Earned Settlement UK: 2026 ILR Reform Guide

Section A: Earned Settlement Reforms Overview

The earned settlement consultation proposes a redesign of the UK’s settlement system, tentatively replacing the long-standing five-year ILR routes with a contribution-based model founded on a ten-year baseline for most categories. The details remain subject to consultation and parliamentary approval, but the Command Paper provides a framework for how the Home Office envisages settlement being earned in the future.

1. Background to the 2025 Immigration White Paper

The Immigration White Paper Restoring Control Over the Immigration System, published in May 2025, frames settlement reform as central to reshaping the UK’s long-term immigration offer. The Government argues that the existing framework, in which many routes lead to ILR after five years, provides limited differentiation between categories of migrants, an insufficient link between contribution and permanence and inadequate checks on integration, character and financial responsibility.

The accompanying consultation document, A Fairer Pathway to Settlement, launched on 20 November 2025, sets out proposals under active consideration. The consultation is open until 12 February 2026 and explicitly recognises that the policy may be adapted in light of stakeholder responses. Until the Government publishes draft Immigration Rules and lays them before Parliament, the earned settlement framework remains a proposal rather than a binding policy.

The white paper positions settlement reform within broader objectives, including reducing net migration, tightening access to citizenship and ensuring that people who obtain long-term status demonstrate strong conduct, sustained economic participation and integration into UK society. The earned settlement model is therefore presented as a key mechanism for aligning long-term immigration status with the Government’s wider policy agenda.

2. New Earned Settlement Consultation & Statement Launched

The Home Secretary has set out her vision in an official statement entitled ‘A Fairer Pathway to Settlement’, and has now launched a public consultation process on the proposals.

The consultation, launched on 20 November 2025 and open until 12 February 2026, outlines in high-level terms how the Home Office is considering reshaping the UK’s long-term offer to migrants. It sets out a proposed ten-year baseline qualifying period for most settlement routes, the removal of the stand-alone ten-year long residence route and a new set of universal mandatory conditions linked to conduct, income, English language, integration and financial responsibility. Although the detail will only be finalised after the consultation closes and draft Immigration Rules are published, the paper provides a strong indication of how future settlement policy may be structured.

The consultation also explores a time-adjustment model in which high earners and certain priority routes, such as Global Talent and Innovator Founder, could qualify for accelerated settlement through reductions to the ten-year baseline. By contrast, workers sponsored in lower-paid or sub-RQF 6 roles, and individuals who rely on public funds, are used in illustrative scenarios where qualifying periods lengthen to fifteen, twenty or even thirty years. These scenarios are not yet fixed policy, but they demonstrate the breadth of outcomes the Government is willing to contemplate.

Until the consultation closes and draft Immigration Rules are published, the earned settlement proposals remain indicative. No current ILR routes have been removed or extended in law and individuals currently eligible for ILR under the existing five-year or ten-year systems continue to qualify as usual. The Home Office will need to publish detailed rules, including transitional provisions, and lay them before Parliament before any of the proposals can take effect.

The consultation document itself emphasises that the examples and timelines are subject to change and that the Government is seeking stakeholder views on questions of fairness, proportionality and practicality. Implementation, if it proceeds, is likely to be staged and may involve different commencement dates for different routes. For employers and migrants alike, the key legal point at this stage is that the earned settlement framework is a proposal under consultation, not a set of operative rules, even though it provides a strong signal of the direction in which the Home Office intends to move.

Section B: What is the New Earned Settlement System for UK ILR?

Earned settlement is the model set out in the consultation as the proposed replacement for the UK’s long-established five-year ILR routes. Instead of treating settlement as a near-automatic stage reached through time and basic route compliance, the earned settlement framework would introduce a ten-year baseline for most applicants and apply a set of mandatory conditions linked to conduct, contribution, English language and financial responsibility. The intention is to create a more conditional and differentiated system in which permanence reflects sustained participation in UK society rather than progression through a visa category.

1. Proposed Baseline UK Settlement Model

At the core of the consultation is the proposal for a ten-year baseline qualifying period for most settlement routes. This is presented as the default position from which time adjustments may be made, replacing the standard five-year expectation that currently applies to the majority of work-related and many family-related ILR pathways. The consultation also proposes abolishing the current ten-year long residence route as a stand-alone basis for ILR, with long residence instead being absorbed into the broader time-adjustment structure.

