Introduction

The earned settlement and earned citizenship provisions in the UK government’s White Paper, Restoring Control over the Immigration System (May 2025, CP 1326) are advanced by the Home Office as part of its ambition to foster integration and cohesion. The White Paper states “[t]o be able to navigate life in the UK and integrate into UK society, those coming to the UK need to be familiar with UK culture, law and customs…”. It continues, “[w]e want to see vibrant communities in which everyone, from all backgrounds, is able to play a part. We want those who are building their lives in the UK to integrate and take advantage of the opportunities that living here offers…[b]ut this can only be achieved when communities feel empowered to offer those opportunities, and people feel they can contribute to their neighbourhoods and society…”

To further integration the Home Office intends to raise the bar to the standard of English language proficiency an applicant must meet and to require improvements in their proficiency over the period of their UK residency. In addition, the Home Office seeks to regulate access to settlement (the grant of indefinite leave) and thereafter to British citizenship by required that each one be ‘earned’. In pursuit of this it intends to “support the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s upcoming Community Cohesion strategy and work closely with local authorities and partners…”

If all of that sounds strangely familiar, like a faint echo of a memory from your earlier years, then you lived through the last Labour government (2007-2010) and its earned citizenship project, enacted in the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and subsequently abandoned. Before turning to the resemblance and the lessons to be learned, what does the 2025 White Paper propose?

Earned settlement

The White Paper considers settlement to be a privilege not a right. For people on the economic migration route known as the points-based system, the period of limited leave that must be satisfied before seeking settlement/indefinite leave will be doubled from five to ten years. However, there is to be an opportunity to reduce that qualifying period based on points-based contributions to the UK economy and society. There is to be a consultation on these changes.

The practical result of such a change for those on the economic migration route will be to exclude them from a further five years from means-tested benefits (including in-work benefits), as well as from homelessness assistance and social housing.

In the White Paper, as regards the professed cohesion and integration objectives, there is no assessment of evidence as to why the change from five to ten years (subject to the opportunity to reduce the period) is needed, nor assessment of how it will contribute to these objectives. It appears to be based on a feeling that it will help.

Earned citizenship

As with settlement, the White Paper defines British citizenship as a privilege not a right. It opines “[w]e do not want to offer citizenship and the life-long benefits it brings to those who have circumvented our rules or those who have not demonstrated that they have contributed to the UK.” As it happens, those who circumvent the Immigration Rules already may be excluded from citizenship in the application of the existing ‘good character’ evaluation provision in the British Nationality Act 1981. Nonetheless, the White Paper continues “[w]e will introduce reforms to citizenship to align to earned settlement reforms, building on the expansion of the Points-Based System to settlement and citizenship.”

It appears that in a similar way to the proposal for settlement, the standard qualifying period for citizenship is to be expanded, though we are not told by how much. Presently, the standard period of residence for naturalisation is five years prior to the date of application, with a requirement to hold indefinite leave (or other status free of time restriction) in the final year prior to application. As with the settlement proposal, the expanded period is to allow for those with greater contributions to qualify sooner. More detail is to come later.

The dream is always the same

While these proposals may seem to have been tacked as an afterthought at the end of the White Paper, in substance they revive abandoned policy from the last Labour government of 2007-2010. For a taste of what might be to come one may study with profit the 2008 Green Paper The Path to Citizenship: Next Steps in Reforming the Immigration System. Therein we find proposals that aim “…to strengthen our shared values and citizenship…” and the statement “…We want to encourage people with the right qualifications and commitment to take up citizenship so that they can become fully integrated into our society” (p. 6). While the motivation is not precisely the same, the policies advocated in 2008 and subsequently enacted in the 2009 Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act bear a striking resemblance to those offered in the 2025 White Paper.

In the 2008 Green Paper it was proposed that there should be three stages on the migrant’s journey: (1) temporary residence (leave to enter or remain), (2) probationary citizenship (actually more leave to remain), and only then (3) British citizenship/permanent residence. Thus then as now the proposal was to lengthen the period of lawful residence before citizenship could be acquired. It stated “…the journey to citizenship will enable migrants to demonstrate a more visible and a more substantial contribution to Britain as they pass through successive stages. At each stage, the journey will incorporate appropriate requirements that determine whether a migrant can progress” (p. 6).

Those on the economic migration route would no longer have access to settlement after five years. Instead, after five years they could apply for probationary citizenship (more leave) provided they could demonstrate a contribution to the economy including by payment of tax (p. 26, para 146). Thereafter, the period of time spent as a probationary citizen before being able to apply for British citizenship would be three years, reduced to one year where active citizenship tasks had been undertaken.

The Green Paper set out four areas where a migrant would need to demonstrate progress in order to advance to probationary citizenship and British citizenship: (i) English language skills, (ii) paying tax and becoming self-sufficient, (iii) obeying the law, and (iv) joining in with the British way of life (through some form of active citizenship or community involvement) (pp. 6-7, para 10).

The legislative method of giving effect to this ambition was the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill, introduced to Parliament in the House of Lords in January 2009. In August 2009, after that Bill had received Royal Assent the previous month, the Home Office published a consultation document, Earning the Right to Stay: A New Points Test for Citizenship, which sought views on, among other things, a points-based test for earned citizenship; delivering a points-based system in partnership with local authorities; and supporting those on a path to citizenship to integrate into their local communities. To like effect, the 2025 White Paper proposes to consult on the proposed scheme.

