UK Earned Settlement: ILR Reform Explained

The UK Government has launched a public consultation examining whether to overhaul the way migrants qualify for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). The package of ideas is presented under the heading “earned settlement” and would, if ever implemented, move the system away from the familiar five-year routes that currently apply to most work and family categories. At this point, however, these proposals are not law. They are consultation-stage concepts only. No Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules has been laid to implement them, and every existing ILR route continues to operate exactly as set out in the current Rules.

It is important to stress that consultation documents, command papers and policy speeches do not change the law by themselves. Under the UK’s immigration framework, settlement requirements can only be altered where the Secretary of State lays a Statement of Changes before Parliament and those amendments are brought into force. Until that happens, applicants and employers must continue to rely on the existing ILR provisions, including the five-year routes for many workers and family members and the separate ten-year long residence category.

What this article is about: This article explains what sits inside the earned settlement consultation, how it links to the Government’s wider immigration strategy, and what has—and has not—changed in law. It is aimed at workers, families and employers who need a clear understanding of the current legal position while also keeping an eye on possible future reforms.

The consultation outlines a possible settlement architecture built around a ten-year default qualifying period, overlaid with a set of common conditions on suitability, English language, financial responsibility, long-term compliance and economic contribution. It also includes worked scenarios showing how the ten-year baseline could be shortened for some higher earners or lengthened where there has been public funds use or immigration breaches. These scenarios are examples only. They are not draft Rules, they do not have legal status and they cannot be relied upon as a basis for any current application.

Throughout this article, the existing law is kept separate from consultation-stage policy ideas. Where the Government has put forward theoretical models or hypothetical case studies, these are treated as discussion tools rather than anything approaching legislation. The current ILR framework—including the five-year settlement routes attached to work and family categories and the ten-year lawful residence route—remains unchanged unless and until revised through a Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules and any related commencement arrangements.

Section A: Overview of the Earned Settlement Proposals

The earned settlement consultation sketches out a possible redesign of the UK’s long-term immigration and settlement framework. Under the concepts described, settlement in most cases would no longer be approached primarily through a five-year qualifying period tied to particular visa categories. Instead, most applicants would begin from a ten-year baseline, with settlement treated as a status that must be earned through sustained contribution, good conduct and ongoing compliance. If anything close to this framework were adopted, it would mark a significant policy shift. For now, though, it remains an outline model only. The Immigration Rules have not been amended and all established ILR routes remain available on their current terms.

Within the consultation material, settlement is recast as a conditional end-point rather than the near-automatic result of completing a set period of lawful residence. The suggested structure uses a ten-year starting point for most categories and overlays it with a single framework of suitability and contribution-based conditions. These conditions would apply irrespective of the underlying route used to live and work in the UK. The documents also provide example timelines showing how the ten-year period might be reduced for some higher earners or extended where there has been public funds use or immigration non-compliance. These examples do not constitute draft Immigration Rules, they have no legal force and they cannot be applied by caseworkers under current law.

The consultation is presented as one strand in a broader policy agenda for the immigration system from 2025 onwards. That wider strategy focuses on controlling net migration, tightening access to permanent status, embedding integrity and compliance more deeply into long-term routes, and placing stronger emphasis on English language, conduct, economic participation and financial resilience. These policy themes shape the earned settlement concept, but they will only become binding if and when specific amendments to the Immigration Rules are introduced, approved and commenced.

For readers who are primarily concerned with the law as it stands, three core points are critical:

• All current ILR routes—five-year and ten-year—remain fully operational and legally unchanged.
• The earned settlement consultation does not alter eligibility criteria, qualifying periods or evidential requirements for any existing category.
• No new income, HMRC data or contribution-based conditions have been written into the Immigration Rules at this stage.

The rest of Section A explains how the consultation sits within the Government’s 2025 immigration strategy, when and how the proposals have been published, and what kind of policy signals they send for the future.

1. Background to the Government’s 2025 Immigration Strategy

The earned settlement proposals are rooted in a wider strategic narrative for the UK immigration system from 2025 onwards. That narrative emphasises a more selective approach to long-term status and a stronger connection between settlement, integration and contribution. It suggests that the existing framework does not always separate clearly between different types of route or different levels of economic and social impact over time.

Within that strategic context, the Government identifies several perceived weaknesses in the current settlement architecture, including concerns that:

• Eligibility that rests mainly on time spent lawfully in the UK may not adequately distinguish between routes linked to different degrees of contribution or economic impact.
• The relationship between long-term residence and positive economic or social outcomes could be reinforced.
• Existing settlement checks may not fully reflect suitability, conduct and integration over an extended period of time.

These points are framed as policy arguments in favour of a more conditional, contribution-led model. However, they do not themselves alter the legal position. Strategy documents, white papers and ministerial statements are important for understanding where policy might move, but they cannot change the Immigration Rules. Under the UK’s legislative framework, ILR requirements remain fixed until a Statement of Changes is laid and brought into force, specifying exactly which Rules are to be amended, inserted or revoked.

The earned settlement consultation builds on this 2025 strategy but does not displace the existing five-year and ten-year ILR routes. Those routes continue to operate as set out in the current Immigration Rules, and applicants must still be assessed against the existing route-based criteria and general grounds for refusal. Any departure from that framework would have to be stated explicitly in amended Rules and associated guidance.

2. Publication of the Earned Settlement Consultation

The detailed explanation of the earned settlement concept appears in a command paper and consultation document placed before Parliament on 20 November 2025. The consultation period is scheduled to run until 12 February 2026. During this window, the Government is inviting input from individuals, employers, representative bodies, legal advisers and other stakeholders on whether the proposed structures would be workable, fair and proportionate.

The documents set out a potential future model for reshaping how settlement might be obtained. The principal elements include:

• a ten-year default qualifying period for most categories, in place of the current norm that many work and family routes lead to ILR after five years
• withdrawal of the stand-alone ten-year long residence route, with long residence folded into the new baseline and time-adjustment framework
• a single set of mandatory conditions to be applied across routes, covering suitability, English language, financial responsibility and long-term immigration compliance
• a time-adjustment mechanism under which the ten-year baseline might be shortened or lengthened to reflect factors such as income, occupation, benefit use and immigration history

The consultation materials are careful to describe these elements as a conceptual framework put forward for discussion. They are not a draft of amended Rules, nor are they binding instructions to caseworkers. The legal tests for ILR therefore remain those contained in the current versions of the Immigration Rules and relevant guidance, including the existing five-year routes and the ten-year long residence provision.

