Briefing: the implications of the “earned settlement” proposals and what they might mean in practice

It seems it’s currently the Labour government’s turn to fervently and endlessly push the “fixing immigration once and for all” boulder up the very tall hill of British politics, as it inevitably rolls back down when it encounters reality.

We’ve now had a few weeks to digest the “earned settlement” policy document, which outlines the proposed changes to the settlement system ahead of the public consultation. I think it’s fair to say that the proposals were harsher and more draconian than most of us had anticipated, even in the current political climate. It would be an understatement to call it hostile to the very idea of immigration as it feels like we’re only one news cycle away from a government minister suggesting, in Swiftian fashion, that we should just eat all the immigrants to reduce food poverty among British children.

Let’s look at what the new framework will look like in practice (with the usual caveat that the proposals are very vague, so we can only make an educated guess about what some of the proposals mean, and that they are still subject to consultation).

The “winners” 

Although most of the proposals are overwhelmingly awful, some immigrants may be better off under the new rules and it won’t surprise you one bit when you see who they the first cohort is.

High earners

Anyone who has earned above £125,140 over a three-year period spent in a route that leads to settlement will now be able to settle after just three years. This presumably includes routes that don’t currently allow this type of accelerated settlement, including:

• Appendix FM family members
• Skilled Workers
• BN(O) route
• Private Life route
• anyone endorsed under the “exceptional promise” criteria by Tech Nation or Arts Council England in the Global Talent route
• refugees who moved here under a resettlement scheme (as rare as this might be in practice)
• people with pre-settled status
• T2 Ministers of Religion (perhaps an American prosperity gospel preacher)
• Representatives of an overseas business (those already in the route, anyway, as the route is now closed to new entrants)
• UK Ancestry
• International sportspersons

This is of course assuming that they meet the “mandatory minimums”, such as evidencing English proficiency at level B2 and earning above £12,570 per year over three to five years, and that there are no adverse factors that might increase their qualifying period, which I discuss in more detail below.

Though there will be a fly in the ointment for many people in this cohort, as people earning above £125,140 frequently reduce their salary to below this threshold through pension contributions or by means of a salary sacrifice and thus may not be able to rely on their previous years of tax contributions for this purpose. This will also depend on whether the relevant figure will be the gross salary before any deductions or just taxable income (the latter is used in the policy). Given the government’s recent proposal to drastically gut the salary sacrifice regime, my guess would be the latter, which would also be consistent with the policy paper’s emphasis on tax contributions rather than a high salary per se.

There is some confusion over whether the £12,570 personal allowance should be discounted from one’s salary to arrive at the “taxable income” figure. It’s my understanding that the £12,570 that makes up the personal allowance is taxed, it’s just taxed at 0%, so there should be no need to discount it, but it’s been a few years since I took the Private Client module at university so take this with a pinch of salt.

If transitional provisions are introduced for people already in a route to settlement, it will be interesting to see if they will be drafted in a way that would allow someone to benefit from this provision while being protected from the negative effects of the changes, or if they will be a package deal. To my mind, I can’t think of any time transitional provisions put someone in a worse position than if the new rules applied to them and legally speaking, this might be questionable anyway.

Charities

Well, at least in theory.

Given how devastating (and expensive) a longer route to settlement can be, many people who don’t benefit from a more generous reduction to their qualifying period elsewhere will naturally flock to the volunteering option, which is expected to reduce the qualifying period by three to five years (subject to consultation).

This will undoubtedly benefit many charities, as many people volunteering will be just as driven and passionate about the work as their usual volunteers. However, some will understandably be doing so just to qualify for indefinite leave faster, and perhaps will drop out when their schedule begins to conflict with their work, family life and other duties, meaning that charities may see an increase in training costs that may not translate into more long-term volunteers.

With respect to the principle underlying the proposal, a number of charities have spoken out against the proposed scheme and over 300 charities have signed an open letter condemning the proposals as “immoral and impractical” as well as “an exploitation of volunteering that we cannot accept”.

