Not yet settled? Assessing the government’s new policy on indefinite leave to remain

The government outlined wide-ranging reforms to work, study and family routes, with the intention of bringing down net migration following a post-pandemic surge in numbers. This job has been made substantially easier by last week’s figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), which revealed that net migration fell by half between 2023 and 2024, largely as a result of changes made under the previous government. 

A number of the proposals in the government’s white paper are welcome. The points-based system will be redesigned to try to incentivise employers to invest in domestic training and improve wages and conditions where they have labour shortages.  The new Labour Market Evidence Group will help to establish a more data-driven approach to coordinating immigration, skills and workforce policy.  And action will be taken to tackle the risk of migrant exploitation, including by potentially making it easier for people on the skilled worker route to switch employers.  

But there is more to do to develop an evidence-based, strategic framework for immigration policy which resonates with the public and manages complex trade-offs in an era of mobility and change. 

In particular, one area of the white paper which has caused significant controversy is the proposal to extend the default qualifying period for securing settlement from five years to 10. Settlement – also known as indefinite leave to remain (ILR) – is a crucial step on someone’s journey to UK citizenship. While not the same as citizenship, it affords the right to live, work and study in the UK without restriction. It also removes the restriction on accessing mainstream benefits (known as No Recourse to Public Funds or NRPF) which applies to most people on temporary visas. This gives people a secure foundation to put down roots, integrate into their communities, and pursue long-term career goals – for instance, by allowing them to move into new jobs without needing to reapply for a visa. 

There is also evidence from other countries that indefinite leave to remain can bring economic benefits. For instance, research in Canada has found that, for those with open work permits, acquiring settlement is associated with a jump in both employment rates and earnings. A US study on settlement found that, when migrant workers are no longer tied to their employers, they have greater job mobility, which (in the case of male workers) increases their wages. 

Lengthening the route to settlement therefore risks holding up migrant integration and significantly expanding the group of people in the UK with insecure status. As IPPR found previously in our report on the existing 10 year pathway to settlement – which currently only applies to people on specific human rights routes – the long wait to secure ILR can place pressures on household budgets, make it harder to find stable work, and prevent people from feeling properly settled. And as our report argued, the need for additional visa extensions and the significant costs associated with applying increase the risk that people miss the window for extending and end up without status altogether, making them susceptible to exploitation and destitution. 

Moreover, a lengthier pathway to settlement is out of step with the public’s instincts, which lean toward a five year over a 10-year route. According to the 2024 British Social Attitudes Survey, 84 per cent of the public believe that migrants who are working and paying taxes in the UK should be able to access the same welfare benefits as UK citizens after five years or less. Similarly, 78 per cent believe that migrants should be able to gain the same rights to political participation as UK citizens after no more than five years. 

Any reforms to settlement will therefore need to be carefully considered. Most urgently, clarity is needed for those currently living in the UK, many of whom are concerned that they may now face a 10-year wait to secure ILR. This will strike many as unfair given they originally came to the UK on the basis they would be eligible for settlement after five years, not 10. Our estimates suggest that as many as 1.7 million people in the UK were in the UK on a route to settlement at the end of last year and could now be forced to wait a further five years (10 years in total) to get ILR under the government’s plans (see table 1). This figure is largely made up of people on worker visas, refugees, and Hongkongers on the British National (Overseas) (BN(O)) route. These groups are effectively in limbo: they do not know what the new rules will be, how they will be affected, or how long they will have to wait to get settlement and citizenship. 

Table 1: People with valid leave to remain who are on a route to settlement but do not yet have ILR at end of 2024*

Source: Migrant Journey 2024 

Another crucial aspect of the policy is the idea of ‘earned settlement’ – some people will be able to reduce the qualifying period for ILR from 10 years based on their ‘contributions to the UK economy and society’. 

There are a number of ways this policy could be implemented in practice. If contributions are crudely understood only through a fiscal lens – that is, based on the income or net fiscal contribution of individuals – then this will not chime with public perceptions, which often value the contribution of those in essential roles, such as NHS staff and care workers, more than those earning higher salaries. Moreover, such an approach risks entrenching child poverty by making it harder for people with dependent children, especially those on lower incomes, to qualify for settlement – with implications for the government’s forthcoming child poverty strategy. 

On the other hand, if contributions are understood in a multifaceted way which recognises social as well as fiscal impact – as the white paper hints at – this provides an opportunity for a policy which encourages integration, rather than inhibits it. For instance, people who are able to demonstrate exceptional integration – eg through volunteering or playing an active role in their community – could obtain settlement more quickly, following a similar approach introduced by the last German government when reforming their citizenship laws. 

The government has said that it will consult on its plans later this year. This will be a vital opportunity for shaping a pro-integration agenda on settlement and citizenship. But in the meantime, the government should try to clarify its position on how the policy will apply to people already here. Providing certainty would help to establish trust and confidence in the immigration system for the many hundreds of thousands who want to make the UK their home. 

*Notes: the table includes only categories which provide a route to settlement; other categories such as the sponsored study and graduate routes and the Ukraine schemes are excluded.  

The ‘dependants joining or accompanying’ category is also excluded as some of this group will not have a route to settlement and a further breakdown is not possible. Family routes are excluded as the white paper indicates that some family members will continue to be offered a shorter path to settlement.  

A relatively small number of people in the worker category will be intra-company transfers without a right to settlement, but there is no way of excluding them.  

People who are more than five years into their migrant journey have been removed as they may be able to apply for settlement before any rule change is implemented (though not all will yet be eligible given some will have switched into routes to settlement from other routes). 

These figures are estimates because a valid visa with leave to remain does not necessarily mean that someone is living in the UK.