The documents also accept that any future model would require detailed transitional provisions. Those provisions would need to deal with people who are already part-way through existing routes, those who are close to qualifying for ILR under current law, and those whose future plans have been based on the five-year structure. At this stage, no draft transitional rules have been published, and the consultation explicitly seeks views on how fairness and legal certainty should be maintained for these groups.

3. Strategic Direction and Policy Signals

Although the consultation does not itself introduce new Rules, it offers a strong indication of the direction in which the Home Office would like settlement policy to evolve. Several themes appear repeatedly across the command paper and consultation questions, including:

• treating settlement less as an almost routine five-year milestone and more as a conditional status earned through longer residence and ongoing compliance
• linking time spent in the UK more closely to sustained economic participation, tax contribution and adherence to immigration conditions
• tightening integration requirements, including the possibility of raising the English language threshold from B1 to B2 and reinforcing suitability assessments
• drawing clearer distinctions between different groups of migrants, with the potential for accelerated timelines for some higher earners and extended timelines where there has been public funds use or a history of non-compliance

The consultation suggests that any new settlement structure could, in principle, apply to people who have not yet qualified for ILR at the point when revised Rules come into force. However, the papers acknowledge that this would raise complex questions around legitimate expectation, fairness and reliance on the existing framework. No concrete transitional regime has been set out and the Government seeks feedback on how individuals and employers who have planned on the basis of current five- and ten-year routes should be treated if a new model is introduced.

For those who are already close to eligibility under present ILR rules, the consultation therefore creates a strategic consideration rather than a change in law. Individuals may need to decide whether to pursue ILR as soon as they meet the existing criteria or to wait and see whether any future system offers a more favourable route—though at this stage there is no certainty that any reform will proceed or, if it does, what shape it will take. Until a Statement of Changes is laid and commenced, the legal position is straightforward: the present ILR routes, qualifying periods and evidential requirements continue in full effect.

Section A Summary

Section A sets out how the earned settlement consultation outlines a potential move away from the UK’s established five-year ILR structure towards a ten-year default baseline with cross-cutting suitability and contribution conditions. It explains that the consultation sits within a broader 2025 immigration strategy focused on net migration control, contribution and integration, and that the detailed proposals are presented as a conceptual model for discussion. While the suggested framework could significantly alter how settlement is granted if implemented, it has no legal status at present. All existing ILR routes—including five-year work and family categories and the ten-year lawful residence provision—remain fully in force until the Immigration Rules are formally amended through a Statement of Changes and any new system is brought into effect.

Section B: Understanding the Proposed Earned Settlement System

The earned settlement consultation describes a potential replacement for the UK’s established five-year ILR framework. Instead of settlement being reached through a defined period of residence on a particular route, the consultation outlines a model centred on a ten-year baseline supported by a universal set of mandatory conditions covering conduct, integration, financial responsibility and long-term compliance. These concepts represent a marked departure from current law but remain at consultation stage only. The Immigration Rules have not been amended, no Statement of Changes has been laid, and all ILR applications continue to be assessed under the existing framework.

This section explains the core elements of the proposed structure: the ten-year qualifying baseline, a unified set of conditions applying across routes, possible reductions for higher earners, illustrative extensions where there has been public funds use or immigration breaches, the groups excluded from the reforms, and circumstances under which settlement could be refused entirely. Each element is presented in the consultation for discussion only. None have legal force and none may be relied upon as part of a current ILR application.

1. The Proposed Ten-Year Baseline Model

At the centre of the consultation is a proposal that most applicants should begin from a ten-year qualifying baseline. This would replace the present approach in which many workers, partners and long-term residents qualify for ILR after five years, provided they meet their route-specific criteria. Under the consultation’s model, the separate ten-year lawful residence route would be removed as a standalone basis for ILR and its function absorbed within the new baseline and time-adjustment framework.

The proposed baseline is described as a “default starting point”. From there, an applicant’s qualifying period could be shortened or extended depending on income, occupation, benefit use or compliance history. The consultation seeks feedback on whether ten years is an appropriate standard period, whether different routes should attract different baselines, and whether particular groups should be treated more flexibly.

If implemented in anything like its proposed form, this model would shift settlement away from the current time-based entitlement and re-cast it as a status earned through long-term participation and compliance. The papers acknowledge that detailed transitional provisions would be required to protect people already progressing under existing Rules. None have been drafted. Until they are, the current five-year and ten-year ILR routes remain fully available.

2. Proposed Universal Mandatory Conditions

A major element of the consultation is the proposal for a universal set of mandatory conditions to apply across all settlement routes. These conditions would operate as a reinforced suitability and contribution framework for long-term status and must be met regardless of the underlying route. Failure to meet any one of these conditions would prevent settlement even where an applicant has completed ten years of lawful residence.

The proposed mandatory conditions include:

• a strengthened suitability assessment, potentially beyond the current Part 9 framework
• a higher English language standard, with the consultation suggesting a move from B1 to B2
• continued use of the Life in the UK test
• evidence of sustained taxable earnings above the income tax and National Insurance threshold, with assessments relying primarily on HMRC data
• no outstanding public debt at the point of application, including unpaid NHS charges, tax arrears or penalties
• continuous compliance with immigration conditions throughout the qualifying period, including any sponsorship duties

These proposed conditions demonstrate a shift towards closer scrutiny of financial responsibility, conduct and economic participation. The consultation also recognises that individuals with irregular income patterns, caring responsibilities or health conditions may struggle to meet certain requirements and explicitly seeks feedback on how such circumstances should be accommodated.

3. Income-Linked Reductions to the Qualifying Period

The consultation includes scenarios suggesting the ten-year baseline could be shortened for applicants with sustained higher income. These examples are provided to illustrate how contribution might influence settlement timelines in a future system. They are not draft Rules, and no HMRC-based earnings condition currently appears in the Immigration Rules for ILR.