English language schools and teachers

The government proposes to reduce the qualifying period by one year for anyone who evidences English language proficiency to level C1.

I’m not sure how many people will study English to level C1 — a level that many native British citizens have yet to master — but given the enormous jump in proficiency between level B2 (the new mandatory minimum) and level C1, my feeling is that most people relying on the one year reduction that comes with level C1 will either be nationals from a designated English majority country or those who have a degree taught in English, as both of these groups should meet this requirement automatically. I suspect the number of people who will pass a C1 test just to get a year off their qualifying period will be very few, as this would usually require a lot of hours of study.

Still, English language schools and course providers will likely see some uptick in new business, particularly as most people moving forward will need a B2 as a mandatory minimum for applying for indefinite leave. Unlike the B1 (speaking and listening) test, which is the level currently required for settlement, and which is only 15 minutes long, the B2 test takes a number of hours to sit and requires a lot more study and preparation.

The people for whom things will mostly stay the same

Most people making over £50,270

People in this cohort are expected to get a five-year reduction so for many people in routes like Skilled Worker, there will be no change, other than having to meet the mandatory minimums. The exception to this is Skilled Workers in a “medium skilled” occupation or lower, whose qualifying period may be as long as 15 years, though this is still subject to consultation.

However, if the rules will only look at taxable income, there will be people in this cohort too who earn above £50,270 gross but whose taxable income is below this because of pension contributions or a salary sacrifice scheme.

Most people in the Global Talent or Innovator Founder route

Under the new proposals, completing three years in one of these routes will reduce the applicant’s qualifying period by seven years, meaning they only need to complete three years to qualify, which is the current qualifying period for most people in this route. As always, this is subject to meeting the mandatory minimums and not having any adverse factors that bring up the qualifying period. In addition:

Furthermore, we are consulting on whether family members of this group should benefit from a 5-year reduction.

Appendix FM family members in the five year route and those on a BN(O) route

Family members under Appendix FM in the five year route to settlement will also retain this qualifying period by way of a five-year reduction from the baseline ten-year qualifying period, though at present it’s uncertain if this will apply to all people in this route or only those whose sponsor is a British citizen. This is because it’s currently unclear if the reference solely to the sponsor being British in both the White Paper and the “earned settlement” policy is intended to exclude e.g. sponsors with indefinite leave or whether this is merely intended as shorthand for the Appendix FM route.

Those in a BN(O) route will also benefit from the same five-year reduction to the qualifying period. Neither of these reductions is subject to consultation.

This is, of course, assuming that they can meet the “mandatory minimums”, including level B2 English, potentially having to have a completely clean criminal record (another point which is currently unclear) and having to have earned above £12,570 over three to five years. There will undoubtedly be many people in these routes who will not meet these requirements, including anyone who has not worked consistently or only part-time, perhaps because they took time off to raise children. There will be others who will pass a B1 English test but would struggle with B2.

Another way they can fail to qualify after five years is if any of the adverse factors apply that would increase their qualifying period. For example, someone in the spouse route who previously overstayed for six months or more may see a massive 20-year increase to their five-year period (as reduced from the standard ten years by virtue of their route), meaning they will not qualify until they have completed 25 years.

It can be surprisingly easy to inadvertently overstay for six months, particularly with how complex our immigration system is and how little room for error it allows.

Case study

Samia completed two and a half years in the five year partner route but failed to lodge her extension application before her leave expired on 21 April 2025 because she put the wrong expiry date in her calendar.

She realised her mistake on 2 August 2025 when she was asked for a share code by an NHS trust and subsequently received legal advice on 15 August 2025. She lodged her new application on 4 September 2025, which was granted in the ten-year route to settlement on 31 October 2025.

During the period between her leave expiring and her new application being granted, she overstayed for more than six months. Even if she switches immediately back into the five year route, she will presumably be caught by this new provision and will not become eligible for settlement until 2050, when she completes 25 years of continuous lawful residence.

