UK Immigration White Paper Series – Part 7: Indefinite Leave to Remain and Citizenship
On 12 May 2025, the Home Office published its latest white paper, Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, outlining a series of proposed reforms to the UK’s immigration framework. Arguably one of the most controversial of the proposed changes is the increase in the number of years required for settlement, from five to ten years, for several immigration routes.
For a large majority of routes, including the Skilled Worker, Family and Innovator, spending five years of continuous residence in the UK renders you eligible to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (“ILR”) in the UK, providing you meet the additional eligibility requirements. Successful applicants are able to obtain permanent residency, access to public funds and the right to work and study without restrictions. Yet, as Kier Starmer so poignantly stated in his speech on 12 May, this is a privilege not a right. If the intended changes are enacted, obtaining settlement will become much harder, possible only for those who have continuously resided in the UK for up to 10 years.
Why the change?
It appears the UK government’s reason for this increase is to support their wider aim of reducing net migration. The technical annex attached to the white paper suggests this change may reduce migration by as much as 24,000.
The Government also believes many being granted ILR are not sufficiently integrated into society, with Yvette Cooper in her foreword stating ‘where the pace of migration is too fast, or where integration is too weak, it can make it harder to maintain community bonds and relationships’. However, it is this ‘contribution’ and so called ‘earned settlement’ that is leaving many uncertain.
Earned Settlement
In paragraph 263 of the white paper, the Government claims the current criteria for ILR does not reflect their strongly held belief that people should contribute to the economy and society prior to being granted ILR. While they propose to increase the qualifying period from 5 to 10 years, they do however intend to introduce measures allowing individuals to reduce their qualifying period based on their contributions to the UK economy and society. The proposal is that migrants can ‘earn their right to privileged immigration status in the UK through the long-term contribution they bring to our country’.
There are numerous issues with these proposals.
Firstly, the nature of the contribution is unknown. One of the most obvious and easiest metrics to measure would be tax, particularly given the white paper’s reference to increased collaboration with HMRC (see paragraph 231). Simply put, those who have paid more tax into the UK have, at least in a fiscal sense, directly contributed more to the UK economy.
However, this would create a worrying narrative, whereby those on higher income jobs would naturally pay more tax and reach settlement faster. This could potentially become discriminatory in nature against those on lower incomes or with less opportunities. Whilst financial requirements are increasing across visa routes, the UK does not currently have a ‘golden visa’ in place, especially following the abolition of the Investor Visa route in 2022. However, these measures are perhaps the start of a return to financial based residency.
Secondly, the proposed expansion of the Points-Based system does not provide any further indications of which contributions will be included, especially given the wide scope that ‘UK society’ has. Will charitable endeavours be included? Memberships of any UK societies or groups? Will a measure of integration into UK society be implemented? These seem subjective in nature and thus difficult to imagine what form this would take. Additionally, to what extent will contributions reduce the migrant’s qualifying period. Will contributions reduce the qualifying period back to the original five-year threshold, or even further? Unfortunately, no specific guidance has been provided at this stage and the UK government leave the question open ended, by stating “we will consult on these changes later this year”.
A third issue with this change is the message it sends and the narrative it propels, a concern mirrored throughout our Immigration White Paper series. Paragraphs 259 to 267 of the white paper imply that current migrants on five-year routes to settlement are not sufficiently contributing to the UK and have not done enough to earn the ‘privilege’ of ILR. The idea that migrants do not contribute to the UK and are a drain upon the country’s resources is a simplistic and largely incorrect outlook.
The majority of migrants on a Points-Based System visa route are not permitted to access public funds, meaning they receive no benefits or welfare support. In fact, they are required to contribute towards UK institutions, such as the NHS through the Immigration Health Surcharge, costing £1,035 a year. Additionally, a number of these routes are work based routes, meaning individuals are required to pay income tax, national insurance and other potential UK taxes. This does not even factor in the government application fees which, for a Skilled Worker visa, can be up to £1,751 per application, nor the legal fees which are all but necessary considering the complex requirements for such applications. Extending the qualifying period for ILR will require most migrants to make at least two additional applications before they are eligible for ILR, meaning more government fees, more legal fees, and more taxes paid. When considering this, it is difficult to understand the UK government’s concern of a lack of contribution by migrants on the Points-Based System.
Who will these changes effect?
It is worth mentioning the Government has announced exceptions to this proposal. For example, dependants of British Citizens will still be able to qualify for ILR via the five-year route, as well as EU nationals with residence rights under the EU Settlement Scheme.
The ambiguity in who these measures will affect, and a cause for real concern, is those already in the UK with limited leave to remain. The white paper does not explicitly clarify whether these measures will only affect new applicants, or those already in the UK. Concerningly, in a statement released about the white paper, Yvette Cooper stated ‘we want the settlement rules to be amended as swiftly as possible and to apply widely’. Additionally, the technical annex attached to the white paper notes ‘a number of those currently in the UK are likely to leave due to it taking longer to gain settled status’. The BBC and Financial Times have both reported unattributed sources which believe the intention is for this measure to affect those currently in the UK. As such, it seems the Government may intend for those already in the UK with leave to remain to comply with the new qualifying period of up to ten years and earned settlement.
This would be an immensely controversial and potentially challengeable change. In 2008, in the case of HSMP Forum Ltd v SoSHD, the High Court ruled that applying new rules retrospectively to individuals who had already been granted leave was unfair and unlawful. The court stated that migrants had a legitimate and fair expectation that the rules under which they were initially granted leave would continue to apply to them. The government should therefore be careful in its implementation of ‘earned settlement’, to prevent an avoidable case of history repeating itself.
Earned Citizenship
In the white paper, the Government also briefly touched upon citizenship, announcing an intention to apply the earned settlement model here as well. These changes will come alongside modifications to the current Life in the UK test, and the reduction of financial barriers for young adults who have lived in the UK since childhood.
Likely many of the concerns raised in this article regarding the nature of ‘contributions’ and the reductions to the qualifying period will be applicable here. It remains to be seen if the consultation promised later this year will provide further clarity.
Final Thoughts
In conclusion, the white paper’s proposals regarding settlement and citizenship have certainly ruffled feathers. Migrants and lawyers alike are left uncertain of the nature of these changes and how best to adapt. The consultation later this year will hopefully provide more detail on the Government’s proposals, in order for the changes to be assessed more accurately.
Whether these proposals will be challenged on discriminatory or precedent grounds remains to be seen, but what is for certain is the UK’s qualifying period for settlement now ranks amongst one of the highest, losing out to our European neighbours France, Germany and Spain, and even the United States. This will likely prompt prospective migrants to consider investing their considerable talent in other countries over the UK.
