Minimum fees of £12,836 per person leaves people struggling with bills and food
A new report released yesterday by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) looks at the impact of the 10-year route to settlement on people's lives. Under the route, people who have been in the UK legally for 10 continuous years are able to then apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR).
You can download the 46-page report here. It was authored jointly with Praxis and the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit (GMIAU).
Research for the report involved in-depth interviews with people on the route and a survey of over 300 people who are on or have been on the route.
Explaining the route, the report states: "The 10-year route is for people who do not meet the full requirements for permission to remain set out in the Immigration Rules, but either have immediate family in, or long-term ties to, the UK, such that denying them permission to stay would violate their or a family member's human rights. They are granted limited leave to remain (LLR) on the basis of their human right to a family or private life, a qualified right protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights."
According to the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, an estimated 170,000 people were on the 10-year route in 2021.
Yesterday's report finds that the route has a serious detrimental impact, especially financially, on tens of thousands of people.
IPPR, Praxis and GMIAU said: "Our research finds a series of potential pitfalls and wrong turns arising from the design of the route that lead to poverty and insecurity for many. This is an immigration route that is often used by women, parents and caregivers, and people from a Black and South Asian background. Usually, people on the 10-year route are long-term residents – 60 per cent of those that we surveyed had been in the UK for over a decade. Many are working in low-paid jobs and have severely stretched household finances. As such, while this is a route that provides a vital pathway for vulnerable groups that do not otherwise meet the Immigration Rules, its key features – the high cost, repeated renewals, complexity and NRPF [No Recourse to Public Funds] – place considerable pressure on people for a prolonged period of their lives and hold people back from achieving all they could for themselves and their families, their communities and the economy."
Individuals on a 10-year route are required to apply to extend their limited leave to remain every 30 months at a cost of £2,608 per adult and £2,223 per child for visa fees and the immigration health surcharge.
"The total minimum cost of the 10-year route for an adult, including the ILR fee, is £12,836. Fees must be paid for every individual, so the costs for families can be several times higher than this. Applications also usually incur a number of additional costs, including legal advice, translating or notarising documents and enrolling biometric data," the report says.
A majority of people surveyed for the report said they struggled to meet the costs of utility bills (62 per cent) and food (57 per cent). Almost half (41 per cent) said they had to borrow money. A number of people were in significant debt.
IPPR, Praxis and GMIAU's research found there is a direct link between the 10-year route and the financial struggles of households.
In addition, 46 per cent of respondents said that the costs associated with applying for leave to remain on the 10-year route meant that they decided not to renew their leave to remain or the leave to remain of someone else in their household.
The report notes: "The requirement to reapply for LLR every 2.5 years under the 10-year route creates a risk that people fall out of status while on the route. A third of respondents said that they had experienced a gap in their leave on their pathway to settlement."
A majority of survey respondents also agreed that the 10-year route had negatively affected their physical and mental health. The cost and complexity of reapplying for LLR caused people significant stress, anxiety and frustration.
Regarding the complexity of applying, the report explains: "Applications can be very complex, especially for non-native English speakers and those who are not literate or who lack the skills to navigate a largely online application system, and often require the support of a specialist immigration advisor or solicitor. Most immigration matters are no longer covered by legal aid, so anyone requiring such support must either pay for it themselves or seek help from a limited and shrinking number of charities providing free immigration advice. While it remains possible to access funding via exceptional case funding (ECF), this scheme is not functioning effectively because of low fees, long waiting times and too few lawyers willing to take on these cases."
While a majority (66 per cent) of survey respondents had received support from a solicitor or immigration adviser, the report notes that this figure is likely to be higher than normal due to the report's methodology of recruiting people for the survey through links with immigration advice organisations.
Out of those who had not received support for some or all of their applications, 78 per cent reported that this was because legal advice was too expensive.
"Our survey suggests that many cannot afford to get help with their application and may risk falling out of status as a result," IPPR, Praxis and GMIAU said.
A lack of legal advice also means, for example, that people may be unaware they could be eligible for a fee waiver to help with the costs of their application or that they could apply for a 'change of conditions' to have NRPF benefit restrictions lifted.
Among its recommendations, the report says the government should reinstate and sufficiently fund legal aid for immigration matters. The provision of immigration advice should be prioritised in areas with large populations with insecure immigration status in order to help reduce the costs of emergency support and accommodation.
More broadly, the report's recommendations call for an urgent independent review of the 10-year route to be carried out with a view to reforming the policy.
Lucy Mort, senior research fellow at IPPR, said: "It's clear that this policy needs review and reform, not only to improve the lives of people on course to settle, but to reduce the workload of the Home Office. Our polling shows the British public supports this view, with most backing a more compassionate and pragmatic alternative that supports people to settle and contribute to their communities and the economy."
Rivka Shaw, policy officer at GMIAU, added: "There is nothing inevitable about the 10-year route: it is a political choice that can and must be changed. A shorter more affordable route to settlement is the only sensible, common-sense policy to make sure people who have built their lives in the UK can fully settle, contribute and flourish."