Under the proposed model, settlement becomes something achieved at the conclusion of a decade of lawful residence and satisfaction of mandatory suitability, contribution and integration conditions. This represents a departure from the current assumption that most lawful migrants progressing through a relevant route will qualify for ILR after five years, provided they meet route-specific requirements. The consultation does not yet specify how transitional cohorts will be treated, and it leaves open the possibility that some routes may retain different qualifying periods or be subject to bespoke arrangements.

Importantly, the consultation documents present the ten-year baseline as a starting point rather than a rigid rule, emphasising that the Home Office is seeking views on both the level of the baseline and the fairness of the proposed adjustments for different groups.

2. Proposed Mandatory Conditions for all Applicants

A defining feature of the earned settlement model is the introduction of universal baseline conditions that would apply to all applicants, regardless of route. The consultation proposes that failure to meet any one of these conditions would bar settlement, even where the residence requirement has been met. These conditions are intended to sit within a new “Part Suitability” of the Immigration Rules, designed specifically for long-term status.

The mandatory conditions under consultation include:

• Meeting suitability criteria in a new Part Suitability, aligned with expectations for long-term status and potentially going beyond current Part 9 thresholds in some respects.
• Demonstrating at least B2-level English, raising the bar from the current B1 requirement for most ILR applications, with precise evidential and testing arrangements to be determined.
• Passing the Life in the UK test, which remains a core element of integration assessment.
• Showing a sustained period of earnings exceeding the income tax and National Insurance threshold, with the consultation indicating this would be assessed using HMRC data and could be adjusted as tax thresholds change.
• Having no outstanding debts to the state, including NHS charges, tax arrears, penalties, immigration litigation costs or other public debts, at the point of applying for settlement.
• Proving continuous compliance with immigration conditions throughout the qualifying period, including adherence to sponsorship rules and conditions attached to limited leave.

These conditions, if implemented, would represent a significant tightening of the status threshold. A clean criminal record, upper intermediate English language ability and demonstrable financial responsibility become prerequisites for permanence. The requirement for earnings above tax and NIC thresholds introduces a direct link between economic productivity and settlement eligibility.

The consultation acknowledges that these proposals could have a particularly pronounced effect on applicants who have experienced periods of low income, health-related absences or caring responsibilities, and it invites views on how these situations should be treated.

Positions shown reflect proposals in the consultation and may change before any new rules take effect.

3. Proposed income-linked time reductions

The consultation sets out a two-tier system of reductions to the ten-year baseline for individuals with sustained higher earnings, explicitly framing these as proposals that may be adjusted following feedback and in response to future tax changes.

In outline, the proposals are that:

• Applicants with taxable income above £125,140 for the three years prior to application could see a seven-year deduction from the ten-year baseline, resulting in a three-year settlement route.
• Applicants with taxable income above £50,270 for the same period could receive a five-year deduction, restoring a five-year route in effect, similar to the current system.

These reductions would only apply where all mandatory conditions are met, and the consultation makes clear that HMRC-verified income data would be central to the assessment. The thresholds used in the examples correspond to contemporary higher and additional rate tax bands and may shift as fiscal policy evolves.

The consultation also signals that Global Talent and Innovator Founder visa holders are intended to benefit from accelerated settlement in line with these time reductions, recognising that some high-value individuals may have fluctuating incomes while still making substantial economic and innovation contributions. However, the final criteria, and any specific route carve-outs, will only be known once the consultation has concluded and the Government has decided how to translate the proposals into detailed rules.

4. Proposed Upward Adjustments & Penalties

Alongside the potential for income-linked reductions, the consultation proposes multiple circumstances in which the qualifying period could be increased beyond the ten-year baseline. These upward adjustments are presented through example scenarios rather than fully drafted Rules, but they offer a clear indication of the Government’s thinking.

The key examples include:

• Lower-paid and sub-RQF 6 sponsored roles: A proposed standard qualifying period of 15 years for workers sponsored in roles below RQF level 6, including many Health and Care roles. This reflects the Government’s view that such roles are associated with lower levels of contribution for settlement purposes.
• Use of public funds: Illustrative scenarios in which less than 12 months’ use of public funds adds five years to the qualifying timeline, and 12 months or more adds ten years, potentially creating 15- or 20-year routes.
• Irregular entry, overstaying or misuse of visit permission: Examples in which past immigration breaches lead to substantial additional years being added on top of the baseline, with some illustrative scenarios extending to around 30 years before settlement.
• Debt to the state: Situations where unresolved NHS debt, unpaid tax liabilities or government penalties delay eligibility until the debt is resolved.
• Potential NRPF at settlement: A consultation question on whether some grants of settlement should carry a No Recourse to Public Funds condition, which would represent a major departure from the current position that ILR normally confers access to public funds.