This is, of course, still subject to consultation and any transitional provisions that might be enacted.

Nurses and teachers

Anyone employed in a “specified public service occupation” will be eligible for a five-year reduction to their qualifying period, as long as they are working in an occupation at RQF level 6 or above (which essentially means only jobs that require degree-level skill, though it does not mean that the employee undertaking them must have a degree).

This is essentially an alternative to the five-year reduction based on an income of £50,270 in recognition of the fact that there are many people employed in vital public service jobs that may earn below that amount but who should still benefit from a five-year route to settlement. Basically, it would be a bad look to double the qualifying period for nurses after we all clapped for them with such panache during the pandemic.

Of course, we also clapped for carers, and they are potentially looking at a 15-year baseline qualifying period (please see below) so I suppose the government’s gratitude for people who work very difficult, essential jobs for low pay is quite selective.

Some categories based on vulnerability and exceptionality 

The policy is clear that anyone applying under Appendix Armed Forces is not expected to have a longer pathway than their current one. The consultation asks whether further reductions should be available to this group.

The government is also consulting on what changes, if any, should be introduced for people in routes such as:

• Bereaved partner
• Domestic violence
• Adult Dependent Relatives

All three categories currently allow for immediate settlement without a minimum qualifying period. So it’s possible that nothing will change for these groups or they may be subject to some additional requirements. However, it is not expected that they would be subject to a standard ten-year qualifying period like everyone else.

As a side note, I have never understood the Home Office’s insistence that Adult Dependent Relatives must be granted indefinite leave immediately (unless the qualifying sponsor has limited leave) whilst still refusing around 95% of these applications across the board. It would make sense if NHS access was linked to indefinite leave status but it’s not – limited leave is enough.

I think most families making this application would be happy with a five-year or even ten year qualifying period for this group if the trade-off was that more applications were granted. Even changes that led to a paltry 50% grant rate would have immigration lawyers cracking open bottles of champagne, as even experienced practitioners with very strong cases who prepare immaculate applications anticipate at least some risk of a refusal when making these applications. The problem, of course, is could the Home Office ever be trusted with such a trade off and to maintain a higher grant rate.

The “losers”

Anyone already in a route to settlement who wants to know if they will be affected

The number one question among people already in the UK who have yet to reach settlement is whether these changes will affect them or if they will only apply to people moving to the UK after the changes have been enacted.

Unfortunately, the policy document provides no clarity on this point. It simultaneously says that the new framework will apply to everyone whilst also saying that they will consult on whether to introduce transitional arrangements. On this point, we will just have to wait and see.

Some Global Talent migrants

I bet you didn’t expect this one to be on this list, given how much the government loves this route.

At present, people here on a Global Talent visa, which is an unsponsored route, can work as much or as little as they like, provided they earn some money in the field in which they have been endorsed while they’re here to qualify for settlement. Every immigration lawyer has a slightly different yardstick for this but generally, a single payment of, say, £300 will do. They are then free to do what they like with the rest of their time in the UK and still qualify after three years (or for some, five, depending on the nature of their endorsement).

For that reason, it is not unusual for a Global Talent migrant to have completed their three or five years having worked only sporadically, and some people in this cohort will thus not be able to show an annual income of over £12,570 for each of those years.

Case study

Gianni is a painter who is here in the Global Talent route, endorsed under Art Council England’s exceptional talent criteria. During his three years in the UK, he worked on several art pieces, one of which sells for £189,000 in his second year. He had no taxable income in his first or third year here.

Under the current rules, he can settle after three years, as he can show that he has earned money in his field during this period. Under the proposed changes, he would presumably not meet the contribution-based mandatory minimum, as he hasn’t had a taxable income above £12,570 for each of those three years (subject to any transitional provisions).

Of course, this is assuming the final version of the rule requires a salary above £12,570 for each relevant year instead of averaging out taxable income across the period.

