Home Secretary opens consultation on “earned settlement”

The consultation on extending the period people in certain immigration routes will need to wait before being able to apply for settlement (also referred to as indefinite leave to remain) has been opened. These changes were first trailed in the immigration white paper in May.

The consultation document is called “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement: A statement and accompanying consultation on earned settlement”. The consultation is open until 11.59pm on 12 February 2026.

In the foreword, the Home Secretary says that “It is clear the pace and scale of migration in this country has not just been unprecedented but also destabilising” and refers to an “open border experiment” and says that “Fraud, as any constituency Member of Parliament can tell you, was rife”. Putting aside these inaccurate and offensive comments, let’s move on to the proposals.   

People unaffected by the proposals

First – those who are unaffected by this consultation. This includes parents, spouses and dependants of British citizens and those in the Hong Kong (BNO) route:

Separately, and not subject to consultation, settlement will be quicker for those who have a uniquely strong attachment to this country, including the spouses and dependants of British citizens and British Nationals (Overseas) (BN(O)s) from Hong Kong

Note that this quote does not mention parents of British citizens. Table 2 below indicates that parents in the five year route will be unaffected, but those in the ten year route will be caught by these changes, see below for more.

Those with leave under the EU Settlement Scheme are also unaffected:

In line with the UK’s obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement, settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) is out of scope for both this consultation and the planned reforms. Grants of settlement related to the Windrush Scheme are also out of scope for both this consultation and the planned reforms. There will be no changes implemented for either scheme in relation to the settlement reforms.

HM Armed forces:

The consultation will seek views on the treatment of armed forces members under the earned settlement system, but we are not proposing that HM Armed Forces and their family members should have a different pathway to settlement than they do today.

The consultation asks (question 6) whether this group should also be able to access reductions, even though there is no proposal to increase settlement.

People who are already settled or hold indefinite leave to remain will also be unaffected.

People who will be affected by the proposed changes

The consultation asks about the the need for transitional arrangements for those who are already in the UK. This is key and everyone affected should respond. It is question 3 on page 49 and you should choose “strongly disagree” (the wording is a bit confusing).

Without transitional provisions, anyone who is currently here in other immigration routes not mentioned above, and has not yet reached settlement would be affected by the new ten year baseline period (although do note, for example, the seven year reductions available for those in Global Talent and Innovator Founder routes, set out below):

those routes (for example, the Skilled Worker route) that currently lead to settlement after 5 years continuous stay will cease to do so and will default to a qualifying period of 10 years, except where an earned reduction on the basis of contribution or integration applies.

Dependants will be treated separately from the main applicant:

We expect it to become the position that the qualifying period for settlement for a person granted entry and stay as the adult dependants of an economic migrant will be separately determined according to their own attributes and circumstances. This will mean that a person admitted as the dependant of an economic migrant will not necessarily enjoy the same qualifying period for settlement as their partner. It may be shorter or longer, according to their particular circumstances.

There are also proposals to change how dependant children are treated:

The Home Office considers that the system should continue to provide a window during which those who were originally given a permission as a dependent child when they are under 18 can be granted settlement (or a limited permission to extend their stay) at the same time as their parents, even if they are over 18 at that point. The Home Office will, however, develop proposals under which a cut-off point, linked to age, may operate, and at which point such a person will transition to an immigration pathway under which they progress to settled status in their own right. This could, for example, involve specifying an age limit below which some mandatory requirements (i.e. the requirement to have paid NICs in the 3 years prior to applying) are waived.

Do note that this consultation also includes the ten year path to settlement for resettled refugees (question 9). The effect on the “core protection” route is unclear. The paper says:

a starting point of a 20-year qualifying period of settlement for those recognised as refugees. Those who move from core protection onto the new core protection-work and study routes will be able to earn reductions

“Starting point” indicates that the proposals to increase or reduce this may also apply to “core protection”. It is more clear that reductions will be available to the new core protection-work and study routes.

The proposals do not explicitly include bereaved partners, victims of domestic violence and abuse, children and young adults who grew up in the UK without immigration status and adults with long term care needs, but the consultation does ask whether they should be exempt from the proposed changes or not (question 4).

The proposals

The long residence route, through which people can apply for settlement once they have accrued ten years of lawful residence across different routes, is to be scrapped.

A consequence of the proposed system is that there will no longer be a separate long residence route. The purpose of the existing long residence route will be superseded by arrangements in which the baseline qualifying period is adjustable for considerations relating to contribution and integration 

a) increasing the baseline qualifying period for settlement to 10 years

The following is not under consultation, these changes will be made and will be mandatory requirements for settlement. The exception is “contribution”, where they are consulting on how long a person should have to meet the annual earnings threshold (somewhere between three to five years).

