As we await the next stages before the White Paper's proposals become legislation, as yet they are proposals, I wanted to take a moment to share my thoughts – not as a legal representative this time, but as someone who has walked alongside many clients navigating complex and often deeply personal journeys.
There's no denying that the proposed changes will make things harder. Longer routes to settlement. Tighter character assessments. More discretion afforded for refusals. And for many, the shift from a five-year to a potential ten-year settlement pathway will feel like a setback.
But perhaps – just perhaps – this moment also offers us a chance to pause and realign. To reflect on what can be done in the interim. To rebuild. To contribute. To show up – not just for ourselves, but for others.
There's a reason this change doesn't feel like a shock – because it's not entirely new. It's just becoming harder to avoid.
For years, clients with historic convictions, minor offences, or honest past mistakes have faced refusals under Part 9: Grounds for Refusal – the good character provisions. Often, refusal wasn't discretionary – it was mandatory. Even spent convictions could lead to the refusal of an Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) application. Even full disclosure and expressed remorse didn't always change the outcome.
So, what happened in practice?
People stayed. They extended. They remained on limited leave – sometimes for another two, three, or even five years. Why? Because they were working. Because their families were here. Because removal was not in the public interest. And quietly, this created what many referred to as the unofficial ten-year route.
What is different now is that the White Paper proposes to formalise this reality. To draw a clearer distinction between those who may qualify for settlement after five years, and those who need to demonstrate time, growth, and contribution before being granted ILR.
And the hints are arguably clear – those already on a five-year route will likely remain on it, unless their credibility is damaged. If it is, they may face a gradual extension – ultimately leading towards a ten-year route before settlement becomes possible. And that, arguably, is fair. Because those on the ten-year routes may also be subject to continued extension rather than settlement, if the full criteria are not met.
The law must be interpreted with clarity, not fear. Let us choose to view these developments not as a cause for chaos, but as an opportunity to grow – to foster positive change and character development.
Yes, it feels tougher – and for many, it will be.
But there's also a strange kind of clarity in all this: we now know what is required.
So, while we wait for these proposals to take legislative form, we can and must use this time wisely:
– Start that community project you've always wanted to do.
– Attend that English course that once felt like climbing Everest.
– Ask for that character reference from your employer, your teacher, your mentor.
– Disclose everything – don't wait to be asked.
– Keep a record of your progress – it matters.
I've always believed the law should look at the person, not just the paperwork. And now more than ever, we must focus on showing that person – fully, honestly, and with everything they bring to the table.
This is not merely about "waiting longer". It is about living better – and proving that we belong, not just legally, but as active, valuable members of our communities.
And let me be clear: as lawyers, we will continue to challenge unjust, inconsistent, or discriminatory applications of the law – as we always have. We are guided by case law such as:
– Masum Ahmed [2019] EWCA Civ 1070 on fairness and delay,
– R (Agyarko) v SSHD [2017] UKSC 11 on proportionality in deportation,
– Chikwamba v SSHD [2008] UKHL 40 on the importance of respecting human dignity.
The legal tools are there – so is our responsibility to use them wisely.