Skilled Workers in “medium skilled” occupations and carers

“Medium skilled” occupations are those below RQF level 6 and include laboratory technicians, dispensing opticians, veterinary nurses and police officers below the rank of a sergeant. They are currently able to settle after five years.

The policy proposes a qualifying period of 15 years rather than the standard ten for this cohort, though this is of course still subject to consultation. Carer jobs are also considered to be below RQF level 6 so would also be caught by this provision.

If this provision is enacted, people in this cohort can still benefit from any positive factors that might reduce their qualifying period.

Case study

Lucinda is sponsored as a pipe fitter in the Skilled Worker route and has earned £60,000 a year since she moved to the UK on this basis in 2024.

After pension contributions and salary sacrifice deductions from a cycle to work scheme, her taxable income has been £55,000 for each of her years in the UK.

Under the current rules, Lucinda can settle after completing five years in this route, in 2029. Assuming there are no transitional provisions, her baseline qualifying period will now be 15 years, as her SOC code is considered “medium skilled”. Because she has earned above £50,270 in taxable income for three years, this is reduced by five years, making her qualifying period ten years.

She should thus be eligible to settle in 2034. If instead her salary had been £47,000, she would not benefit from the five years reduction on the basis of her salary. Assuming there are no other positive factors that would apply to reduce her qualifying period, she will instead be eligible to settle in 2039 (assuming she can meet the mandatory minimums, like English language at level B2).

This is, of course, assuming people in Lucinda’s position, who now face a longer qualifying period, can maintain sponsorship for long enough to reach settlement. If she is made redundant, and is unable to find a new sponsor in time, she will have no choice but to leave the UK or switch into another category (if that’s an option for her).

This puts enormous pressure on people in the Skilled Worker route to maintain their employment, given the difficulties of finding a new sponsor, particularly in the current job market, and can leave people like her stuck in unfulfilling, toxic or even exploitative employment.

Employers

Anyone sponsoring Skilled Workers will undoubtedly be unhappy with the proposed changes, as they will be negatively impacted by the policy in a myriad of ways.

First, they will find it more difficult to recruit the best and the brightest talent. The most highly skilled immigrants are also the most mobile and can usually have their pick of countries to move to. Many people in this cohort will find it hard to justify moving to the UK when the EU is on our doorstep, particularly as eventually obtaining an EU citizenship will give them the right to live in 31 different countries. Even if they’re high earners who can settle after three years, they might be bringing a husband or child with them, who will have a longer qualifying period and more hoops to jump through.

Even when they are able to attract the right candidate, they will presumably need to sponsor them for a much longer period. Even ten year qualifying period essentially doubles their costs, which are already enormous, and in many cases unaffordable, particularly for small businesses. This will leave many companies unable to fill vital vacancies and have a significant impact on productivity.

Students and universities 

The Home Office intends to abolish the current ten year route to settlement on the basis of long residence found in Appendix Long Residence, which currently allows you to combine different kinds of leave to make up the ten years, including leave in the Student route and as a Graduate. This is supposedly because it will be “superseded” by the new system.

Although we have little clarity on this point, the policy suggests that applicants will only be able to count leave spent in a route that leads to settlement to make up the qualifying period:

In order to meet the qualifying period requirement, the applicant will, as now, need to have spent the required period of time in the UK in a route, or routes, that leads to settlement. The Immigration Rules will specify which routes lead to settlement and which do not, and it is not intended that the position as to which routes fall into each category will change […].

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.

This is understandably causing a lot of distress for people who have spent a considerable period in the UK with permission in routes that do not lead to settlement in their own right, as the wording implies that this time may not count towards settlement at all following the abolishment of the ten year long residence indefinite leave route.

