We need to talk about the policy in the Immigration White Paper

The White Paper covers a lot of ground and contains a number of welcome Labour policies.  There will be better protection for victims of domestic violence, a commitment to do more for skilled refugees and a more affordable path to citizenship for children who have been raised in the UK.  You can quite quickly spot important and compassionate policies that Ministers want to introduce to help people – but there are harder edge policies too, including Earned Settlement.

Right now most skilled migrant workers are able to apply for settlement, otherwise known as permanent residence, after living in the UK for five years.  They need a clean criminal record, to speak English to an intermediate level, pass the Life in UK test and to still be sponsored and working for a licensed employer.

The Home Office wants to change this, so that workers and most other qualifying visa holders will in future earn their right to stay permanently. The minimum residence requirement will rise to ten years, but a new points-based system will allow some individuals to qualify earlier.  Those points will likely be awarded for getting involved in community projects or working in a job that is considered strategically important to the UK.  The Home Office will consult on other criteria.

The policy is bound to spark debate.  The intent is clear and admirable – surely we all want to help people integrate and feel part of the community. That said, I’m sure I won’t be the only one uneasy about the ten-year requirement. It feels like an awfully long time to spend wondering if you can stay permanently, worried that losing your job might mean losing your life in the UK and locked out of home ownership because most lenders won’t offer mortgages without settlement.

There is also the cost.  I am married with three children.  In the current system, it would cost over £50,000 in government fees alone if my wife or I were here as a sponsored worker and we all wanted to move to permanent residence.  Under the new rules it would cost almost £82,000.  Our employer would need to pay £14,000 of the fees and may offer to pay the rest, but many won’t.  I’m often told it feels extortionate.

This week dozens of my clients have been in touch with questions from employees who are already here and had no idea this change was on the horizon before they moved their life to the UK.  The first question is almost always the same—”Will I now have to wait another five years for Indefinite Leave to Remain?”  It’s followed up with pained messages about how they can’t afford to wait that long, and that they may not have moved to the UK if they’d known this was coming.

On Monday morning, there was hope that the answer would be simple and reassuring: ‘Don’t worry, they won’t apply the new rule to people already here.’ But that reassurance has not been given. When asked on Monday if the rule will apply retrospectively to people who could never have seen it coming, the Home Secretary told the House of Commons that the Home Office would not apply the rule to family members of British people, but she would consult on whether it should apply to workers already here.

Some people will be fine. It will likely take about a year or more for changes to come into effect and they may secure settlement before that happens. But many won’t and are understandably concerned.  Telling them that they might be able to accelerate the process through charity work doesn’t help; telling them their job might not be considered ‘strategically important’ to the UK makes it worse.

I don’t enjoy critically questioning Home Office policy.  I worked there for ten years and remember the last time a Labour government promised earned citizenship in 2008/09 under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was never fully implemented. I respect the balancing act that Ministers and civil servants need to perform between fairness to migrants and public confidence, and that isn’t as easy as people imagine.

But they need to rethink this policy – and the sooner the better. We cannot leave people sitting in limbo while the government decides. And it won’t be long before questions arise around fairness if that decision ends up costing them their already limited sense of security and thousands in unexpected government fees.

For more information, visit Vialto Partners