These examples are not yet drafted as binding legal tests, and the consultation expressly invites views on proportionality, particularly in sectors such as health and social care and in relation to applicants who have had limited control over their circumstances. Nevertheless, they underline the direction of travel towards a more punitive model for non-compliance and public funds reliance, where settlement becomes harder to achieve for those who rely on public services or have disrupted immigration histories.

All timelines are illustrative examples from the consultation and are not yet law.

5. Groups Proposed to be Unaffected and Out of Scope

The consultation makes clear that several protected cohorts fall outside the scope of the proposed changes. These include:

• Individuals who already hold Indefinite Leave to Remain.
• Those with status under the EU Settlement Scheme.
• Windrush scheme cases.
• Children in care and care leavers.

For these groups, settlement rights derive from separate statutory and policy frameworks that the Government is not seeking to reform through this consultation. The earned settlement proposals are therefore directed primarily at future ILR applicants and those currently on routes that, under the present system, would lead to five-year or ten-year settlement. The consultation does not yet set out in detail how migrants who are part-way through an existing route will be treated and acknowledges that transitional provisions will be critical to ensuring fairness.

6. Conditions that Could Bar Settlement Entirely

One of the most consequential features of the earned settlement system, as described in the consultation, is that compliance with the residence requirement is not enough on its own. A worker could be lawfully resident in the UK for decades but still be unable to qualify for ILR if they fail to meet any one of the baseline mandatory conditions once they are in force.

Examples highlighted by the proposals include:

• Criminal convictions that engage the proposed suitability thresholds in the new Part Suitability, including some offences that might not currently lead to mandatory refusal under existing Part 9.
• Failure to meet B2 English, which may be a barrier for applicants who entered the UK many years earlier or who have limited opportunity for formal study.
• Gaps in National Insurance contributions, including periods of low income or self-employment where NI was not paid or was paid inconsistently.
• Debt to public bodies, such as NHS charges or unpaid tax liabilities, which may need to be fully resolved before settlement can be granted.
• Use of public funds, which in the illustrative scenarios both extends the route and could make it harder to demonstrate the required level of economic contribution.

Section C: Impact on Workers & Entrepreneurs

The earned settlement proposals substantially change the long-term expectations that workers and entrepreneurs can have when planning their future in the UK. The shift from a standard five-year route to a proposed decade-long baseline, with strict suitability and contribution conditions, introduces both opportunities and risks depending on an individual’s income, occupation, compliance history and personal circumstances. The examples and structures set out in the consultation are illustrative rather than final rules, but they provide a clear indication of how different categories of workers and business founders could be treated if the proposals are implemented.

1. Workers in standard salary bands

For most workers earning below the higher-rate tax threshold, the starting position in the consultation is a ten-year qualifying period as the baseline. This would, if implemented in its illustrative form, double the time currently required for the Skilled Worker route and other mainstream work categories. The consultation acknowledges that this would be a significant change but argues that a longer period is justified where settlement is being more closely linked to contribution and behaviour.

To move through a decade-long route under the proposals, workers would need to sustain stable employment, continuous earnings above the income tax and National Insurance threshold for a prescribed period and ongoing compliance with immigration conditions. Any gaps in employment, short-term reductions in hours or periods where earnings fall below tax thresholds may result in delays or upward adjustments depending on how the final criteria are drafted following the consultation.

Benefit use is given particular prominence in the Command Paper’s example scenarios. A period of access to public funds triggered by unemployment, reduced hours, sickness absence or family circumstances is shown as carrying substantial consequences. In the examples provided:

• A single period of public funds use for less than a year adds five years to the qualifying timeline.
• Public funds use for a year or more adds ten years, turning a ten-year route into a fifteen- or twenty-year path.

These examples are not yet binding rules, but they illustrate the kind of extensions the Government is considering. They introduce considerable uncertainty for workers whose industries experience seasonal variation, economic downturns or contract-based employment patterns, or where short-term reliance on benefits may be difficult to avoid.

The combination of the ten-year baseline and strict mandatory conditions means that workers could, under the model described in the consultation, accumulate long periods of lawful residence without ever meeting all settlement requirements. For example, a worker with strong residence but weaker English, a small tax debt or gaps in NI contributions could be permanently ineligible for ILR regardless of how long they remain in the UK, unless specific mitigating provisions are built into the final rules.