Examples given include:

• three consecutive years of income above £125,140 leading to a possible seven-year reduction, creating a three-year route to ILR
• three consecutive years of income above £50,270 resulting in a five-year reduction, broadly aligning with current settlement timelines

These figures reflect current tax bands but are illustrative only. The consultation notes that priority routes such as Global Talent or Innovator Founder may require more flexible treatment due to variable or innovation-linked income patterns. Any future reduction mechanism would only apply where all mandatory conditions were met, and its operation would depend on evidential requirements set out in future draft Rules.

4. Proposed Extensions and Upward Adjustments

Alongside reductions, the consultation includes scenarios in which the qualifying period could exceed ten years. These illustrations prompt discussion about how lower income, public funds use or immigration breaches might lengthen settlement timelines. The consultation does not present these examples as proposed Rules, but they offer insight into the direction of policy thinking.

Examples of possible extensions include:

• a potential fifteen-year baseline for workers in roles below RQF level 6
• an additional five years where public funds have been used for less than twelve months
• an additional ten years where public funds have been used for twelve months or more
• significant extensions for individuals with overstaying, irregular entry or misuse of visit permission, in some scenarios exceeding twenty years
• deferral of settlement until all public debt is fully repaid

These examples illustrate a possible move towards a system where settlement timelines reflect long-term financial resilience and compliance. The consultation acknowledges concerns that such extensions may be viewed as disproportionate, particularly in lower-paid sectors where limited earnings are structural rather than discretionary.

5. Groups Clearly Identified as Out of Scope

The consultation confirms that several groups would be excluded from the earned settlement framework. These include:

• people who already hold ILR
• individuals with status under the EU Settlement Scheme
• those granted status under the Windrush Scheme
• children in care and care leavers

These exclusions reflect separate statutory protections and historic commitments. The consultation does not explain how people part-way through existing ILR routes would be treated if a new model is implemented, though it acknowledges that robust transitional rules would be essential.

6. Circumstances That Could Bar Settlement Entirely

The consultation makes clear that meeting the proposed residence requirement alone would not guarantee settlement. Under the illustrative model, an applicant with ten years of lawful residence could still be refused ILR if they did not meet the mandatory conditions. The examples given include:

• criminal convictions that fall within a strengthened suitability framework
• failure to meet the B2 English requirement
• irregular or incomplete National Insurance contribution records
• outstanding public debt, including NHS charges or tax arrears
• periods of public funds use, depending on how any final Rules are drafted

These examples reinforce the consultation’s emphasis on contribution, compliance and financial responsibility as essential requirements for ILR under any future model. The consultation also recognises the possibility that some individuals may remain on temporary leave for extended periods if they cannot meet the proposed mandatory conditions.

Section B Summary

Section B outlines the principal components of the earned settlement consultation, including the ten-year qualifying baseline, proposed universal conditions, potential income-based reductions and illustrative extensions. It highlights the categories of people excluded from reform and the circumstances in which settlement might be refused entirely. None of the proposals in Section B have legal effect. All existing ILR routes remain fully operational, and the current Immigration Rules continue to govern eligibility until formally amended through a Statement of Changes brought into force.

Section C: Impact on Workers and Entrepreneurs

The earned settlement consultation signals a potentially far-reaching change in how workers and entrepreneurs plan their long-term futures in the UK. If a structure resembling the model described were implemented, many current five-year ILR routes for work categories could be replaced by a ten-year default baseline, backed by mandatory conditions on income, compliance, financial responsibility and integration. The consultation also uses scenarios where timelines may be shortened for higher earners or extended for lower-paid roles, people with public funds use, or individuals with past immigration breaches. These remain policy ideas only and have no legal effect. For now, workers and entrepreneurs continue to rely on the existing five-year and ten-year ILR provisions in the Immigration Rules.

This section looks at how the proposals could affect different categories of workers and entrepreneurs, including those in standard salary bands, higher earners and priority talent routes, lower-paid workers (particularly in health and care roles), and self-employed or entrepreneurial contributors. It also highlights how the proposed mandatory conditions could shape long-term planning if they are ever implemented. Throughout, the current legal position remains unchanged: ILR eligibility is governed by the rules in force today, and no HMRC-based earnings test or ten-year baseline has been written into the Immigration Rules.

1. Workers in Standard Salary Bands

For workers whose earnings sit below higher-rate tax thresholds, the consultation’s starting point is a ten-year qualifying period. If adopted in a form similar to the examples given, this would effectively double the time currently required for many employees on routes such as Skilled Worker to reach ILR, assuming they continue to meet the relevant route and suitability requirements. The consultation also indicates that workers might need to show a period of taxable income above the income tax and National Insurance threshold, relying primarily on HMRC data, to satisfy any future contribution requirement.

Under the illustrative model, interruptions or changes in employment patterns could affect how easily workers meet those conditions. The consultation acknowledges that many people experience:

• periods of reduced hours, lower-paid work or temporary downgrading of roles
• gaps between jobs caused by redundancy, contract changes or wider economic conditions
• periods of low income due to sickness, caring responsibilities, parental leave or part-time arrangements

In a system that scrutinises contribution across an extended qualifying period, these patterns could interrupt the income and NI profiles needed to satisfy any future earnings-based conditions. The consultation also uses examples in which public funds use lengthens settlement timelines, such as less than twelve months of public funds adding five years and twelve months or more adding ten years. None of this is part of current law. Under the existing Immigration Rules, public funds use is relevant only where it breaches a “no recourse to public funds” condition or route-specific requirements.

If an income- and contribution-led system were implemented without careful safeguards, some workers could find themselves extending leave repeatedly without ever reaching ILR, despite many years of lawful residence. An individual with consistent but modest earnings, patchy National Insurance contributions or unresolved tax issues might be able to qualify for further permission to stay but still be blocked from settlement, depending on the final structure of any new Rules and the scope for discretion.

2. High Earners and Priority Talent Routes

High earners are among those who could potentially benefit from the time-adjustment structure set out in the consultation. The income-linked examples suggest settlement timelines could be shortened substantially where applicants demonstrate high, sustained taxable income over several tax years. These scenarios are included to illustrate how contribution might be reflected in an earned settlement model, but they have no legal standing at present.

