Explainer: statement and consultation on “earned settlement”
25th November 2025 - GMIAU & Praxis
On Thursday 20th November, the government published a statement and a consultation on their planned changes to settlement in the UK (also known as indefinite leave to remain or ILR). In short, they plan to make settlement harder to achieve for most people who are in the UK on a visa. They plan to extend the standard route to settlement from 5 years to 10 years. But for some groups, they are proposing routes to settlement of 15, 20, or even 30 years. We know that this has caused a lot of fear and anxiety among our communities. Attaining settlement means no longer having to worry about visa fees, being turned away from state support, or waiting for Home Office decisions. It’s a goal that many thousands of people are working towards, counting on the relief and security that settlement will bring.
Is anything changing right now?
The government’s statement sets out their planned changes to the system - what they want to happen. The consultation gives people the opportunity to respond to parts of these plans and to say what they think should happen. Therefore, although the government has told us their intentions, they also acknowledge that their plans are not yet confirmed.
The consultation is open until the 12th February 2026, so we don’t think we will see these changes take effect until February or later next year. The consultation is a chance for anyone who may be affected by these changes, and organisations working with people affected, to have a say. Soon, we will share guidelines for how we are responding to the questions and how people can do the same.
Who is not impacted?
Certain groups are not included in this consultation. The statement says that people from Hong Kong on British National Overseas (BNO) visas, and spouses and dependents of British citizens who meet core family requirements (such as a minimum income requirement), will keep a five-year route to settlement. They will, however, be subject to new mandatory requirements for settlement (see below).
People on the EU Settlement Scheme, and people obtaining settlement under the Windrush Scheme, are also not included in the consultation. People on these routes will keep their own separate rules and we think they will not be subject to the new mandatory requirements.
The statement also acknowledges that there are existing settlement arrangements for:
adult family members needing long term care from UK-based relative;
people whose relationship (on a partner visa) has broke down due to domestic abuse;
those entering the UK on resettlement schemes;
partners of UK citizens or settled persons who have died.
These groups are not necessarily exempt from these changes - the government will consult on how the earned settlement system may apply to them.
Retrospective changes
The statement says that the Home Secretary would like all the changes outlined to apply to people who are already in the UK but who have not yet attained indefinite leave to remain (ILR), with the above exceptions. However, the consultation asks questions about whether there should be “transitional arrangements” – meaning the changes could be applied differently to people who are already here and on routes to settlement. We will be arguing that the changes must not apply to people already on routes to settlement.
Mandatory requirements for settlement
The statement sets out requirements for settlement that everyone will now have to meet. Some of these are new, some already exist and some will be made tougher.
Suitability requirement: must meet suitability requirements (Part Suitability in the Immigration Rules) e.g. not having a criminal conviction.
Is this new? No - it’s already the case that applicants for ILR must meet these requirements, but the statement says the government is reviewing the criminality thresholds.
Suitability requirement: must have no current litigation, NHS, tax or other government debt.
Is this new? It’s already the case that debt to the government (litigation or NHS debt over £500) is an obstacle to settlement. This proposal makes any debt to the government grounds for refusal of settlement.
Integration requirement: have B2 level English (lower grade GCSE equivalent)
Is this new? Yes - increased level.
Integration requirement: pass life in UK test.
Is this new? No.
Contribution requirement: applicant has contributed to the exchequer above £12,570 for a minimum of 3-5 years, in line with current thresholds for paying income tax and NICs, or alternative amount of income.
Is this new? Yes.
This part of the statement is not open to consultation, apart from the length of time the minimum income applies for (“minimum of 3-5 years”).
The requirement to have an earned income above £12,570 for 3-5 years prior to applying for settlement is new. Unless accommodations or exceptions are available, this is likely to discriminate against anyone who is more likely to be in a low-paid, part-time role or unable to work, namely women, people with disabilities or mental and physical health conditions, and people with caring responsibilities.
10-year standard qualifying period with “time adjustments”
The Government plans to increase the “standard qualifying period” for ILR from 5 to 10 years. That means making repeated applications for limited leave to remain, without a break in leave, until being allowed to apply for ILR after that period. The government says this period may be reduced or increased, according to how people are judged to have contributed. If these proposals are implemented, settlement routes could range between 3 and 30 years.
Some people will have access to shorter routes based on how much they earn (£50,270 and above), the sector they work in (for public sector workers at a certain level of seniority), or their volunteering in the community.
People will face longer routes to settlement if they have accessed benefits at any point, arrived in the UK illegally, arrived on a visitor visa or overstayed any type of permission for 6 months or more. Workers with lower skill levels may also face a longer settlement pathway.
