the city’s reliance on the skills and commitment of these staff. Caroline Russell of the Green Party went even further, urging the government to “withdraw these cruel changes that are going to ruin lives by sending away the workers London depends upon.”
For its part, TfL has said it is “working with all colleagues affected by the changes… to understand whether they have other routes to work in the UK available to them and to support them where possible.” But as the rules stand, options for many appear limited. According to the RMT, a significant number of the affected staff joined TfL on two-year graduate visa schemes, believing they could transition to skilled worker positions later—a path now largely blocked by the new salary requirements and the removal of their roles from the eligible list.
The Home Office, defending the changes, stated that the immigration white paper aims to “restore order” to the system. “Under this approach, every sector will be required to implement a workforce strategy focused on training British workers, or risk losing access to the immigration system, as part of wider efforts to reinforce the integrity of the points-based system and end dependence on lower-skilled international recruitment.”
The debate over fairness and the balance between immigration control and economic need is not limited to the transport sector. Another government-commissioned report, this time from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), has turned the spotlight on gender disparities in another essential public service: driving tests. According to a study conducted by TRL and reported by the Evening Standard, male candidates have consistently outperformed their female counterparts in the practical driving test since 2007. Male pass rates have ranged from 47% to 55%, while female rates have hovered between 41% and 48%.
The TRL study found that female candidates’ performance is more likely to be influenced by the examiner’s demeanor, potentially leading to increased anxiety that is unrelated to actual driving ability. The report recommends that examiners ask candidates at the outset whether they would prefer a “chatty” or “formal” approach, in hopes of reducing gender-related anxiety and improving outcomes for female candidates. Interviews with learners, instructors, and examiners revealed a spectrum of preferences and concerns: while some candidates found a lack of pleasantries intimidating, others worried that a “really chatty examiner” could be distracting.
Emma Bush, managing director of AA Driving School, summed up the dilemma: “It is probably asking a lot of examiners to act ‘formal’ or ‘chatty’ on demand. Candidates probably don’t want a sergeant major nor a comedian examining them. What all candidates want is a reassuring voice and presence, combined with a fair and professional approach to the test.”
Interestingly, the study found no evidence that the gender of the examiner has a direct impact on candidate experience. It also noted that female candidates are more likely than males to pass the theory test, a trend attributed to greater preparation. However, the practical test presents more hurdles, both financially and logistically. As the report states, arranging subsequent attempts at the practical test involves more money and effort than the theory test—suggesting that changes to the structure or pricing of the theory test could help address the imbalance.
The DVSA, for its part, is taking the recommendations seriously. A spokesperson told the Evening Standard: “This is an important piece of research by TRL and we’re now reviewing the considerations put forward to reduce inequality in driver testing in Great Britain, and help us further develop the guidance available to learner drivers as they prepare for their tests.”
Meanwhile, aspiring drivers face their own set of challenges. As of June 30, 2025, the average waiting time for a driving test in Britain was 22.3 weeks—a delay attributed to increased demand and earlier bookings. Officials hope that ramping up the number of tests conducted will help bring waiting times down, but for many, the wait is yet another hurdle in an already stressful process.
Both stories—one about visa rules, the other about driving test fairness—highlight the complex intersections of policy, personal ambition, and social equity in modern Britain. As government agencies, unions, and advocacy groups grapple with the consequences of these changes, the real impact is felt most acutely by individuals: the Tube staff who wonder if they’ll be forced to leave the city they serve, and the learner drivers anxious to prove themselves on the road. Their experiences offer a window into the broader questions facing the UK as it navigates the challenges of a changing workforce and a society striving for fairness.
As the dust settles on these policy shifts, the coming months will reveal whether the promised benefits—restored order, increased fairness, and a stronger workforce—materialize, or whether the costs, both personal and public, prove too high to bear.