UK permanent residence: why 10

The UK is preparing to tighten its path to permanent residence, with plans to double the eligibility period for most migrants and extend it even further for some groups. But researchers and campaigners say that these changes will not yield the results the government expects.

The proposals, led by Shabana Mahmood, will increase the standard wait (ILR) for indefinite leave to remain from five years to ten years. For some groups, including people claiming public funds, the wait can extend to 20 years or more.

Eligibility rules will also become strict. Immigrants must show a clean criminal record, meet high English language standards and earn more than £12,570 a year for at least three years.

What is changing in ILR rules?

Under the proposed system, the ten-year baseline will change depending on the profile of the migrant:

• High-skilled staff such as NHS doctors and nurses, or those earning more than £125,140, ​​can qualify sooner, in three to five years.

• Family visa holders or those who integrate through activities such as volunteering can qualify in five to seven years

• Low-skilled workers will start in 15 years

• Refugees face a 20-year path unless they move to work or study

• People who have claimed benefits can wait up to 20 years

• People who enter illegally or overstay their visas could face a wait of up to 30 years

Dependents, family visa holders and refugees are expected to be most affected, especially where full-time employment is less consistent.

Why is the government changing the rules?

The Home Office has pointed to rising disposal numbers as the reason for the improvement. Around 163,000 people were given settlement in the year ending June 2025, with estimates that this will increase further in the coming years.

The government has also linked the changes to efforts to curb irregular migration, using models such as Denmark. The longer route to settlement is intended to reduce the incentive for people to move without documentation.

Why do experts say it can’t work?

Researchers argue that making settlement harder does not necessarily reduce migration. Matilde Rozina, assistant professor in global challenges at Brunel University of London, said migration decisions are more influenced by conditions in home countries than by the policies of destination countries.

“Extending the standard eligibility period for permanent residence to ten years would make the UK more restrictive than other comparable democracies in Europe and North America, and one of the strictest globally. Extending it to 20 years for refugees would make the UK’s approach unprecedented among peer countries,” he wrote in The Conversation.

The proposed timeline would put Britain closer to countries such as Qatar and Japan, where longer residence requirements are already in place, with some of the most restrictive systems globally.

What the Danish research shows

A study from the Rockwool Foundation Research Unit shows that extending the temporary status could have unintended effects.

Research on Denmark found that when it became difficult to obtain permanent residence, refugees became less likely to find employment. Those who felt they could not meet the new requirements became discouraged and withdrew from the labor market.

“The UK’s proposed changes risk creating a similar dynamic, leaving people in what has been described as ‘extended bondage’,” Rosina wrote.

Concerns over fairness and labor impact

The proposals have also been criticized by MPs and workers’ rights groups, particularly over whether the changes could apply to people already living in Britain.

In February, Labor MP Neil Duncan-Jordan led a letter signed by more than 50 MPs and organisations, including trade union Unison.

“Thousands of families have planned their lives as per the existing rules,” the letter said.

“The proposal to double the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) to 10 years, with new conditions, including increasing it to 15 years for those mistakenly considered ‘low-skilled’ such as care workers, is deeply unfair.”

Labor rights groups say the longer route to settlement could keep migrants tied to employers for longer periods of time, increasing the risk of exploitation.

“These schemes force migrant workers into sponsorship for at least a decade, leaving them tied to employers for years with no opportunities for upward mobility, and at risk of exploitation,” said Dora-Olivia Vicol, chief executive of the Work Rights Centre.

“They reduce contributions, reduce the balance on pay slips, and penalize the most vulnerable for being ill or being a refugee.”

He also expressed concern over the consultation process.

He said, “It is not right to publicize the public’s view on the biggest overhaul of the immigration system in 50 years when the Government has not assessed the potential impact on mobility, public services and our economy.”