2. High earners and priority talent routes

High earners are among those who stand to benefit most under the earned settlement proposals. Individuals who consistently earn above £125,140 in taxable income over a three-year period are, in the consultation’s examples, candidates for a three-year settlement route through a seven-year reduction to the ten-year baseline. This is faster than many current accelerated routes and is presented as a way to enhance the UK’s competitive offer for senior specialists and internationally mobile professionals.

Applicants earning between £50,270 and £125,140 for three consecutive years may still benefit from a five-year route—a restoration in practice of the current standard timeline. The Home Office frames these reductions as a way of recognising economic contribution through sustained tax and NI payments. The consultation also indicates that assessments would be based heavily on HMRC-verified data, which could have different implications for employed workers and those with more complex income patterns.

The consultation specifically highlights Global Talent and Innovator Founder visa holders as groups intended to benefit from accelerated settlement, aligning them with the highest-earning tiers even where income may fluctuate due to entrepreneurial activity. This reinforces the policy emphasis on attracting high-skill, high-value individuals and aligning settlement incentives with the Government’s growth and innovation agenda.

However, even high earners must satisfy all mandatory conditions. A criminal conviction, unresolved tax debt, or failure to meet B2 English would block settlement despite meeting the income threshold for accelerated timelines. The consultation explicitly seeks views on how far income should mitigate other factors, making clear that contribution alone will not override suitability concerns.

3. Lower-paid workers and care sector roles

Workers in roles below RQF level 6, including many in the Health and Care sector, feature in some of the most challenging example scenarios in the consultation. The Command Paper sets out a potential standard qualifying period of 15 years for workers sponsored in sub-RQF 6 roles, reflecting a policy view that such roles should not necessarily lead quickly to settlement, even where there is ongoing labour need.

This creates a stark contrast between higher-paid routes that may reach settlement in three or five years and lower-paid workers who may face 15–20-year routes, particularly if periods of benefit use occur. The impact is not only economic but also personal: prolonged immigration control over many years can affect family stability, job mobility and integration outcomes for workers who are, in practice, providing essential services in the UK.

Care sector roles, already subject to high turnover and demanding working conditions, may become less attractive if settlement becomes significantly less accessible. Workers who might otherwise have seen the UK as a long-term home could reassess their options if the route to permanence is perceived as too long or too conditional. This in turn may have consequences for workforce planning across health and social care.

The consultation acknowledges that some of these proposals raise issues of fairness and sustainability and specifically invites feedback on how long qualifying periods and public funds penalties should interact in sectors where pay is structurally low. It does not yet clarify, however, whether years spent in a lower-paid role would permanently “lock” a worker into a longer route even if they progress into higher-paid, higher-skilled work later.

4. Entrepreneurs and self-employed contributors

Entrepreneurs and founders face distinct challenges under a system where taxable income and NI contributions play a central role in settlement eligibility. Business owners frequently experience early periods of low or volatile income, which could affect their ability to meet both the proposed mandatory earnings condition and the higher thresholds for time reductions.

The consultation indicates that Global Talent and Innovator Founder visa holders may be treated more flexibly through accelerated tiers that recognise innovation and high potential rather than income alone. For other founders and self-employed individuals, however, the model places greater weight on the sustainability and tax profile of their businesses.

Gaps in NI contributions, losses, or years of low revenue may expose founders to longer settlement timelines or even permanent ineligibility if the mandatory conditions are not met. Journalistic or academic entrepreneurs, creatives and self-employed specialists may also encounter difficulty if earnings fluctuate seasonally or if income patterns do not align neatly with tax-year thresholds used in HMRC data. The consultation acknowledges these complexities and seeks stakeholder input on how contribution should be assessed for non-salaried individuals, but it does not yet provide a detailed mechanism.

Section D: Impact on Family Members

The earned settlement proposals extend beyond principal applicants, drawing family members into a system where residence, contribution and compliance determine timelines for permanence. This represents a major shift away from the long-standing principle that dependants generally qualify for ILR in line with the main applicant.

Under the consultation, family members may have their own independent qualifying periods, their own exposure to mandatory suitability and contribution conditions and a separate risk of upward adjustments linked to income, benefit use and integration indicators. These elements are presented in the Command Paper as indicative and exploratory, with the Government expressly seeking feedback on their fairness and practicality.