The proposed changes in full:
Considerations that will make qualifying period shorter
Speaks C1 level English (A level equivalent) - Minus 1 year (9 year settlement route)
Has a taxable income of £125,140 for 3 years immediately prior to settlement - Minus 7 years (3 year settlement route)
Has a taxable income of £50,270 for 3 years immediately prior to settlement - Minus 3 years (7 year settlement route)
Has been employed in a specified public service occupation at a certain level of seniority for 5 years - Minus 5 years (5 year settlement route)
Has worked in the community (volunteering etc.) - Minus 3-5 years (5-7 year settlement route)
Is a parent, partner or child of a British citizen and meets core family requirements - 5 year settlement route (note this proposal is not being consulted on)
Is a British National Overseas visa holder - 5 year settlement route (note this proposal is not being consulted on)
Has 3 years continuous residence as a Global Talent Worker and Innovator Founder - Minus 7 years (3 year settlement route)
Considerations that will make qualifying period longer
Has received public funds (benefits) for less than 12 months - Add 5 years (15 year settlement route)
Has received public funds (benefits) for more than 12 months - Add 10 years (20 year settlement route)
Arrived “illegally” - Add 20 years (30 year settlement route)
Entered on a visit visa - Add 20 years (30 year settlement route)
Overstayed permission for more than 6 months - Add 20 years (30 year settlement route)
The statement notes that several of these factors may be true for one person. Where adjustments only cause an increase or decrease, the largest change will be applied. Where adjustments both increase and decrease the qualifying period, these will be combined.
The government also suggests some groups should have standard qualifying periods longer than 10 years. They single out what they call “lower skilled workers”, which includes people with a Health and Care Worker visa, and say that these people should have a 15-year qualifying period before any adjustments. Relating to their announcements changing refugee status, the government also say that refugees who are on “core protection” should have a 20-year qualifying period before any adjustments.
In a later clarification on social media the government has suggested that the “arrived illegally” criteria will only apply to people who are not refugees, meaning people with refugee status will face a 20-year rather than a 30-year route.
The Government is consulting on whether to introduce greater separation between the statuses of main applicants and dependents, who have until now largely had linked status (i.e. once a main applicant qualifies for settlement, their dependents will too). For children, the statement acknowledges that they will not be able to meet the same settlement requirements, but the government is consulting on whether there should be an age cut off after which young adults transition onto an “earned settlement” pathway in their own right.
We will be arguing strongly against these criteria, particularly those that increase the qualifying period, and against some groups having longer standard qualifying periods. We are worried that:
They punish lower income households, by rewarding those who earn high salaries and disadvantaging those who earn less. Lower earners will have to pay far more in visa fees. At the time of writing, a 10-year route to settlement for one adult costs £20,000 in fees. In particular, health and care workers are targeted.
They punish refugees, by subjecting them to a 20-year wait for settlement.
They will punish people who have claimed benefits perfectly legally. This is likely to discriminate against women and mothers in particular, who are vastly overrepresented amongst those making successful change of conditions applications.
They will punish people who have arrived irregularly, on a visitor visa or overstayed for more than 6 months. 30 years is a lifetime.
More people, including children, will end up facing poverty and homelessness: The insecurity and costs associated with this wait vastly increases the chance of people in this group facing poverty, housing insecurity and exploitation, as well as losing their immigration status entirely. For children and young people, this is their entire childhood.
Children who have spent years in the UK and had no choice about moving here, and who are trying to navigate young adulthood, will be subjected to requirements to “earn” settlement or face punishingly long routes.
They make an already confusing and delayed system impossibly complex. The Home Office already struggle to make timely and well-founded decisions within the current system. They are multiplying the number of applications they will have to process, while also making the criteria they have to judge people on more complex. This may lead to chaos in the system, even longer waits and poorer decisions.
Indefinite leave to remain with no recourse to public funds
The Government is consulting on whether to make settlement subject to a no recourse to public funds (NRPF) condition. This would mean that access to the social security system would be conditional on attaining citizenship.
This represents a fundamental shift in the way our immigration system works, and would prevent many people who qualify for settlement accessing much-needed support. It will lead to poverty among both British and non-British children in the UK, at a time when the government has pledged to bring down child poverty levels.
What we can do about it
We know that these suggestions raise many questions, not all of which we have the answers to. We also know that this news will be causing a lot of stress and anxiety. Lengthening existing routes to settlement feels like an unforgivable moving of the goalposts, for everyone affected and their family and loved ones. The government’s prioritizing of high earners exposes the deep flaws in their idea of what it means to contribute to your community. For people already struggling through the punishing 10-year route to settlement, the threat of having to wait even longer before reaching a place of security will feel difficult to handle.
It is important to say that we will be doing everything we can to stop these changes, and you can too. We all have a chance to answer the consultation. At GMIAU and Praxis, we will be using the opportunity to say:
All routes to settlement should be capped at 5 years - not 10, 20 or 30 years. Giving people realistic routes to settlement is what will allow them to settle, grow and give back.
Any changes made must not be retrospective. It is wrong to move the goalposts and punish people using brand new criteria.
We don’t accept the idea of “earned settlement”. We won’t be answering questions on the best way to implement the government’s proposed model because we fundamentally disagree with delaying settlement based on a discriminatory model.
Soon we will share resources to help people have their say.