For those on the economic migration route to citizenship, the 2009 consultation envisaged a points-based system where points would be awarded for attributes including earning potential; specific artistic, scientific, or literary merit; qualifications; pursing a shortage occupation; English language skills; and having lived and worked in a part of the UK in need of further immigration (e.g., Scotland) (p. 7, para 9).

The 2009 consultation document also contemplated deducting points for failure to integrate into British life and also where an active disregard for UK values had been demonstrated. The latter proposal might easily have led to a chilling effect on the exercise of human rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to protest. Further, it was unclear how those proposal were to dovetail with the good character evaluative test already present in the British Nationality Act 1981.

The Borders, Citizenship, and Immigration Act 2009 made provision to amend the naturalisation provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 so that the qualifying period for naturalisation under the latter’s five-year route (s. 6(1)) was to be extended to eight years where an ‘activity condition’ was not met, and under its spouse/civil partner three-year route (s. 6(2)) was to be extended to five-years where the ‘activity condition’ was not met. This dovetailed with the proposed amendments to the Immigration Rules that were to make provision for probationary citizenship.

The activities in question were to be prescribed by regulation. However, the Green Paper (p. 30) contemplated certain activities that might constitute evidence of active citizenship: volunteering with a recognised organisation; employer-supported volunteering; short periods of overseas volunteering to support UK international development objectives; running or helping with a playgroup that encourages different communities to interact; fund-raising activities for charities or schools; serving on community bodies (e.g., as a school governor); and running or helping with a local sports team.

To flesh out the proposals, the Home Office set up a Design Group, which included representatives from the voluntary sector and local government. While no final scheme was ever devised, that Group envisaged (i) that the burden of demonstrating active citizenship (of a maximum of 50 hours activity) would fall on the applicant, with a role for a referee, as well as status-verification of the organisations concerned; (ii) that the Nationality Checking Service would be used to verify active citizenship; (iii) that the verification regime would vary as between registered and unregistered charities (i.e. the organisations) through which voluntary activities were to take place; and (iv) a detailed list of potential categories of qualifying activities. At the time it was not clear how the administrative burden and cost falling on local authorities was to be met.

The scheme was not implemented before the 2010 General Election, after which the new Conservative-led Coalition Government did not take the programme forward.

The pursuit of virtue

The earned citizenship programme of the 2007-2010 government sought to encourage migrants to take up British citizenship; for those who did not fulfil the activity condition, or who sought only indefinite leave not citizenship, longer periods as a probationary citizen were prescribed, leading to longer periods without access to means-tested benefits (including in-work) benefits and homelessness assistance. At that time, it was unclear how this was to foster a more cohesive society for three reasons.

First, extending the time beyond five years when migrants were to be kept out of in-work benefits risked creating pools of manufactured poverty in migrant communities, as well as exploitation by landlords and employers. Misfortune may strike even the most zealous worker and exclusion from the social safety net by design leaves those affected with even fewer options to get back on their feet.

Second, the notion that requiring performative gestures of voluntary/community service would assuage the concerns of those British citizens who felt that migrants ought to further earn entitlement to citizenship (by being forced to wait longer for citizenship and associated benefits), was an attempt to design a rational process-focused solution to address a matter of political feeling. There was no evidence that such a solution would work, either in the general interest or as a matter or narrow political calculation.

Third, there was an inherent problem is asking migrants to demonstrate virtue by way of prescribed activities before being rewarded with citizenship; the voluntary character of such activities could not be established. As regards the activity condition, in a memorandum submitted to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, HSMP Forum stated:

“Migrants will feel being forced to do voluntary work and hence will not contribute whole heartedly. It also undermines the true essence of philanthropic aim of the voluntary work. It would make voluntary work looks like a barter system and would reflect it rather in a commercial sense”. (JCHR Legislative Scrutiny: Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill, 9th Report (2008-2009) HL Papers 62 HC 375, Ev 26).

An evidence-based approach is key to the government’s design of public policy. The experience of the earlier 2007-2010 earned citizenship project contains lessons for 2025. Having implemented the other, more developed proposals in the White Paper, in considering the matter further, the government will no doubt be keen to isolate the value added by further development of the earned settlement and earned citizenship proposals.

Among the issues for it to consider is exactly how extending the time beyond five years when migrants are to be kept out of in-work benefits contributes to integration and cohesion, as well as the evidence base for the proposition that requiring migrants to perform voluntary service or other forms of active citizenship assuages the concerns of those British citizens who feel that migrants ought to further earn entitlement to citizenship. The base line for both is that migrants on the economic migration route already need to reside for five years plus a year with indefinite leave, abide by the law, pay taxes, and pass a good character test in order to be granted naturalisation as British citizens. That being so, it is the proposed extra period of time and extra tasks that need to be justified. Further, consideration will need to be given the to the cost to local authorities and voluntary sectors organisations of participation in the scheme and how it is to be funded. Finally, the overall public benefit of proceeding will require careful assessment.