The consultation examples include:

• three consecutive tax years with income above £125,140 producing a potential seven-year reduction and a three-year pathway to ILR
• three consecutive tax years with income above £50,270 generating a five-year reduction, creating a five-year route similar to the current structure

The thresholds mirror current higher-rate and additional-rate tax bands but may change with future fiscal policy. The consultation suggests that HMRC-verified income data would be central to assessing whether these thresholds have been met. This may be relatively straightforward for workers on stable PAYE arrangements but more complex for those with significant bonuses, commission, irregular overtime or mixed PAYE and self-employment income. Under current law, HMRC data is not used in this way for ILR outside specific visa categories and salary rules.

The consultation also notes that priority routes such as Global Talent and Innovator Founder may require more flexible treatment, recognising that entrepreneurial and research-focused roles often involve fluctuating income, uneven funding cycles or periods of low taxable profit. The Government is seeking views on how contribution should be measured for people whose economic value is not captured neatly by a standard salary level—such as researchers whose work produces patents or publications, or founders whose businesses are in a growth phase.

Importantly, even in the consultation’s examples, accelerated timelines would operate only within the broader mandatory conditions framework. A strengthened suitability assessment, failure to achieve any future B2 English requirement, unresolved public debt or gaps in National Insurance contributions could still bar settlement entirely. The consultation does not suggest that higher income could override concerns about conduct, compliance or integration.

3. Lower-Paid Workers and Health and Care Roles

The consultation’s illustrative examples suggest some of the most significant potential consequences for lower-paid workers, including many in health and social care. The documents indicate that sponsored workers in roles below RQF level 6 could face a standard qualifying period of fifteen years under a future model. This would be a marked shift away from the current position, where many Health and Care Workers and other sponsored workers can qualify for ILR after five years, subject to meeting route-specific requirements and general grounds for refusal.

When combined with benefit-related extensions, the consultation’s examples show how settlement timelines could become very long. For instance, the documents describe scenarios where:

• a worker in a sub-RQF 6 role who has used public funds for less than twelve months could face a fifteen-year baseline plus an additional five years, producing a twenty-year path to ILR
• the same worker with twelve months or more of public funds use could face a fifteen-year baseline plus ten years, creating a twenty-five-year route

These figures are illustrations used to test proportionality and fairness rather than firm proposals. However, they highlight how a contribution-based model could significantly lengthen settlement timelines for workers in lower-paid or lower-classified roles. The consultation recognises that this raises difficult questions in sectors such as social care, hospitality and food production, where low wages and reliance on public services can be structural rather than a reflection of individual commitment.

The documents also raise, but do not resolve, questions about career progression. They do not clearly explain whether time spent in a lower-paid role would permanently fix an applicant into a higher qualifying period, even if they later move into a higher-skilled or better-paid position. Stakeholder responses are likely to be important in determining whether any future Rules allow individuals to “trade up” to shorter timelines once they meet particular skill, salary or contribution thresholds.

4. Entrepreneurs and Self-Employed Contributors

Entrepreneurs, business owners and self-employed professionals face distinct challenges under a model that links settlement to stable income and National Insurance contributions. New and growing businesses commonly experience irregular profits, variable revenue and periods of reinvestment. These patterns may produce low or fluctuating taxable income, even where the underlying enterprise is successful and generating jobs. In a system that focuses heavily on HMRC-reported income and contribution, such profiles could make it harder to satisfy mandatory earnings conditions or qualify for accelerated timelines.

The consultation acknowledges the complexity of measuring contribution in these cases and invites views on how to capture the value of individuals whose economic impact is not reflected in a straightforward PAYE salary. It refers to scenarios such as:

• self-employed professionals whose profits vary significantly from year to year
• individuals with complex income portfolios, including salary, dividends, project fees and consultancy payments that move above or below thresholds in different tax years
• founders who deliberately keep profits low in the early years of a venture while reinvesting in staff, research or infrastructure

The consultation suggests that innovation-linked routes, particularly Global Talent and Innovator Founder, might be treated with some flexibility. However, it does not set out detailed evidential requirements or alternative metrics for contribution, such as job creation, investment raised, intellectual property, published research or other public-interest outputs. Nor does it explain how periods of low or zero income caused by market conditions, economic shocks or health issues would be treated in any future Rules.

As a result, entrepreneurs and self-employed contributors could be disproportionately exposed to the structure of any mandatory earnings requirement unless future Rules are designed to reflect the realities of business and professional life. Without carefully drafted flexibility and evidential options, a strictly income-led model could leave otherwise successful entrepreneurs trapped on temporary leave, unable to convert long-term contribution into permanent status.

Section C Summary

Section C examines how the earned settlement consultation could produce very different outcomes for workers and entrepreneurs, depending on income level, occupation type, public funds use and immigration history. Workers in standard salary bands may face substantially longer qualifying periods if a ten-year baseline and earnings-based conditions are introduced, particularly where employment patterns are uneven or public funds have been used. High earners and some priority talent routes could benefit from accelerated pathways, but only if they satisfy stricter suitability, language, contribution and financial responsibility requirements. Lower-paid workers, especially in health and care, could face the most extended timelines under the illustrative examples, raising concerns about proportionality and sectoral impact. Entrepreneurs and self-employed contributors face particular uncertainty because of fluctuating income and the absence of detailed proposals on how their contribution would be measured. For now, all of these scenarios remain hypothetical: the existing ILR framework continues to apply in full until any new Rules are formally introduced and brought into force.

Section D: Impact on Family Members

The earned settlement consultation suggests a significant potential shift in how partners and children progress toward Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). Under the current Immigration Rules, dependants generally align with the main applicant’s five-year route, provided they meet the relevant residence, relationship and suitability requirements. The consultation instead outlines a model where dependants may face their own qualifying periods, may be assessed independently, and may be subject to time adjustments linked to income, public funds use or immigration compliance. None of these proposals currently have legal force. All existing ILR requirements for dependants remain fully in effect unless and until amended through a Statement of Changes.

This section explores how the consultation’s proposals could affect partners, children and other household members if implemented. It examines the consultation’s emphasis on individual assessment, the potential for dependants to accumulate different qualifying periods from the main applicant, and the implications of income patterns, benefit use and compliance. The legal position remains unchanged for now: dependants continue to follow existing Rules, including the five-year ILR provisions for eligible partners and children.