The salary requirement obviously risks discrimination. The first question in the consultation is should those “on maternity leave or long-term illness/disability” be exempt from the requirement. This really should have just been contained within the proposal.

The following two tables are both subject to consultation (except where indicated). The first, Table 2, sets out factors that can reduce the minimum settlement period from ten years.

Again, the salary requirements may be discriminatory towards women (many of the points made in this old post remain valid).

This provides that parents of a British citizens child who “meets core family requirements” can remain in a five year route to settlement. However those who are in the ten year route to settlement because they have had to rely on exceptional circumstances appear to be excluded. This raises enormous concerns when looking at the no recourse to public funds proposal below.

On the volunteering point in particular, I must say that I have had clients who are care workers and they usually work as many hours as they can, because the pay is so low. For them to now feel pressure to volunteer on top of this is incredibly unfair.

Table 3 below contains considerations which would increase the minimum ten year period for settlement. The proposal is that where there are more than one consideration then only the one that causes the largest increase would be applied. It says that “This will take precedence over any reduction to the baseline”.

Where there is a factor that can be applied in each table, they will be combined:

for example, where the relevant adjustments for a particular applicant are that the applicant had been in receipt of public funds for less than 12 months but meets the C1 level English consideration, there would be an upward adjustment of 5 years and a downward adjustment of 1 year, resulting in an overall upward adjustment of 4 years, making the applicant’s total qualifying period 14 years

This seems to mean that some people could have to wait up to 40 years for settlement, if they have applied in the 20 year route, although the paper says “a person who entered the UK illegally could have a route to settlement as high as 30 years”

The proposal to penalise people who have applied and had the no recourse to public funds restrictions condition lifted from their leave by the Home Office is enormously problematic. Outside of the parents of British citizen children, I expect that the number of people impacted will be very limited. However, it seems that the intention is to include parents of British citizens who are in the ten year route to settlement. This proposal will directly lead to an increase in British and other children living in destitution.

Given the choice, I am sure that many people would have chosen (and will choose) to remain in destitution rather than double the amount of time they have to stay in the Home Office’s system, with the associated costs and stress of twice as many extension applications. The vast majority will be families with children.

To make it even worse, to propose to apply this to people who have been provided with the help that they needed and were entitled to so as to avoid destitution is simply cruel.

Similarly, certainly from my experience, there are likely to be many parents of British citizen children who have overstayed for more than six months. Increasing the period of time they have to wait for settlement to 30 years is unconscionable. Again, this does not mean that it is acceptable for anyone, but the impact on children will be severe as increasing the period of time to settlement means potentially thousands and thousands of additional costs in application fees.

b) increasing the qualifying period for settlement to 15 years for those in the Skilled worker route in a role below RQF level 6 (equivalent to a bachelor’s degree)

The paper explicitly raises concerns about the number of people who have come to the UK on a Health and Care visa reaching settlement and being able to access public funds. So here they are consulting on an additional penalty for people in occupations ranked below RQF Level 6:

We are therefore consulting on whether a contribution-based approach should mean that the existing pathway for settlement is increased (beyond the standard baseline of 10 years) for those admitted to the UK specifically to work in occupations skilled below RQF Level 6. This might involve increasing the baseline qualifying period to 15 years where the worker has been sponsored for a role skilled below RQF Level 6 (for example, under the Skilled Worker and Health and Care routes).

c) implementing a No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) condition at Settlement.

They are also consulting on the ability to impose a no recourse to public funds condition on settlement. This would presumably create a two tier settlement system, where people who were in certain routes before are permitted to access public funds, and others are not. It is also unclear what would happen if a person with settlement needed access to public funds in order to avoid destitution.

This one seems a minefield, and for little gain given people generally only to need to hold settlement for a year before applying for citizenship. However naturalisation seems to be in the government’s sights as well – there was mention in the white paper, reiterated in this document, that they are looking to make changes there as well once a decision has been made on these changes.

Conclusion

The paper is fairly explicit that the target here is the number of people on Health and Care visas. So it is low earners and our carers who the government is proposing to force into additional expensive applications and a longer period of instability before they are able settle, contrary to the rules under which they made the decision to uproot their lives and move to the UK.

I am aware that there is a view that people who are already here but have not yet reached the point where they are eligible for settlement are fair game, and some will argue that their inclusion means these changes are not retrospective. But I think that it is important to remember that many if not most of these people will have had a choice about where to move. They chose the UK, based on rules which would allow them to settle after five years. Changing those rules on them now is simply unfair and transitional arrangements are essential.