Breaking down the debate: 5-Year vs 10-Year ILR qualifying period

On Monday, MPs debated the Government’s recent proposal to extend the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) from five years to ten years for some visa categories. 

What are the proposed changes? 

On 12 May 2025, the Home Office published its latest white paper ‘Restoring Control Over the Immigration System’ which set out a number of proposed reforms to the UK’s immigration system, some of which have now been implemented. 

Amongst this was the major announcement of increasing the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) for some visa categories from five years (as it is currently) to ten years. 

The proposal included the introduction of an “earned settlement” model, which would allow individuals to reduce their qualifying period based on their contributions to the UK economy and society. There would also be exemptions for certain groups (e.g. partners of British citizens, victims of domestic abuse, and those under the EU Settlement Scheme route).

For those who would be affected, including Skilled Workers, the proposed increase raises huge concerns. 

We explore the implications below, and some of the arguments in favour and against increasing the qualifying period. 

Arguments against increasing the qualifying period 

• Cost 

A big part of this debate are the cost implications of increasing the qualifying period. 

A Skilled Worker migrant, for example, must hold a valid visa in the UK throughout the period before they can qualify for ILR. This comes with a number of associated costs, which have increased year upon year. 

Based on current fees, here is a breakdown of how the costs will compare for the 5-year period vs the 10-year period:

As you’ll see, the increase to the qualifying period will have huge implications to fees which are already high – and bear in mind, this is just the cost for the Skilled Worker applicant – if they want to bring a partner and/or children to the UK too, they will also have to pay the application fee, IHS and any priority fees for any dependants. 

As well as this, many individuals will need legal assistance with their application, as the Immigration Rules have become increasingly complex with the many changes implemented over recent years. 

You may ask yourself, would you pay, or be able to pay, this amount in order to relocate to the UK? 

• Economic and social impact 

Skilled Workers are already contributing to the UK economy, paying taxes, and working in critical sectors like healthcare, social care, and research. Extending the ILR period could discourage skilled migrants from staying or coming to the UK, harming a variety of sectors and reducing the UK’s ability to attract global talent.

The changes could undermine employer confidence in recruiting from overseas, leading to difficulty filling roles in the UK, likely causing further disruption to sectors which are already facing labour shortages after Brexit.

A shorter route to ILR could also support faster integration into UK society. Many migrants are already volunteering, working, and participating in civic life, and extending the route could delay integration.  

• Fairness

It has been widely argued that changing the rules for those already on the five-year route would be unfair and destabilising and would undermine trust in the UK’s immigration system.

Migrants have made life decisions – such as selling homes, uprooting family, enrolling children in schools, and investing in UK businesses – based on the expectation that they will be able to settle in the UK after completing a five-year period.

As one MP stated in the debate on Monday: “it feels – as one person put it to me – like ‘running a marathon and halfway through realising the rules have changed’.”

Arguments in favour of increasing the qualifying period

So, given all of this, what are the arguments in favour of increasing the qualifying period? 

It has been widely argued that legal migration levels are too high and that the Government is right to seek better control. A longer ILR pathway is seen as a tool to manage migration more effectively and reduce long-term settlement numbers.

With the proposed “earned settlement” model, it is debated by some that the increase aligns with the principle that settlement is a privilege, not a right, and should be based on sustained contribution.

Some have argued that the current five-year route may be too short and open to abuse, allowing individuals to settle without sufficient integration or contribution. Therefore, a longer qualifying period may act as a filter to ensure only those genuinely committed to the UK gain permanent status.

But given the vast implications above, are these arguments strong enough to justify doubling the qualifying period? Is this increase going to restore public trust in the immigration system? Or is it going to cause much more harm than good?

At the beginning of the debate on Monday, MP Ben Goldsborough said the following:

“Managed migration, done well, strengthens us. It grows our economy, it enriches our culture and it gives us the diplomatic heft to punch above our weight on the world stage.

Government’s response 

The Government has said that a consultation will be held later in 2025 before any changes are implemented, and that the current ILR rules remain unchanged for now.

They advised that they are listening to concerns and will consider impact assessments and diplomatic consequences. 

So, the anxious wait for many individuals continues for now, and we will be keeping you up to date with any further announcements.

You can find a transcript of the debate here and a video here. You can also read our detailed discussion on the white paper in our article here.