1. Inclusion of family routes in the earned settlement framework

Although the proposals preserve a form of the five-year route for partners of British citizens and settled persons, this protection is achieved through a fixed five-year reduction from the proposed ten-year baseline. This retains an effective five-year pathway, but it now sits within a broader earned settlement model where mandatory conditions would still apply if implemented as outlined.

For dependants of workers and entrepreneurs, however, the consultation suggests that qualifying periods may be assessed independently of the main applicant. This is a significant departure from the current system, where dependants typically qualify for ILR alongside the primary visa holder if they have accrued five years of residence as dependants. Under the earned settlement proposals, alignment cannot be assumed. The consultation’s intent is to link settlement outcomes more closely to individual contribution and conduct, though it invites stakeholder views on the extent to which dependants should face parallel requirements.

This independent assessment means dependants may qualify earlier, later or at an entirely different time from the main applicant depending on their personal circumstances. While the consultation does not yet provide a complete model, it indicates the Government’s direction of travel towards an approach in which dependants’ settlement timelines are determined on their own merits rather than by default alignment.

2. Income, work and benefit use for dependants

One of the most consequential features of the consultation is the potential extension of benefit-related penalties and contribution assessments to dependants in their own right. A partner who takes a break from work due to childcare, caring responsibilities or study could, under the illustrative scenarios, lose access to income-linked reductions and be exposed to upward adjustments if their circumstances trigger entitlement to public funds.

In the Command Paper’s examples of the time-adjustment model:

• An applicant who has been in receipt of public funds for less than twelve months could have five years added to their qualifying period.
• An applicant who has been in receipt of public funds for twelve months or more could have ten years added, potentially creating a fifteen- or twenty-year route.

Although the examples refer to “the applicant” in general terms, the same approach would apply where a dependant is the one applying for settlement. In practice, this means that periods on public funds could extend a dependant’s own timeline even if the main applicant has remained in full-time work and has not claimed benefits.

These extensions may occur even if the main applicant remains in full-time work, never claims benefits and remains fully compliant. Households where one partner pauses work temporarily for legitimate reasons could, therefore, find themselves split across different settlement timelines if the proposals are implemented without modification.

The consultation also raises questions about how income-based reductions would apply to dependants. It does not yet confirm whether dependants would need to demonstrate independent earnings above tax and NIC thresholds or whether income from the household could be aggregated. The Home Office has sought views on this but has not yet provided a proposed mechanism.

3. Children and the transition to adulthood

The consultation raises a specific set of issues relating to children, particularly those close to turning eighteen. The current system often aligns children’s settlement with their parents’ ILR, allowing families to obtain settled status together. Under the earned settlement model, this automatic alignment is questioned. The consultation suggests that the Home Office is considering a more individualised approach for children’s settlement, based on factors such as residence duration, integration indicators and personal history.

However, the Command Paper provides no definitive criteria and explicitly invites views on how children should be treated. Several issues arise from this lack of clarity:

• Children who arrive in the UK at an older age may not easily accumulate ten years’ residence before turning eighteen.
• Teenagers in full-time education may not meet contribution-related criteria tied to earnings or NI requirements.
• The transitional phase from child to adult could become a period of immigration vulnerability rather than stability.
• Families may experience differing timelines for each child depending on their age at arrival, school attendance patterns and periods of absence.

Until final Rules are drafted, it remains uncertain how closely children’s settlement pathways would track those of their parents or whether standalone criteria would be applied.

4. Divergence of timelines within families

The combined effect of independent assessment, benefit penalties and occupation-based extensions is that family members within the same household could accrue significantly different qualifying periods. The consultation gives examples where one household member’s benefit use or occupation affects their own settlement timeline while leaving the main applicant’s route unchanged.

Possible outcomes under the model described in the consultation include:

• A main applicant earning £55,000 may remain candidates for a five-year route, while a partner who takes time out of work may fall onto a ten-year baseline.
• A dependant in a lower-paid or sub-RQF 6 role may face a proposed fifteen-year route even when the main applicant qualifies in five years.
• Two children in the same household may have different settlement timelines depending on age at arrival.

This divergence increases the complexity of long-term planning for migrant families. Decisions around childcare, study, work breaks, part-time employment and benefit use become central to future settlement outcomes. Families may need to approach settlement planning collectively, integrating immigration considerations into household financial and employment decisions.

