In brief
- The Government is proposing major changes which would impact how individuals can qualify for indefinite leave to remain in the UK (''ILR''), also known as permanent residence.
- Amongst the proposals, it plans to double the standard timeline to ILR from five to 10 years (moving to 15 years for those in a role below RQF level 6), abolish the 10-year long residence route, and change the way that dependants qualify for ILR.
- Entrenched into the proposals are streamlined pathways for high earners and top talent, who may qualify for a three-year timeline to ILR.
- The consultation closed on 12 February 2026, and we have responded in full.
- It is not known when any changes will come into force, but we anticipate changes from April 2026.
What is driving the government's proposed earned settlement reforms?
The Government is under pressure to further reduce net migration, and the number of individuals due to qualify for ILR in the coming years. In its statement 'A Fairer Pathway to Settlement', the Home Secretary highlights that around 1.6 million people are forecast to qualify for ILR in the next five years, largely driven by increased immigration in 2022–2024, especially of those on health and care visas.
The Government therefore wants to replace the current system with an 'earned settlement' model, whereby applicants are assessed under new metrics including their level of 'integration' and 'contribution' to British society. Please refer to further details on the nature of the proposals in our previous article.
We have responded to the Government's proposals in detail. Below is a summary of some of the key issues we have raised.
Why is qualifying for ILR such a complex process?
Having read the Government's statement, it would be easy to think that qualifying for ILR is simply a matter of having spent five years living in the UK. This is not the case, and there are very specific criteria that individuals already need to meet, including around the number of days you spend in the UK and your level of English language. English language requirements have already been raised for several immigration categories, including skilled worker (the most popular work visa category in the UK), where you need an advanced level of English to qualify for the visa. Other visa specific criteria also come into play, such as under the innovator founder visa where applicants must meet stringent rules to demonstrate business success to qualify for ILR.
How will the proposed ILR changes affect costs for employers and employees?
For those already making a large contribution to UK society, such as high earners, the plans may be beneficial. For example, it is proposed that applicants who have earned a taxable income of at least £125,140 for three years immediately prior to applying for ILR may be eligible to apply for ILR in three years. It is also proposed that those in the UK on a global talent or innovator founder visa should continue to benefit from a three-year timeline to ILR, subject to meeting certain conditions.
This aspect of the proposals is welcomed. However, for workers who fall outside of the above earnings threshold, the proposals will make an already expensive and time-consuming system even more burdensome. For example, the cost to a single employee applying for a five-year skilled worker visa (without any dependant family members) is almost £7,000 in visa fees and immigration health surcharge fees. The cost to the employer is £7,125 for a large sponsor (for the immigration skills charge and certificate of sponsorship). These figures do not include the costs of legal fees, translation costs or optional fees such as priority processing.
Companies are already shouldering the burden of huge financial and administrative costs when it comes to sponsoring a worker up to the point of ILR. Increasing the timeline to ILR to 10-15 years for medium skilled workers, and therefore asking companies to sponsor workers for longer, will make it even harder for them to recruit the workers they require and result in many thousands of pounds more in costs for companies and individuals alike.
How could the earned settlement proposals impact families and children?
The impact of the proposals on dependants would represent a major departure from the current system.
At present, dependants can typically qualify for ILR on the basis of the main applicant having been granted ILR, provided the dependant has spent the requisite number of years living in the UK. Under the new proposals, adult dependants would need to qualify for ILR in their own right, and would need to meet the new 'mandatory requirements' for ILR. This could mean that many dependants who currently qualify, no longer will.
For example, under the mandatory requirements an applicant must earn a minimum taxable income of £12,570 for three to five years before applying. This could therefore be an obstacle to ILR for a dependant spouse who is not working in the UK, for example, a stay-at-home parent or carer. Such changes not only undervalue the vital role that such unpaid contributions make to society, but also risk inadvertently prejudicing women who disproportionately undertake caring responsibilities.
In addition, currently, children can only generally qualify for ILR if both parents do (unless particular circumstances apply, like the main applicant holding sole responsibility for the child). Therefore, the proposals could also have a major knock-on impact on children and their ability to qualify for ILR.
Why should the earned settlement changes not be applied retrospectively?
The Government proposes to apply these changes to everyone who has not yet qualified for ILR (with limited exceptions). Applying changes retrospectively in this way is highly controversial, and there has been much debate at parliamentary level over the pejorative impact that this would have on many individuals who are already mid-way through their immigration journey and have been following the rules in good faith. We believe that robust transitional protections are essential and that no changes should be applied retrospectively.
How might the earned settlement proposals affect the UK's global competitiveness?
Extending the timeline to ILR, adding further complexity, costs and uncertainty are not conducive to promoting integration. Moreover, they all serve to deter international talent from choosing the UK, many of whom are already choosing other countries, such as Italy, Australia, the UAE and the US which have more favourable regimes. For example, in the US, spouses of US citizens may obtain a green card in less than two years, and some work-based visa routes can also lead to green card status within a few years.
The UK is competing internationally for talent and these proposals risk making us an outlier in the fact of other countries which offer quicker and more certain routes to ILR. Changes which increase complexity and costs, and lengthen timelines to ILR, will discourage companies and individuals from doing business in the UK.
The UK needs a competitive visa route which both supports the UK's economic objectives and attracts investors and entrepreneurs.
What are the key concerns arising from the Government’s earned settlement proposals?
Whilst the Government's desire to control migration and ensure meaningful contribution to UK society is understandable, these proposals raise fundamental concerns about fairness, practicality, and the UK's global competitiveness.
The UK should adopt a balanced approach, one that:
- recognises diverse forms of contribution beyond earned income;
- protects vulnerable groups, particularly children and families;
- provides robust transitional arrangements for those already on settlement pathways;
- maintains the UK's ability to attract and retain international talent; and
- promotes genuine integration rather than creating barriers to it.
Without such an approach, the proposals risk causing significant hardship to families whilst simultaneously undermining the UK's economic objectives and the Government's commitment to attract the 'brightest and the best' to the UK.