Thousands of Migrants Will Be Allowed to Stay in the UK Because of One Rule Many People Didn’t Know About
New government estimates have sparked fresh debate over the UK’s immigration system after officials revealed that a specific group of migrants allowed to remain in Britain under human rights laws could cost taxpayers almost £5 billion over their lifetime.
The figures relate to people who receive permission to stay in the UK under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Article 8 protects a person’s right to private and family life. In some cases, this means people who do not meet the normal Immigration Rules can still be allowed to remain in the country if removing them would have a disproportionate impact on their family or private life.
According to figures released by the government on June 26, the estimated lifetime net fiscal cost for each first-time in-country Article 8 main applicant is around £141,000. Based on the government’s estimate that about 34,400 people will receive this type of grant in 2025, the total lifetime cost is expected to reach approximately £4.9 billion.
The estimate only applies to the main applicants and does not include the cost of their partners, children, or other dependants. As a result, officials stressed that the £4.9 billion figure should not be viewed as the total cost of everyone connected to Article 8 grants during 2025.
The publication of the figures quickly triggered political criticism from some who argue that Britain’s immigration system needs major reform.
Reform UK MP Robert Jenrick criticised the UK’s continued membership of the ECHR, claiming that the convention is placing a significant financial burden on the country. He argued that previous Conservative governments had opportunities to leave the ECHR but chose not to do so, despite pressure from some members of the party.
Jenrick also said that only a Reform UK government led by Nigel Farage would make the changes he believes are necessary to overhaul the immigration system and reduce the influence of the ECHR on UK immigration decisions.
The government, however, urged caution when interpreting the figures. Officials explained that the estimate comes with significant uncertainty because it is based on long-term assumptions covering employment, wages, tax payments, public spending, life expectancy, settlement patterns, and migration over many decades.
They also said the model does not include wider economic effects or possible behavioural changes, meaning the figures should be treated as estimates rather than exact predictions.
Officials explained that Article 8 grants are issued in cases where refusing a person’s application would interfere disproportionately with their family or private life. This can happen even when the applicant does not meet some of the standard Immigration Rules, such as the minimum income requirement or English language requirements.
The Home Office said it used a lifetime fiscal impact model developed by the Migration Advisory Committee to calculate the long-term financial effect of different family migration routes.
The model estimates the amount of tax an individual is expected to pay over their lifetime and subtracts the estimated cost of the public services and financial support they are likely to use. These calculations include income tax, VAT and other taxes, along with spending on healthcare, education, welfare benefits, and other public services.
However, the model does not include money received by the government through visa application fees or the Immigration Health Surcharge paid by many migrants when they apply to live in the UK.
The figures have already added fuel to the ongoing political debate over immigration, with supporters of tougher border policies arguing that they highlight the need for significant reforms, while others note that the government’s own report stresses the estimates are subject to uncertainty and should not be treated as precise long-term costs.