Section E: Impact on Employers

The earned settlement proposals, if implemented, would reshape the long-term environment in which UK employers recruit, support and retain overseas workers. Replacing the established five-year ILR expectation with a conditional ten- to fifteen-year model fundamentally changes the attractiveness of sponsored roles, the stability of employment relationships and the operational burden placed on HR teams. The consultation presents these changes as indicative and invites employer views, meaning the final structure may differ. However, the direction of travel is clear: employers will face a longer-term and more compliance-intensive relationship with sponsored workers.

1. Recruitment and retention changes

The move from a five-year ILR route to a proposed decade-long baseline alters the long-term value proposition employers can offer overseas recruits. Historically, the five-year route provided a clear horizon of stability, family security and personal autonomy, particularly attractive in competitive international labour markets.

Under the earned settlement model set out in the consultation:

• Lower-paid and mid-level roles may be significantly harder to market internationally, as a ten- or fifteen-year pathway offers less certainty and a prolonged period of immigration control.
• Workers may be less willing to relocate to the UK for roles where pay progression is slow and benefit reliance is more likely, given the penalties illustrated in the Command Paper.
• International candidates may choose jurisdictions offering faster or more predictable pathways to settlement.
• Employers recruiting for senior or high-earning positions may gain a competitive advantage where the three- or five-year accelerated settlement routes apply.

The consultation acknowledges that the extended timelines for lower-paid roles, especially in social care and frontline health positions, may affect these sectors disproportionately. It invites views on whether occupation-specific mitigations should be included.

2. Sponsorship risk over extended periods

The extension of qualifying periods means that employers would need to manage longer sponsorship relationships, sometimes spanning a decade or more. This introduces additional compliance challenges, especially for organisations that sponsor large numbers of workers.

Potential impacts include:

• Increased risk of missed visa renewals or delays in responding to changes in employee circumstances.
• More reportable events arising from changes to duties, salaries, work locations or hours.
• Greater exposure to Home Office compliance visits and audits over a longer timeframe.
• Dependants’ changing circumstances potentially creating more complex queries and evidential needs.

Over ten or fifteen years, even relatively small administrative errors may have consequences for a worker’s eligibility for settlement, which could give rise to disputes, grievances or reputational challenges for employers.

3. HR and workforce management implications

The earned settlement proposals introduce a new set of pressures for HR teams and workforce managers, as long-term immigration outcomes become tied to factors within the employer’s operational control. The consultation signals an intention to integrate HMRC data more closely with immigration assessments, which is likely to tighten scrutiny of payroll accuracy and employment continuity.

Key HR considerations include:

• Income stability: Employees may need assurance that their roles and hours will not drop below the thresholds used to assess tax and NI contributions.
• Changes in working patterns: Reductions in hours, periods of statutory leave, or reorganisations may have direct consequences for settlement timelines.
• Disciplinary processes: Misconduct leading to criminal convictions could bar settlement entirely under the proposed Part Suitability criteria.
• Debt support: Workers with tax arrears or NHS debt could be temporarily or permanently disqualified unless issues are resolved, meaning employers may face requests for documentation or assistance.
• Increased evidence requests: Ten- to fifteen-year routes would produce more requests for employment records, income evidence, letters of support and contract histories.

HR teams may need to invest in enhanced compliance systems, including periodic immigration audits, structured pay reviews and closer coordination with payroll teams to minimise risk.

4. Operational planning and cost management

Longer settlement timelines influence how employers plan workforce stability and operational resilience. Organisations will need to consider how the broader earned settlement model may affect recruitment pipelines, turnover rates and the availability of overseas labour in different sectors.

Potential operational impacts include:

• Higher turnover among sponsored workers who do not perceive a viable route to settlement.
• Increased need for internal immigration support, including specialist HR roles or external advisers.
• Budgeting for higher compliance and administrative costs linked to longer sponsorship periods.
• Adjustments to pay progression frameworks to help workers meet income thresholds for accelerated routes where appropriate.
• Scenario planning for sectors where migration supply may contract if lower-paid roles become perceived as offering limited long-term prospects.

The consultation emphasises that settlement reform must be workable for employers and invites views on proportionality, cost impact and whether specific sectors require exemptions or tailored measures.

5. Sector-specific implications

The consultation identifies several sectors likely to be most affected by the earned settlement model:

• Health and Social Care: Workers in sub-RQF 6 roles could face a fifteen-year standard timeline, affecting recruitment and retention in already stretched services.
• Professional Services: Firms may benefit from accelerated settlement for high earners but face challenges in attracting junior international talent.
• Technology and STEM: The three-year and five-year accelerated routes may support recruitment of specialist talent in globally competitive fields.
• Hospitality and Retail: Lower-paid sponsorship routes may become less attractive if settlement prospects diminish substantially.
• Education and Research: Global Talent applicants may continue to be an important source of recruitment given their potential access to accelerated settlement.

