The government has published an immigration white paper proposing a broad range of changes to the UK’s immigration system. Many of these proposals are expected to form part of a future immigration bill once the government moves to legislate them. The proposals cover a range of different immigration routes and groups such as health and care workers, care leavers, workers, students, as well as routes to settlement and citizenship. Key proposals that could affect people with NRPF include:
- Removing the adult social care worker visa
- Increasing the route to settlement from five years to ten years for people on points-based visas such as skilled workers
- New rules clarifying when a person can apply to stay in the UK on family and private life grounds and what is considered ‘exceptional circumstances’
- Addressing financial barriers for young adults who have been in the UK as children when applying for citizenship
- A new onward immigration route for care leavers and looked after children who are without lawful status when they turn 18, and a commitment to ensuring support is in place to help them apply to regularise their status
- Developing the use of eVisas to provide greater support with management of immigration status such as notifying people about when their leave is due to expire
- Reducing delays in decision making in the National Referral Mechanism
- Enabling sponsored workers to switch employer more easily
Positive proposals
Some of the proposals suggest positive and constructive developments that could enhance opportunities and mitigate risks faced by some migrants, such as around managing immigration status and regularising status. For example, the further development of the use of eVisas to actively remind and encourage visa holders to apply for further leave before their visa expires, could be a valuable initiative. This may help reduce the risk of individuals failing to renew their leave, thereby decreasing instances of overstaying and the subsequent loss of the right to work or access to public funds. This could potentially lessen the number of people requiring support from local authorities where statutory duties apply to people have overstayed and become destitute.
The development of new pathways and opportunities to regularise the stay of young people who are care leavers or who may be eligible for citizenship is a positive step towards ensuring long-term stability this group. Although the white paper does not explicitly outline what addressing financial barriers to citizenship would entail, this could include the introduction of a fee waiver or fee exemption. Such measures could make onward immigration routes more accessible for some young people, including looked-after children and care leavers, enabling local authorities to successfully transition these young people off local authority support once care-leaving duties no longer apply.
The government's plans to introduce greater flexibility for individuals to switch employers while on a work visa could also be a welcome development. Challenges associated with the Health and Care Worker visa have highlighted that many individuals on work visas who experience a breakdown in sponsorship can find themselves in financially precarious situations and at increased risk of breaching UK immigration laws. Additionally, the suggestion that sponsors should consider local pressures when recruiting overseas workers will be of particular interest to councils, especially in areas where concerns exist around community cohesion, housing demand, school places, and access to essential services.
Councils are also likely to welcome the government's commitment to addressing the backlog of modern slavery cases in the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), as this could provide greater clarity regarding individuals’ future immigration options and support more informed human rights assessments. However, concerns may remain about rising levels of destitution among individuals with no recourse to public funds exiting the NRM following a negative decision on their trafficking claim.
Proposals giving rise to NRPF risks
Several of the proposals could introduce additional challenges for both individuals and councils tasked with meeting the needs of local residents through the provision of accommodation and financial support when social care duties are engaged.
The proposal to extend the settlement route for points-based visa holders from five to ten years is disappointing, especially in light of the Home Office previously acknowledging that long settlement routes can impede integration by reducing the settlement period for young people under 25 applying under the private life rules. It is not clear how many people will only qualify for settlement after 10 years, as the proposals indicate this may be shortened ’based on Points-Based contributions to the UK economy and society. However, we have long recommended that the government replace the ten-year route with a five-year route for all groups, due to the significant challenges associated with the longer pathway. Extending the route will increase financial pressure on individuals, who must continue to pay immigration fees and seek legal advice to renew their leave. It will also prolong the period during which people are subject to the NRPF condition, increasing the risk of destitution where financial hardship is encountered. As people will be required to renew their immigration leave more frequently, it is likely that more people will become overstayers as a result of missing deadlines or Home Office refusals. This could place additional strain on local authorities who must respond to homelessness and destitution.
Another key concern is the development of new rules regarding when leave to remain can be granted on family and private life grounds. If new immigration rules lead to greater restrictions on the ability to regularise immigration status based on family and private life, this could significantly reduce viable immigration options for many NRPF households. NRPF Connect data shows that 70% of families and 59% of adults whose local authority support ended in 2023-24 were granted leave to remain, usually on family or private life grounds. If these routes become more restrictive, and families or adults supported by councils are unable to regularise their stay, it could result in prolonged destitution and continued reliance on social care for support, with no clear resolution to their immigration status. People who fail to obtain leave under the family or private life routes will not be able to apply for a change of conditions to remove the NRPF condition from their leave if they are destitute or at risk of destitution. The change of conditions process can be a lifeline for many people in this position as well as being a pathway off local authority support.
The plan to end the ability to obtain a visa for care work in the social care sector is also likely to raise significant concerns among councils and care providers, who already face persistent staffing shortages. While the government’s recent support for re-employing displaced care workers has been welcomed - as it helps alleviate destitution among those left without sponsored employment and at risk of visa curtailment - this support is time-limited and set to end in 2028. Without new arrivals or a sustainable workforce pipeline, the long-term outlook for the care sector beyond 2028 remains uncertain. It is also unclear how many displaced workers will be successfully re-matched into new sponsorships within the limited timeframes provided, and whether these efforts will help reduce instances of destitution.
What happens next?
There has been no indication from government on when it intends to proceed with implementing these plans, but as some proposals will need to be legislated, we can expect that a new immigration bill will be brought to parliament. It’s unknown what opportunities councils will have to feedback into the government plans and to what degree, if any, consultation with local authorities will be undertaken. This would be extremely beneficial for local government as some of the proposed measures risk increasing levels of destitution by leaving more people without lawful status or access to public funds, which ultimately places greater pressure on councils. Councils do not receive any funding from central government to cover the costs of providing accommodation and financial support to NRPF households when social care duties are engaged. If there are risks that some of these new plans could further increase local authorities’ costs, the government must engage in dialogue with councils to ensure that any impacts are assessed and mitigated.
Councils should continue to record support provided to NRPF households on NRPF Connect so that we can monitor the impacts of any future policy changes, and are able to feed these back to government with evidence where challenges arise. See our policy webpages to read our recommendations on how government can reform the immigration system to reduce the risks associated with the NRPF condition and ease the pressures faced by councils.