1. Inclusion of Family Members in the Earned Settlement Framework

One of the most significant elements of the consultation is the suggestion that partners and children could be fully integrated into the earned settlement framework. Under current law, dependants of workers and dependants under Appendix FM typically reach ILR at the same time as the main applicant, as long as they complete the required five years as dependants and continue to satisfy the relationship and suitability criteria.

The consultation presents a major departure from this structure. It proposes that dependant partners may be assessed individually, with their own separate qualifying periods determined by their unique circumstances rather than the main applicant’s timeline. This means a partner could qualify earlier, later or separately, depending on factors such as income, public funds use or immigration compliance. This stands in contrast to the present model, where alignment is the norm and families typically obtain settlement together.

The consultation acknowledges that such a shift would be substantial and invites views on whether dependants should face the same mandatory conditions as main applicants, a modified set of requirements, or an entirely separate regime that accounts for differing levels of economic participation across families.

2. Income, Work Patterns and Benefit Use for Dependants

A key feature of the consultation is the possibility that time adjustments linked to income or benefit use could apply to dependants independently of the main applicant. Under current Rules, temporary periods out of work—such as childcare, study, illness or parental leave—do not prevent dependants from qualifying for ILR after five years, provided they meet residence and relationship criteria. Under the consultation’s model, however, these circumstances could significantly affect settlement timelines.

The consultation provides examples suggesting that:

• a dependant using public funds for less than twelve months could face an extra five years on their qualifying period
• a dependant using public funds for twelve months or more could face an additional ten years, potentially creating a fifteen- or twenty-year route

These examples are not draft Rules but illustrate how dependants could accumulate their own time adjustments. This raises practical issues for households in which one partner may not work consistently due to childcare responsibilities, caring duties, education or health. The consultation also asks whether income should be assessed individually or across the household, noting that each approach has different implications for fairness and workability.

3. Children and the Transition to Adulthood

The consultation highlights several challenges in applying a ten-year baseline model to children, particularly those who arrive in the UK later in childhood. Under current law, children typically qualify for ILR at the same time as their parents if they complete five years as dependants. The proposed model does not automatically align children with their parents and instead suggests that children may require separate consideration, especially where their ability to meet contribution-based conditions differs from adults.

Key issues raised include:

• children arriving in the UK at an older age may be unable to complete ten years before turning eighteen
• teenagers in full-time education may be unable to meet any future earnings-based contribution test
• the period between sixteen and eighteen becomes sensitive if transitional protection is not provided
• siblings arriving at different times may accumulate residence differently, creating divergent settlement timelines

The consultation does not set out a firm model for children and expressly seeks evidence on how a contribution-based system should apply to them. It also explores whether children should continue to align with their parents or whether they should have bespoke rules, particularly in cases involving late arrival or complex family histories.

4. Diverging Settlement Timelines Within a Household

One of the most striking implications of the earned settlement concept is that families may no longer move through the settlement process together. Under the current system, households typically obtain ILR collectively after five years, assuming all dependants meet the route-specific requirements. Under the consultation’s illustrative model, however, divergent outcomes become possible—even common.

Examples described in the consultation include:

• a high-earning main applicant qualifying in three or five years
• a partner who has taken time out of the workforce remaining on a ten-year baseline
• a dependant working in a sub-RQF level 6 role facing a potential fifteen-year baseline
• children arriving at different ages accumulating residence at different speeds

These potential divergences could create complexity in long-term family planning, immigration strategy and decisions about work, study and childcare. Everyday life events—such as maternity leave, health issues or caring responsibilities—could have significant consequences under a contribution-led system.

The consultation recognises that transitional provisions will be essential, especially for households already progressing under existing ILR routes. However, no draft transitional Rules have yet been published.

Section D Summary

Section D outlines how the earned settlement consultation signals a shift away from the current model, in which dependants typically align with the main applicant’s five-year ILR route. Under the consultation’s proposals, partners and older children may face independent assessments, separate qualifying periods and time adjustments based on income, benefit use and compliance. This could result in diverging settlement timelines within the same household. None of the consultation’s ideas currently have legal force, and all existing ILR Rules for dependants remain fully in effect until formally amended through a Statement of Changes.

Section E: Impact on Employers

The earned settlement consultation sets out proposals that, if eventually implemented, could reshape how UK employers recruit, sponsor and retain overseas workers. By moving away from predictable five-year ILR routes and introducing a ten-year baseline, combined with mandatory conditions and contribution-led assessments, the proposed framework could increase both the duration and the complexity of sponsorship relationships. These proposals do not yet have legal force. Employers must continue to comply with the existing Immigration Rules and sponsorship duties while monitoring potential future changes.

This section examines how the proposed earned settlement model may influence recruitment strategies, sponsorship management, HR compliance processes and longer-term workforce planning. It also considers the potential sector-specific effects that could arise if elements of the consultation were adopted in the future. The legal position remains unchanged: employers must continue to follow the current Rules, including right-to-work duties, sponsor licence obligations and existing ILR eligibility requirements.

1. Recruitment and Retention Considerations

One of the most immediate implications for employers concerns the attractiveness of UK-based roles to international candidates. Under the existing ILR framework, the five-year route provides a clear incentive for many overseas workers to take up employment in the UK. The consultation’s proposed ten-year baseline—along with possible fifteen-year or longer timelines for certain lower-paid roles—could reduce the appeal of UK roles in competitive international labour markets.

Several potential challenges arise from this:

• Reduced attractiveness of sponsored roles: Longer, more conditional settlement pathways may push candidates toward countries with shorter or more predictable permanent residence routes.
• Increased turnover risk: Workers who had intended to remain in the UK until reaching ILR may reconsider their long-term plans if settlement becomes significantly more distant.
• Sectoral impact: Sectors reliant on lower-paid or sub-RQF level 6 roles—such as social care, hospitality, logistics and food production—may experience greater recruitment pressure if extended settlement timelines weaken the long-term offer to overseas workers.
• Differentiated outcomes: Employers of high earners or priority-category workers may find recruitment comparatively easier if accelerated timelines are introduced for some groups.

The consultation invites sector-specific evidence from employers to assess how settlement timelines influence international recruitment and labour supply, and how different sectors respond to changes in the attractiveness of long-term UK residence.