The consultation invites sector-specific evidence, particularly in relation to labour shortages, pay constraints, and how extended settlement timelines may affect different industries.

Section F: DMS Strategic Perspective

The earned settlement proposals signal a significant shift in how long-term immigration status may be structured in the UK, moving away from predictable five-year ILR routes and towards a multi-tiered, contribution-focused model. Although the proposals remain at consultation stage and may be revised following stakeholder feedback, they collectively indicate a strategic reframing of the settlement landscape.

1. A shift from automatic to conditional permanence

The proposed earned settlement framework represents a fundamental change in how migrants progress to long-term status. Settlement is reframed as something to be earned through sustained contribution rather than an automatic benefit of route progression and residence. The ten-year baseline, paired with wide-ranging mandatory conditions, introduces a more conditional and performance-based pathway.

From a strategic standpoint, this creates a system in which permanence becomes contingent on behaviour and compliance, not simply time spent in the UK. Workers who previously relied on meeting route-specific residence requirements must now consider the broader criteria embedded in the consultation, including income stability, conduct, and integration. Employers must recognise that their sponsored workers’ long-term prospects may depend on factors that interact directly with workplace decisions, such as salary levels, hours of work, disciplinary processes and periods of leave.

2. Winners and losers under the proposed system

The consultation’s illustrative examples make clear that the proposed framework creates sharper distinctions between groups of migrants. High earners, Global Talent applicants and Innovator Founder visa holders stand to benefit from accelerated settlement, gaining access to three- or five-year routes that could be more generous than current options. These groups are positioned as economic contributors whose long-term presence is strategically desirable for the UK.

By contrast, lower-paid workers, those in sub-RQF 6 roles and individuals who experience periods of benefit reliance feature in illustrative scenarios with extended timelines of up to fifteen, twenty or thirty years. The consultation acknowledges that these proposals raise fairness concerns, particularly in sectors such as care where low pay is structural, not reflective of individual contribution. This divergence could influence the distribution of international talent across sectors and affect the long-term attractiveness of UK roles.

3. Long-term compliance risks for employers

The proposed extension of settlement timelines significantly increases compliance exposure for employers. A ten- or fifteen-year sponsoring relationship heightens the likelihood of changes in employee circumstances—changes that must be monitored and reported accurately to maintain compliance.

Strategic risks include:

• Increased vulnerability to Home Office audits and compliance visits.
• Higher long-term dependence on accurate payroll reporting and HMRC integration.
• The need for structured, ongoing immigration monitoring and documentation management.
• Greater responsibility for supporting employees through immigration-relevant issues such as debt, tax matters or role changes.

Employers will need to review whether their HR and compliance systems are resilient enough to manage multi-year monitoring obligations and to support sponsored workers across more complex immigration journeys.

4. Workforce planning under conditional settlement

As settlement becomes more conditional and extended, workforce planning must adapt accordingly. Employers will need to consider how different categories of sponsored workers may respond to longer or more uncertain routes to permanence. In particular:

• Some workers may decide not to pursue long-term residence due to the extended timelines, increasing turnover in sponsored roles.
• International candidates may prefer jurisdictions offering more straightforward routes to settlement or citizenship.
• Employers may need to enhance compensation packages, pay progression or internal mobility to help workers meet contribution-based criteria.
• Longer settlement timelines may influence career planning, learning and development, and organisational talent pipelines.

Planning for these shifts now will help organisations maintain continuity and resilience if the earned settlement model proceeds.

5. Preparing for transition and uncertainty

The consultation stage means significant uncertainty remains. The range of proposals in the Command Paper reflects areas where the Home Office is still seeking evidence, including how dependants should be treated, how public funds penalties should operate, whether occupation-based timelines should apply and how to ensure the system remains proportionate.

We recommend that employers:

• Identify current sponsored workers and dependants who could be affected by different versions of the earned settlement framework.
• Review existing HR and compliance systems to assess whether they are robust enough for longer sponsorship periods.
• Prepare for increased employee queries and concerns about long-term immigration security.
• Engage with the consultation process to ensure sector-specific concerns are represented.

