Brandon To: Tories must offer an alternative to Labour’s misguided ILR plan

Brandon To is a Politics graduate from UCL and a Hong Kong BN(O) immigrant settled in Harrow.

Labour’s plans to overhaul Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) demonstrate the worst kind of policymaking. Their proposal to extend the ILR qualification period from five years to ten might sound tough in theory, but in practice, it risks punishing those who play by the rules while doing little to address real abuse of the system.

According to Labour, applicants will need to volunteer, keep spotless records, and prove they are net contributors. Yet even with these conditions, the plan amounts to a half-measure: it leaves those already abusing the system largely untouched, because applying new rules retrospectively is legally fraught, while shifting the goalposts onto aspiring immigrants who came in good faith. The result is backwards: punishing the productive and integrated, while those exploiting the system today face little change.

Reform UK’s alternative is no better. Their call to abolish ILR entirely would force non-EU migrants to reapply every five years. This would invite mass legal challenges, stoke deportation fears, and deter the very skilled workers we want to attract. It would also break faith with settled communities and immigrant voters, many of whom have contributed for years and value the stability ILR provides.

Both Labour and Reform miss the point. Voters are not primarily worried about the concept of settlement itself. They are concerned about welfare abuse and fairness. That is where the Conservatives should focus its reform.

The answer is not to scrap ILR or to stretch it indefinitely. The answer is to keep ILR at five years, as promised, but to tighten welfare eligibility. In short: Don’t Punish Everyone — Punish Abuse.

A contribution-first model would:

• Keep the five-year ILR route, avoiding broken promises.
• Delay routine cash benefits until 5+ years of National Insurance contributions are made.
• Enforce truthful financial declarations tied to settlement and citizenship, with the power to revoke for deception.
• Apply targeted fraud checks to new claimants.
• Continue to safeguard essential services, including emergency NHS care, state schooling, disability support, and child protection.
• Deter future abuse by sending a clear message: those who come to Britain to exploit welfare will find no easy route. New arrivals will know they must be self-sufficient for at least ten years, often more, before accessing routine benefits.

This approach is firm but fair. It reassures the public that abuse is being tackled while ensuring that those who integrate and contribute are not penalised. It also avoids the legal minefield of retrospectively changing settlement rights. Adjusting welfare rules is simpler, more defensible, and more closely aligned with public concerns.

For Conservatives, the political benefits are clear. This policy offers a tough yet rational alternative that distinguishes the Party from both Labour’s half-measures and Reform’s radicalism. It sends a clear message: “You get ILR after five years. You access benefits only after you contribute.”

It strengthens credibility with immigrant communities, including the roughly 160,000 Hong Kong BN(O) families who recall that it was a Conservative government that opened the route, and hundreds of thousands of positive immigrants who don’t want handouts, but only recognition of their hard work and integration. It avoids the instability and backlash of scrapping the settlement altogether. And it gives Conservatives the flexibility to adjust contribution thresholds in line with future fiscal or demographic pressures.

Above all, it focuses on reform where it matters most to voters. Surveys consistently show that the public is more concerned about welfare abuse than about the technicalities of settlement. A contribution-first welfare model addresses that concern directly.

Labour’s plan is tough on the wrong people: penalising positive, integrated immigrants rather than confronting genuine abusers. Reform, meanwhile, has swung to the other extreme, scrapping ILR entirely in a way that would create chaos and insecurity.

This leaves an opening for the Conservatives to reclaim their place as the rational right in the immigration debate: firm but fair, defending promises while addressing abuse. A contribution-first welfare model strikes that balance. It reassures the public that Britain rewards contribution and integration, not deception, while protecting immigrant families who came in good faith.

By rejecting Labour’s half-measures and Reform’s overreach, the Conservatives can once again define a credible, sustainable path on immigration. One that is rooted in control, contribution, and fairness.