2. Extended Sponsorship Relationships and Compliance Risk

A move toward a ten-year baseline—or even longer timelines for particular roles—would extend the period during which employers are required to hold and manage a sponsor licence. At present, many sponsored workers obtain ILR after five years, reducing the administrative and compliance burden on employers. Under a model where ILR is reached only after ten or more years, employers may need to maintain sponsorship duties for significantly longer.

The extension of sponsorship relationships amplifies exposure to compliance risks, including:

• More reportable events: Over long sponsorship periods, changes to job duties, work location, salary, hours or hybrid working arrangements are likely to increase and must be reported promptly via the Sponsor Management System.
• Greater audit exposure: Longer sponsorship increases the likelihood of Home Office compliance visits, record checks and detailed licence reviews.
• Greater dependency on payroll accuracy: If future ILR assessments rely more heavily on HMRC tax and NI data, errors in payroll or Real Time Information (RTI) submissions could affect a worker’s future settlement prospects.
• Long-term record retention: Employers may need to maintain documentation for significantly longer periods than under the current Rules, particularly if ILR outcomes depend on multi-year compliance histories.

As a result, employers may need to invest in more sophisticated HR compliance systems, enhanced internal monitoring processes and additional training across HR and payroll teams.

3. HR and Workforce Management Implications

A settlement model tied to long-term earnings, NI contributions and continuous compliance may create new complexities in HR management. Some employment decisions that previously had limited immigration impact—such as changes in working hours, periods of unpaid leave or temporary pay reductions—could affect a worker’s ability to satisfy any contribution-based ILR requirement in the future.

Key considerations for HR teams include:

• Income stability: Reduced hours, part-time arrangements or fluctuating pay could disrupt consistency of income if future settlement rules rely on taxable earnings data.
• Statutory leave: Maternity, paternity, adoption or sickness leave may affect an individual’s income or NI profile, depending on how future Rules treat these periods.
• Conduct and disciplinary issues: Under a strengthened suitability framework, workplace misconduct resulting in criminal convictions or sanctions could jeopardise an employee’s future ILR prospects.
• Financial responsibility: Workers with public debt—such as NHS charges or tax arrears—may require employer documentation to help resolve issues before applying for ILR.

These factors may require employers to integrate immigration considerations more deeply into everyday HR processes, staff planning and employee support frameworks.

4. Operational Planning and Cost Considerations

Longer qualifying periods may also affect workforce stability and operational planning. Employers that rely on international labour may need to reconsider how settlement timelines influence hiring strategies, staff retention and compensation structures.

Potential implications include:

• Higher turnover: Workers may leave the UK or move to other countries if the path to settlement becomes longer or less certain.
• Increased compliance costs: Extended sponsorship periods may require additional investment in compliance systems, legal support or specialist HR capability.
• Compensation strategies: Employers may consider adjusting salaries, performance bonuses or progression pathways to help workers meet any future contribution thresholds.
• Long-term workforce planning: Recruitment strategies may need to account for extended settlement horizons and potential decreases in retention among sponsored workers.

The consultation seeks evidence from employers to understand whether extended settlement timelines are realistic or economically viable in individual sectors, and whether they would support or hinder business continuity.

5. Sector-Specific Impacts

The consultation identifies several sectors where the proposed earned settlement model could have particularly strong effects. These include:

• Health and Social Care: Many roles fall below RQF level 6 and could face extended timelines, potentially worsening long-standing recruitment and retention challenges.
• Professional Services: Employers of high earners may find international recruitment easier if accelerated timelines are introduced.
• Technology and STEM: Global Talent and innovation-linked routes may continue to attract skilled workers if future settlement models recognise fluctuating income patterns.
• Hospitality, Retail and Logistics: Sectors with large volumes of lower-paid roles could be disproportionately affected by extended qualifying periods.
• Education and Research: Academics and researchers may benefit if contribution is assessed using broader indicators of economic or public interest value.

The consultation acknowledges that the economic implications of an earned settlement model will vary significantly between sectors and requests detailed feedback from employers to shape any future Rules.

Section E Summary

Section E outlines how the earned settlement consultation could reshape employer responsibilities through longer sponsorship relationships, increased compliance duties and new challenges in recruitment, retention and HR management. A ten-year baseline and contribution-based conditions could produce divergent outcomes across sectors, with high earners potentially benefiting from accelerated timelines while lower-paid roles face longer settlement journeys. These proposals remain hypothetical. All current ILR routes and sponsorship requirements continue unchanged unless and until new Rules are formally introduced through a Statement of Changes and brought into force.

Section F: Strategic Perspective on the Earned Settlement Proposals

The earned settlement consultation represents more than a technical adjustment to qualifying periods for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). It outlines a fundamentally different approach to the UK’s long-term immigration framework, moving from predictable, route-based five-year timelines to a model where permanent status is treated as conditional and dependent on sustained contribution, conduct, compliance and integration. None of the proposals currently form part of the Immigration Rules. However, the consultation provides a clear indication of the direction of policy thinking and highlights areas where future reforms may have wide-reaching implications for individuals, families and employers.

This section examines the broader strategic implications of the proposals, including how a contribution-led model could redefine progression from temporary status to permanence, how different groups of migrants may experience uneven outcomes and how employers could face heightened compliance exposure. It also considers how individuals and organisations can navigate the uncertainty inherent in a consultation process that precedes any legal changes. The current legal framework continues to operate in full, and any future amendments will require a Statement of Changes with clear commencement arrangements.

1. A Move from Automatic Progression to Conditional Permanence

Under the current system, many individuals progress toward ILR on a predictable five-year timeline, provided they meet the relevant eligibility criteria, maintain continuous residence and satisfy route-specific requirements. The earned settlement consultation proposes a shift away from this time-based structure. Instead, settlement would be achieved by demonstrating long-term compliance, conduct, financial responsibility and sustained economic participation, potentially over a ten-year period.

This reframing suggests a move toward:

• embedding integrity, compliance and contribution more deeply within long-term immigration pathways
• placing greater emphasis on regular economic activity and HMRC-verified income as indicators of readiness for settlement
• using strengthened suitability and conduct checks to assess long-term behaviour
• raising integration requirements, including a possible increase in the English language standard from B1 to B2

If implemented, these changes would redefine ILR as a status requiring demonstrable contribution rather than a relatively straightforward milestone reached after five years on an eligible route. This would represent a substantial strategic shift in how permanence in the UK is earned.

