Fair Settlement Isle of Man says residents and employers are warning of retention risks if people already on five-year settlement routes are not protected

Fair Settlement Isle of Man is calling on Tynwald to formally consider meaningful transitional protections for people who moved to the Island under existing five-year settlement routes, warning that waiting for the UK to finalise its position could leave the Isle of Man reacting too late to protect its own workforce and retain the people it recruited to fill critical skills shortages.

The campaign follows the UK Government’s proposed “earned settlement” reforms, which could increase the standard qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain from five years to ten years for many migrants, with some lower-paid or below-degree-level roles potentially facing longer routes unless specific earnings or contribution criteria are met.

For many Isle of Man residents who relocated under a published five-year route, this could mean facing an additional five years or more of visa renewals, costs and uncertainty before they can settle permanently.

Fair Settlement Isle of Man says the issue is not about stopping future immigration reform, but taking action now to protect a small, identifiable cohort of people who are already living, working and contributing here.

“Changing the rules for future arrivals is one thing. Changing them for people already here is another,” said Vanessa Naudé of Fair Settlement Isle of Man.

“These are not people who exploited a loophole. They responded to real workforce needs. They came to fill jobs that could not be filled locally, moved families, enrolled children in schools, paid taxes, bought or rented homes, joined communities and built lives here on the basis of a published five-year route to settlement.”

Survey evidence gathered by the campaign and the Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce points to significant retention risks if settlement timelines are extended without protection.

The Fair Settlement Isle of Man community survey found that 84.3% of respondents said extending settlement timelines from five years to ten years would, or might, affect their ability to remain on the Island long term. The same survey found that 71.6% said extended timelines would, or might, affect their ability to remain in their current job.

An independently conducted Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce employer survey found that 88.3% of employers responding to the question either believed affected employees would be likely to leave the Isle of Man or were unsure what employees would do if settlement timelines are extended.

Employers also identified immediate workforce concerns, including loss of specialist skills, reduced capacity, project delays, customer impact, increased overtime or agency spend and recruitment costs. In the employer survey, transitional protection for existing employees already on a route to settlement was the most selected measure that would help employers.

Fair Settlement Isle of Man says the overlap between resident and employer concerns should be treated as evidence that action is needed now if the Island wishes to avoid workforce disruption.

“When residents say they may leave and employers say they believe affected employees may leave, this becomes more than an immigration issue,” said Naudé. “It becomes a workforce issue. It becomes a business issue. It becomes a healthcare, hospitality, education, technology, finance and community issue.”

The campaign says the Isle of Man’s position is materially different from the UK’s. The affected cohort on the Island is comparatively small, identifiable and already economically active.

Government figures show that 2,598 Worker Migrant and Health & Care Worker Migrant visas were granted to principal applicants between 2021 and 28 July 2025. Including dependants, the total number of people granted visas over the same period was 5,031.

While not all of those individuals would necessarily be affected by any future settlement changes, survey evidence suggests the issue extends across multiple sectors of the Manx economy. Independent community and employer surveys both identified healthcare and social care, technology and digital services, finance and professional services, hospitality and tourism, education, and construction among the sectors potentially exposed to workforce retention risks. Fair Settlement Isle of Man says this demonstrates that the issue is not confined to a single industry, but has the potential to affect a broad cross-section of the Island's workforce and economy.

Fair Settlement Isle of Man argues that while the UK is responding to national political pressures and migration figures on a much larger scale, the Isle of Man must use its own demographic, workforce and economic evidence to make the strongest possible case for protections that reflect the Island's unique circumstances.

Recent developments in UK politics underline the uncertainty surrounding future immigration policy, while Reform UK continues to shape the wider debate. Fair Settlement Isle of Man says this reinforces the risk of allowing UK political pressures to determine outcomes for a small Isle of Man cohort without first developing a clear Manx position.

“The UK debate is being driven by UK politics, UK numbers and UK pressures,” said Naudé. “The Isle of Man needs to look at its own reality and begin making that case now. We have a smaller labour market, a different population challenge and a workforce that depends on retaining people who are already here.”

The campaign also points to the practical reasons people may feel unable to remain under a significantly longer settlement route. Until settlement is granted, many residents remain subject to visa conditions, repeated renewal costs and extended periods of uncertainty. A change in health, employment or family circumstances can therefore carry serious consequences.

Respondents to the community survey raised concerns about being unable to afford repeated visa renewals, losing access to home student status for children going to university, remaining tied to employment conditions for longer than expected, being close to retirement but facing many additional years before settlement, and having no realistic option to restart their lives elsewhere after selling homes, closing businesses or relocating families.

Among respondents for whom the question applied, 80.4% said extended settlement timelines would, or might, affect their ability to send their children to university.

The campaign also says the Common Travel Area must be addressed honestly, but should not be treated as a reason to delay developing the Island's position.

Fair Settlement Isle of Man recognises that the Isle of Man has historically aligned closely with UK immigration policy and that Indefinite Leave to Remain granted on the Island is recognised in the UK. However, the campaign says alignment does not automatically answer the question of how reforms should be implemented for people already on existing routes.

“The Common Travel Area is politically sensitive and practically important,” said Naudé. “We are not suggesting the Isle of Man can simply disregard UK immigration policy. We are asking Government to begin developing the Island's position now through public and parliamentary discussion, and to use the available workforce, population and economic evidence to make the strongest possible case to the UK for protections for a small, identifiable cohort of people who are already living and working here.”

The issue was raised in the House of Keys by MHK Joney Faragher, who asked whether the Isle of Man would seek a carve-out or separate arrangement to retain the five-year settlement pathway for migrants already resident under existing rules.

In response, Treasury Minister Chris Thomas said no specific discussions had yet taken place with the UK Home Office about creating a separate pathway, but that once there was clarity from the UK, Government would assess the implications and make representations for the Island.

Minister Thomas also acknowledged that the Fair Settlement group had produced “very helpful survey results” and made “eloquent and persuasive presentations” to Ministers. In response to a question from Dr Alex Allinson about concerns that changes may “move the goalposts” for people already three or four years into their route, Minister Thomas said every element available would be used to help affected residents and to ensure the Island treats them “correct and right”.

Fair Settlement Isle of Man welcomes those comments, but says there is still no commitment to grandfathering, transitional protection or non-retrospective treatment for the full existing cohort.

The campaign has therefore launched a formal Tynwald Public Petition calling for the issue to be discussed in Tynwald and for firm commitments to specific transitional protections to be made. The petition must be submitted in time to be presented by MHK John Wannenburgh and debated in Tynwald in July, before the current administration comes to an end.

“The issue has now been recognised. The survey evidence has been gathered. The concerns have been acknowledged publicly. The next step is to use that evidence to develop and advance the strongest possible case for protections before decisions are made elsewhere.

“We are asking for formal consideration by Tynwald before decisions are made, and for the Isle of Man to use the evidence now available to seek meaningful protections for the people who are already here.

“The easiest worker to retain is the one who is already here. The Island recruited these people because it needed them. The question now is whether it can afford to lose them.”

Fair Settlement Isle of Man is calling on anyone resident on the Isle of Man who supports meaningful protections for existing residents to sign the Tynwald Public Petition.

Petition signatures are required by Friday 12 June.

The petition, signature sheet, FAQs and supporting information are available at https://linktr.ee/fairsettlementiom