The “Earned Settlement” Model

The Home Office has launched a public consultation on its proposed Earned Settlement model, which will introduce the most significant revisions to the settlement (Indefinite Leave to Remain/ILR) framework in decades. The consultation will run until 12th February 2026. Most core elements can be delivered via amendments to the Immigration Rules with primary legislation only required where reforms touch statutory rights, appeal structures or welfare entitlements, and policy guidance then giving operational content to the new framework.

Key Proposal: Default Qualifying Period

The default qualifying residence period for settlement is proposed to increase from five to 10 years for most applicants.
This baseline can be reduced for those who demonstrate greater “contribution” and “integration” or extended for those with negative factors.

Mandatory Requirements (must be met by all)

All applicants, regardless of the pathway, must meet these requirements:

Requirement	Details
Suitability	Meet existing Immigration Rules (e.g., no criminal conviction) and have no outstanding Government, NHS, tax, or litigation debt.
Integration	English language requirement at Level B2 (Higher than current B1), and passing the Life in the UK Test.
Contribution	Meeting an annual earnings threshold of £12,570 for a minimum of three to five years (duration subject to consultation).

Factors Reducing the 10-Year Period (“Earned Settlement”)

The 10-year baseline can be reduced by meeting criteria in one of the following categories (reductions cannot be combined):

Pillar	Attribute	Reduction
Contribution	Earning taxable income of £125,140 for 3 years	Minus 7 years
	Earning taxable income of £50,270 for 3 years	Minus 5 years
	Employed in a specified public service role for 5 years (e.g., medical/teaching professionals)	Minus 5 years
	Working in the community (e.g., volunteering)	Minus 3 to 5 years
Integration	Meeting the English language requirement to Level C1 (Advanced English)	Minus 1 year

Factors Increasing the 10-Year Period (Penalties)

The 10-year baseline can be significantly extended:

Negative Factor	Increase in Qualifying Period	Total Years
Claiming public funds for less than 12 months	+ 5 years	15 years
Claiming public funds for 12 months or more	+ 10 years	20 years
Illegal arrival, entry on a visit visa, or overstaying (6+ months)	Up to + 20 years	Up to 30 years
Lower skilled roles (below RQF Level 6) – Subject to consultation	+ 5 years	15 years

Note on offsetting: If an applicant has both positive and negative factors, they will be offset (e.g., a 5-year reduction minus a 10-year penalty results in a net 5-year increase).

Exempt Categories (existing faster routes maintained)

The following groups will generally not be affected by the 10-year default increase:

Dependents of British Citizens (5 years).
British Nationals (Overseas) (BN(O)) visa holders (5 years).
Global Talent and Innovator Founder visa holders (3 years).
EU Settlement Scheme (pre-settled/settled status holders) (5 years).

Other Significant Changes

Abolition of 10-Year Long Residence ILR: This route is proposed to be withdrawn. Time spent on non-settlement routes (like Student visas) may no longer count towards ILR.
Family Members: Adult dependents of a main applicant may need to qualify for settlement in their own right based on their own contribution, potentially leading to a longer timeline than the main applicant.
British Citizenship: Requirements will be amended to align with the new “Earned Settlement” rules post-consultation.
Retrospective Application: The Government is consulting on transitional arrangements, but the proposal is that the changes would apply to everyone who has not obtained settlement by the time the new rules take effect.

Implications and challenges

The proposed “earned settlement” model fundamentally re-engineers Indefinite Leave to Remain by moving it from a near-automatic endpoint of five years’ residence to a structured reward for verifiable contribution and integration. Transitioning the standard settlement timeline to ten years and introducing a time-adjustment mechanism, the system ensures permanent status is earned through demonstrable civic and economic contribution. This design ensures that permanent residence is granted based on sustained net contribution and self-sufficiency. This measured approach successfully manages population growth, significantly reduces projected settlement volumes, and secures essential cost savings on future public service demand. Ultimately, it strengthens the legitimacy of legal migration by ensuring new members have tangibly invested in the society they join.

However, initial analysis suggests that the model effectively attaches a price tag to residence security. High-earning professionals can secure their status more quickly through contribution discounts, whereas low-income workers, refugees, and disabled individuals face extended routes due to their limited earnings potential.

Although the reforms are framed around promoting integration, it has been pointed out that their design may, paradoxically, create structural impediments to it. Unpaid carers, community volunteers, or those with significant social capital but low financial capital may be penalised by criteria that fail to capture their non-economic contribution. Evidence suggests that prolonged periods with NRPF and precarious status limit access to stable housing, financial aid for education, and social support: factors consistently associated with poorer integration outcomes for both adults and children.

For essential but lower-paid workers (e.g. care, hospitality), the earnings-based tests and strict NRPF conditions risk deepening in-work poverty. Migrants may feel pressured to remain in challenging or underpaid roles, or with exploitative employers, to maintain their fragile immigration status.

The requirement for adult dependants to qualify in their own right creates the potential for intra-family divergence in settlement timelines. This challenges the family unit’s stability, potentially embedding extended precarity for spouses or partners whose career, caring, or health circumstances preclude them from meeting the new contribution metrics.

The proposed framework is likely to face both legal and administrative challenges. Switching individuals currently on a 5 year route on to a ten-year pathways is highly likely to trigger litigation arguing breaches of legitimate expectation, fairness, and proportionality under public and human rights law. Similarly, the contribution metrics are heavily weighted towards uninterrupted employment and high income which may carry an inherent risk of indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and Article 14 of the ECHR. The groups disproportionately impacted include:

Women and carers due to career breaks and part-time work.
Disabled people or individuals with chronic health conditions due to unavoidable interruptions or reduced capacity.
Low-paid sector workers whose financial contribution is statistically lower despite fulfilling essential economic roles.

Operating a system of quantified, route-specific, and non-compliance-related reductions and extensions (up to 20 years) demands exceptionally detailed and consistent guidance. The inherent complexity raises the risk of opaque and inconsistent decision-making, which will inevitably fuel an increase in appeals and judicial reviews centred on the proportionality of extended timelines and the interaction with Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to private and family life) in removal and human-rights appeals. Questions about the Home Office’s capacity and capability to run such a system have also been raised.

Business commentators have also noted that these terms compare unfavourably with competing jurisdictions offering faster settlement pathways. This risks making the UK a less attractive destination for mid-level international workers who are essential to the economy but may not meet the highest ‘contribution’ thresholds.