The eventual shape of the earned settlement system will depend on consultation outcomes and the drafting of new Immigration Rules. Preparing early will give employers strategic advantage and ensure smoother transition if the proposals, or a modified version of them, are adopted.

Section G: Summary

A new earned settlement system would fundamentally reshape long-term immigration in the UK. The proposals move away from the familiar five-year ILR model and outline a future system where settlement is granted only after a ten-year baseline and satisfaction of demanding suitability, income, English language and financial responsibility conditions.

Accelerated pathways for high earners and priority talent routes sit alongside potential extensions for lower-paid roles and those who experience periods of benefit use, signalling a sharper differentiation between migrant groups than under the current framework.

Families face new complexity, with dependants potentially assessed independently and exposed to their own adjustments, creating the possibility of staggered settlement journeys within the same household. For employers, the proposals indicate longer sponsorship horizons, greater compliance exposure and changes to recruitment and retention dynamics, particularly in sectors where pay and progression are constrained.

While nothing has yet changed in law, the consultation provides a clear indication of the direction of travel. Individuals and employers should review the potential implications now, monitor the consultation response closely and prepare for transition, recognising that the eventual system may reshape settlement expectations, workforce planning and household immigration strategy for many years to come.

Section H: Need Assistance?

If you are unsure how these proposals could affect your organisation, or your own long-term plans, take tailored professional advice before making any decisions. The consultation leaves many questions open, and the eventual framework may look very different once draft Rules are published.

Book a fixed-fee telephone consultation to speak with one of our specialist advisers to help prepare and protect your position under both the current system and any future earned settlement model. Early advice will give you clearer options, reduce uncertainty and ensure you are prepared for whatever changes the Government decides to implement.

Section I: FAQs

What is “earned settlement” under the proposals?

Earned settlement is the Home Office’s proposed replacement for the current five-year ILR model. Instead of qualifying automatically after a fixed period of residence, applicants would complete a proposed ten-year baseline and meet new mandatory requirements relating to income, English language, conduct, contribution and financial responsibility. The structure remains at consultation stage, and the final version may differ depending on feedback.

Have the rules changed?

The earned settlement framework is not law. Existing five-year and ten-year ILR routes remain fully in force. None of the consultation’s proposals or example timelines apply until new Immigration Rules are laid before Parliament and brought into effect.

Will most people now need ten years before applying for ILR?

The consultation proposes a ten-year baseline for most settlement routes, but this is not yet final. The model also includes reductions for high earners and upward adjustments for lower-paid roles or public funds use. The Government is seeking feedback on whether different sectors or circumstances should have tailored timelines.

Can workers still qualify for settlement in five years?

Possibly. In the consultation’s example model, workers earning above £50,270 in taxable income for three consecutive years may qualify for a five-year route through a reduction from the ten-year baseline. All mandatory conditions—including B2 English and financial responsibility—would still apply. The mechanism remains subject to consultation feedback.

Who may qualify for the three-year accelerated route?

The proposed three-year route applies to individuals earning above £125,140 in taxable income for three consecutive years, and potentially to certain Global Talent and Innovator Founder applicants. These are illustrative examples pending confirmation through the consultation process.

What happens if someone claims benefits during the qualifying period?

The Command Paper includes examples where benefit use adds substantial time to the qualifying period: five extra years for less than twelve months of public funds use, and ten extra years for use over twelve months. These are not yet binding rules, but they indicate the Government’s intended direction and the importance placed on economic self-sufficiency.

What happens to the current ten-year long residence route?

The consultation proposes abolishing the stand-alone ten-year long residence ILR route and absorbing its purpose into the new ten-year baseline and time-adjustment model. This is not yet law. Transitional arrangements will be essential for individuals already part-way through a long residence journey.

Do dependants qualify with the main applicant?

Under the proposals, dependants may be assessed independently, meaning they could qualify earlier, later or not at the same time as the main applicant. This is a major divergence from the current alignment model. The consultation invites views on whether dependants should have identical, lighter or distinct requirements.

Will care workers face longer routes?

Potentially. The consultation suggests a fifteen-year standard qualifying period for sponsored roles below RQF level 6, which includes many Health and Care Worker positions. Benefit use could lengthen this further. These are proposals rather than confirmed rules.

What should employers do now?

Employers should monitor the consultation, review internal HR and compliance systems, identify workers who may be affected by different future models and consider submitting evidence to the Home Office. No immediate procedural changes are required, but early scenario planning will support long-term workforce stability.

Section J: Glossary

Section K: Additional Links