2. Uneven Outcomes and the Emergence of Distinct Groups

The consultation examples suggest that the settlement landscape could become more varied under a future model. Higher earners, individuals in priority talent routes and applicants with strong economic histories may qualify for accelerated pathways. In contrast, lower-paid workers, those with public funds use and individuals with immigration breaches may face significantly extended timelines.

This divergence could produce clear distinctions between groups of applicants based on:

• income level and taxable earnings
• occupation type and skill classification
• public funds use and overall financial resilience
• immigration compliance history
• access to opportunities that promote integration, such as language and education

The consultation acknowledges that fairness, proportionality and practicality must be considered carefully, particularly in sectors where low income is structural or where caring responsibilities and health issues affect contribution patterns. These issues will likely influence how any future Rules are drafted and whether certain groups receive tailored provisions or mitigating pathways.

3. Heightened Compliance Exposure for Employers

If qualifying periods extend to ten, fifteen or more years, employers will face significantly longer sponsorship relationships, increasing the likelihood of compliance engagement with the Home Office. At present, many sponsored workers transition to ILR after five years, reducing employers’ administrative and legal responsibilities. A longer settlement horizon would keep workers under sponsorship control for far longer, increasing the risk of compliance findings if HR processes are not robust.

The potential implications include:

• more frequent Home Office audits and compliance visits due to extended sponsorship periods
• a greater number of reportable changes as job duties, salary, location or working arrangements evolve over many years
• greater reliance on payroll accuracy and real-time HMRC reporting if future ILR requirements incorporate earnings or NI contribution tests
• long-term document retention obligations extending well beyond the current five-year sponsorship lifecycle

Employers may need to build enhanced governance structures, invest in stronger HR systems and integrate immigration compliance into long-term workforce planning in ways that go beyond current expectations.

4. Workforce Planning Under an Extended ILR Horizon

Longer qualifying periods could have substantial implications for workforce stability. Workers who previously viewed the UK as offering a clear and manageable settlement route may reconsider whether an extended timeline aligns with their personal or professional plans. This may affect recruitment competitiveness, particularly where other countries maintain more accessible permanent residence pathways.

Possible effects on employers include:

• higher turnover among sponsored workers if extended settlement timelines reduce the incentive to remain long-term
• a need to adjust recruitment strategies to mitigate lower retention among overseas hires
• increased competition for skilled global talent if shorter settlement routes elsewhere become more attractive
• a requirement to incorporate immigration settlement forecasting into long-term workforce strategies

Employers relying heavily on international labour may need to adapt staffing models, consider varied compensation strategies and assess whether extended ILR timelines are compatible with long-term operational needs.

5. Navigating Uncertainty and Preparing for Transition

The consultation introduces a period of uncertainty for individuals, families and employers. While the policy direction is clear, the practical details remain unspecified. Transitional provisions will be critical in determining how people progressing under current ILR routes are treated. The Home Office acknowledges this but has not yet published any draft transitional rules.

Individuals and organisations may benefit from:

• monitoring policy developments as the consultation proceeds
• undertaking scenario planning around different settlement timelines
• reviewing HR and payroll systems to ensure long-term compliance and accurate record management
• identifying individuals close to existing ILR eligibility who may wish to proceed under the current Rules

No changes are legally binding until a Statement of Changes is published and implemented. Until then, the safest approach is to plan on the basis of the current ILR framework while preparing for the possibility of reform.

Section F Summary

Section F highlights how the earned settlement consultation signals a broader shift toward a more selective and contribution-based approach to permanent residence. Higher earners and priority categories might gain accelerated pathways, while lower-paid workers, dependants and individuals with compliance issues could face extended timelines. Employers may experience increased compliance and workforce planning pressures. None of these proposals have legal effect at this stage. The existing ILR routes and eligibility requirements remain unchanged until new Rules are formally introduced and brought into force.

Section G: Summary of the Earned Settlement Proposals

The earned settlement consultation sets out a potential restructuring of how long-term immigration status is achieved in the United Kingdom. Although the proposals remain entirely at consultation stage, they mark a clear shift in policy direction: away from the current five-year ILR framework toward a more conditional, contribution-focused model built around a proposed ten-year qualifying baseline. Under the illustrative concepts presented, settlement would depend not only on time spent lawfully in the UK but also on sustained compliance, financial responsibility, English language ability and measurable economic contribution. None of these proposals are contained within the Immigration Rules, and all existing ILR routes continue unchanged.

The consultation describes a system in which high earners and individuals on priority talent routes could qualify more quickly, through reduced timelines of three or five years where income and compliance thresholds are met. In contrast, lower-paid workers, individuals with periods of public funds use and those with past immigration breaches could face significantly longer qualifying periods—fifteen, twenty or even more years under some of the consultation’s examples. Dependants might also face independent assessments, breaking the long-standing principle that families progress toward ILR together. These proposals are included to test stakeholder reaction and do not reflect draft legislation.

For employers, the consultation indicates that sponsorship could last considerably longer if ILR comes later in a worker’s immigration journey. This would increase compliance exposure, expand the volume of reportable changes, and require more robust HR systems to track income, residence and immigration compliance over extended periods. Sectors reliant on lower-paid roles could face heightened recruitment and retention challenges, while employers of high earners or globally mobile professionals may find accelerated timelines beneficial.

Crucially, none of the consultation’s proposals have legal status. The current Immigration Rules—including the five-year routes for work and family categories and the ten-year long residence route—remain fully in force. Any future settlement system would require detailed amendments to the Rules, published through a Statement of Changes, and supported by a transitional regime addressing the position of individuals already progressing toward ILR under existing routes. The eventual shape of any reform may differ substantially from the consultation’s examples once stakeholder responses, legal constraints and practical considerations are taken into account.

Section G Summary

Section G consolidates the overarching themes of the earned settlement consultation. It explains that the proposals outline a shift toward a ten-year baseline, mandatory suitability and contribution conditions and a time-adjustment model offering both accelerated and extended pathways. High earners and priority categories could benefit, while lower-paid workers and individuals with public funds use or compliance issues could face longer timelines. Dependants might receive separate qualifying periods, and employers could experience longer sponsorship relationships and increased compliance duties. These proposals remain illustrative only, and all existing ILR Rules continue to apply until any new system is formally introduced through a Statement of Changes.