I have re-read the above-quoted section at least 20 times and I cannot find an alternative interpretation to this provision, particularly as it is paired right next to the sentence about the ten year indefinite leave route being abolished. However, I admit being thrown off by the following wording (my emphasis:

 “[…] the applicant will, as now, need to have spent the required period of time […]”

So whilst I think applicants will no longer be able to make up the qualifying period with permission in routes that do not lead to settlement, it is possible that this is not what the Home Office intended to suggest or that it will be revised following the consultation.

If time spent on non-settlement routes is excluded, however, this will be an enormous blow to students, some of whom will have spent as many as six or seven years in the Student route alone. It will also negatively affect universities, who may struggle to recruit as many students from overseas, which would have a significant impact on their finances, given how reliant most universities are on the high rates of tuition fees paid by overseas students. Even if permission spent in this route can be counted towards the qualifying period, the increased difficulty of obtaining settlement by way of the other proposals will still deter many overseas students from studying here.

The fact that this is coming at a time when many universities are already going through a funding crisis, with many universities undertaking restructuring projects and subjecting staff to widespread redundancies, suggests the government is either unaware of the current state of higher education in this country, which would be bad enough, or is simply indifferent to it, which would be even worse.

Refugees

The government is proposing to increase the qualifying period for refugees to 20 years, other than those who came here on a resettlement scheme, whose baseline qualifying period will be ten years. Refugees in this cohort will receive only 30 months of permission at a time and be subject to a continuous “active review” to see if they can be sent home at each extension.

This is part of a wide range of changes, ranging from mean-spirited to extremely harsh, intended as part of an overhaul of the asylum system, which you can read about in more detail here.

However, there does not appear anything stopping people in this cohort from benefiting from a reduction to their qualifying period from any of the positive factors listed above. 

Dependent partners and children

Although the proposals outlined in the document are generally vague across the board, they are particularly vague when it comes to dependants. I suspect this is because they have not yet decided what to do with them, though it is expected that most of them will have either a longer qualifying period or additional requirements to meet, or both.

Here is what we know about dependent partners:

Under the existing system, dependants of those who enter and stay in, for example, economic routes are able to qualify for settlement at the point that the principal applicant is granted settlement and without having to meet any additional conditions. We anticipate that this will substantially change under the earned settlement system. 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.

And here is what we know about dependent children:

In the case of children, it is acknowledged that many of the requirements in the earned reduction model outlined above – such as making NICs or meeting an income threshold – cannot be met by those who may still be children at the point that their parents become eligible for settlement. At the same time, however, the introduction of an earned settlement system with a longer baseline qualifying period does bring into focus whether and how those who turn 18 during their parents’ qualifying period should be brought within earned settlement principles and be expected to qualify for settlement in their own right.

[…]

In the case of children, it is acknowledged that many of the requirements in the earned reduction model outlined above – such as making NICs or meeting an income threshold – cannot be met by those who may still be children at the point that their parents become eligible for settlement. At the same time, however, the introduction of an earned settlement system with a longer baseline qualifying period does bring into focus whether and how those who turn 18 during their parents’ qualifying period should be brought within earned settlement principles and be expected to qualify for settlement in their own right.

So we do expect changes and we expect the changes to make things harder rather than easier for these groups but at present, we just don’t know enough to be able to speculate as to what they might be.

Conclusion

The proposes changes represent the biggest overhaul of the immigration system since the Immigration Act 1971. Almost all of the changes will make life worse not just for immigrants but also the British citizens who love them, the universities that teach them and the businesses that employ them.

Although I have tried to summarise the likely shape of these changes and the impact they will have on different cohorts of immigrants, this will be an imperfect exercise as at present, we just don’t know enough to be able to say anything for certain and most of the changes are still subject to consultation. This will be a difficult Christmas for the people who are likely to be affected, many of whom are suffering from immense anxiety caused by the uncertainty.

We expect the relevant statement of changes, which will contain many or most of the intended changes in full, to be released around March 2026 for implementation starting in April. Until then, everyone worried about these proposals should respond to the consultation, which can be found here.