UK permanent residence: Why 10-year ILR wait may fail migration goals

UK plans to extend settlement timelines, but researchers warn longer waits may not reduce migration and could affect jobs and integration

The UK is preparing to tighten its path to permanent residence, with plans to double the qualifying period for most migrants and extend it even further for some groups. But researchers and campaigners say the changes may not deliver the outcomes the government expects.

 

The proposals, led by Shabana Mahmood, would increase the standard wait for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) from five years to ten. For some groups, including those who have claimed public funds, the wait could stretch to 20 years or more.

 

Eligibility rules would also become stricter. Migrants would need a clean criminal record, meet higher English language standards, and show earnings above £12,570 per year for at least three years.

   

What is changing in ILR rules

 

Under the proposed system, the ten-year baseline would shift depending on a migrant’s profile:

 

• High-skilled workers such as NHS doctors and nurses, or those earning above £125,140, could qualify sooner, in three to five years

• Family visa holders or those seen to be integrating through activities such as volunteering could qualify in five to seven years

• Low-skilled workers would start at 15 years

• Refugees would face a 20-year route, unless they move into work or study

• Those who have claimed benefits could wait up to 20 years

• People who entered illegally or overstayed visas could face waits of up to 30 years

 

Dependants, family visa holders and refugees are among those expected to be most affected, particularly where full-time employment is less consistent.

 

Why the government is changing the rules

 

The Home Office has pointed to rising settlement numbers as a reason for reform. Around 163,000 people were granted settlement in the year ending June 2025, with projections suggesting further increases in the coming years.

 

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

 

Why experts say it may not work

 

Researchers argue that making settlement harder does not necessarily reduce migration. Matilde Rosina, Assistant Professor in Global Challenges at Brunel University of London, said migration decisions are shaped more by conditions in home countries than by policies in destination countries.

 

“Raising the standard qualifying period for permanent residence to ten years would make the UK more restrictive than most 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,” she wrote in The Conversation.

 

The proposed timelines would place the UK alongside some of the most restrictive systems globally, closer to countries such as Qatar and Japan, where long residency requirements already apply.

 

What Denmark research shows

 

A study by the Rockwool Foundation Research Unit suggests that extending temporary status can have unintended effects.

 

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

 

“The UK's proposed changes risk producing a similar dynamic, trapping people into what has been described as an ‘extended limbo’,” Rosina wrote.

 

Concerns over fairness and labour impact

 

The proposals have also drawn criticism from MPs and labour rights groups, particularly over whether the changes could apply to people already living in the UK.

 

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

 

“Thousands of families have planned their lives around current rules,” the letter said.

 

“The proposal to double the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) to 10 years, rising to 15 years for those such as care workers, wrongly deemed ‘low-skilled’, alongside new conditionality is deeply unfair.”

 

Workers’ rights groups say a longer path to settlement could leave migrants tied to employers for longer, increasing the risk of exploitation.

 

“These plans condemn migrant workers to at least a decade of sponsorship, tied to employers for years with no opportunity for upward mobility, and at risk of exploitation,” said Dora-Olivia Vicol, Chief Executive of the Work Rights Centre.

 

“They reduce contribution to the balance on a payslip, and penalise the most vulnerable for getting sick or being a refugee.”

 

She also raised concerns about the consultation process.

 

“It is simply not right to canvas the public’s view on the biggest shake-up to the immigration system in 50 years when the government has not assessed the potential impact on commutes, public services, and our economy,” she said.