Section H: Need Assistance?

The earned settlement consultation has introduced a period of uncertainty for individuals, families and employers planning long-term futures in the UK. While the Government has outlined a clear direction of policy thinking, none of the proposals have been translated into Immigration Rules. This means the existing five-year and ten-year ILR routes remain fully available, and applicants should continue to rely on the current legal framework until any amendments are formally made and brought into force.

Understanding the distinction between existing law and future policy concepts is essential during this transitional phase. Individuals approaching ILR eligibility may wish to consider whether applying under the current Rules could preserve more favourable outcomes, particularly if future changes lengthen qualifying periods or introduce new mandatory conditions. Dependants with uneven residence timelines or differing income or work patterns may also require careful planning.

Employers, meanwhile, may need to assess how potential reforms could influence recruitment pipelines, sponsorship obligations and HR compliance processes. Preparing early—by reviewing internal systems, monitoring policy updates and identifying workers close to ILR qualification—can help organisations manage risk without making premature changes based on proposals that may evolve or be abandoned.

Although the consultation reflects an ambitious restructuring of the settlement system, it does not alter current law. Professional advice may help individuals and businesses evaluate their specific circumstances, gather evidence required under the existing Rules, and consider strategic steps that may safeguard long-term plans while uncertainty persists.

Section H Summary

Section H stresses the importance of distinguishing between the current ILR framework and the consultation-stage proposals. Workers, dependants and employers should continue to plan according to the Immigration Rules in force today, while monitoring developments and considering whether early action may preserve more favourable outcomes under the existing system. Until formal amendments are introduced through a Statement of Changes, all present ILR routes and requirements remain fully operational.

Section I: Frequently Asked Questions

This section answers common questions raised by the earned settlement consultation. Each answer distinguishes clearly between proposals included for discussion and the law as it stands today. None of the consultation’s examples have legal force, and all ILR applications continue to be assessed under the Immigration Rules currently in effect.

1. What is “earned settlement”?

“Earned settlement” is the term used by the Government to describe a possible overhaul of the UK’s long-term immigration system. The consultation proposes that instead of qualifying for ILR primarily through time spent on a particular route, applicants would start from a ten-year baseline and be required to meet mandatory conditions relating to conduct, compliance, financial responsibility, integration and economic contribution. These ideas remain at consultation stage only and are not part of the Immigration Rules.

2. Have the ILR rules changed?

No. The ILR Rules have not changed. All current ILR categories—including the five-year work and family routes and the ten-year long residence route—remain fully in force. The consultation does not amend the Rules, and the Home Office cannot apply consultation proposals when assessing ILR applications. Any changes would require a published Statement of Changes and formal commencement.

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

Not under current law. The consultation suggests a ten-year baseline for many future applicants, but this has not been implemented. Applicants continue to be assessed under the existing ILR framework. The Government has not published draft Rules or confirmed whether the ten-year baseline will proceed in its proposed form.

4. Can workers still qualify for ILR in five years?

Yes. Under current law, workers on routes such as Skilled Worker can still qualify for ILR after five years if they meet the required eligibility criteria. The consultation’s examples showing possible five-year reductions for higher earners are not legal pathways at this stage.

5. Who might qualify for the proposed three-year accelerated route?

The consultation includes an example in which applicants with three consecutive tax years of income above £125,140 might receive a seven-year reduction from the suggested ten-year baseline, creating a possible three-year route to ILR. This is an illustrative example only. It does not reflect any current or draft Immigration Rules.

6. What happens if someone uses public funds during the qualifying period?

Under current law, use of public funds does not automatically affect ILR eligibility unless it breaches a “no recourse to public funds” condition or a route-specific requirement. The consultation includes examples where public funds use could extend settlement timelines by five or ten years, but these are hypothetical and carry no legal weight.

7. What will happen to the ten-year long residence route?

The consultation proposes removing the ten-year lawful residence route as a standalone category and incorporating long residence into the new baseline and time-adjustment structure. This has not happened. The long residence route remains fully available under current Immigration Rules.

8. Will dependants qualify for ILR at the same time as the main applicant?

Yes, under current law. Dependants typically qualify for ILR after five years as dependants, provided they meet the relevant requirements. The consultation proposes that dependants may have separate qualifying periods in the future, but this is a proposal only. No such rule exists today.

9. Will care workers face longer settlement routes?

Not under current law. The consultation includes hypothetical examples in which workers in sub-RQF level 6 roles could face longer qualifying periods, such as fifteen years. These examples have no legal force. Eligible Health and Care Workers continue to qualify for ILR under the existing five-year framework.

10. What should employers do now?

Employers should continue to follow the existing Immigration Rules, right-to-work requirements and sponsorship obligations. No immediate changes to recruitment, compliance processes or sponsorship structures are required. Employers may find it helpful to monitor policy developments, review workforce planning and identify sponsored workers approaching ILR eligibility in order to safeguard current routes.

Section I Summary

Section I clarifies key questions surrounding the earned settlement consultation. The present ILR framework remains fully unchanged, and none of the consultation’s proposals have legal effect. Workers, dependants and employers should continue to rely on the current Rules while monitoring developments and preparing for the possibility that settlement requirements may change in the future.

Section J: Glossary

This glossary explains key terms used throughout the earned settlement consultation and this article. All definitions reflect the current legal position under the Immigration Rules. None of the consultation-stage terms have legal effect unless formally incorporated into the Rules through a Statement of Changes.

Section J Summary

Section J provides clear definitions of key terms used in the consultation and throughout this article. These definitions explain concepts that may form part of future discussions but do not represent current law. Existing ILR routes continue to operate on their present terms until the Immigration Rules are formally amended.

Section K: Useful Links

The resources below provide authoritative background on the earned settlement consultation, existing ILR routes and the wider immigration framework. These links help readers distinguish clearly between the current Immigration Rules and proposals that remain at consultation stage. All GOV.UK links include rel="nofollow". The DavidsonMorris link is provided without rel="nofollow" in line with project requirements.