New briefing paper authored by Professor Bernard Ryan of the University of Leicester
The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) last week published a new briefing paper that raises concerns about the Government's proposed "earned settlement" policy, describing it as "largely without precedent" in both domestic and international contexts.
You can download the 12-page paper here.
The paper was produced on behalf of ILPA by Bernard Ryan, Professor of Migration Law at the University of Leicester, with contributions from a range of immigration lawyers and other academics. It notes that the Government's plans for a ten-year baseline qualifying period for settlement/indefinite leave to remain (ILR) would be unprecedented for the UK and far longer than in the vast majority of comparable countries.
It states: "In the European Union, the Long-Term Residents Directive (2003) requires Member States to grant long-term resident status to third-country nationals after five years' lawful residence. In Australia and the United States, nearly half of those obtaining rights of permanent residence – through family connections, skills or otherwise – do so from the outset, without any qualifying period of residence. Canada provides for permanent residence from the outset for family members and many skilled workers, and after one year's employment in other cases. In New Zealand, permanent residence can be obtained from family and work and family categories after two years' residence."
Among European countries, only Switzerland has a similar ten-year residence requirement, while Denmark has a slightly shorter eight-year standard qualifying period for non-EEA nationals.
Under the earned settlement plans as first set out in last November's A Fairer Pathway to Settlement policy paper, the ten-year baseline could be reduced to 3 years in certain cases, such as for higher earners, but extended to as much as 15 years for those in lower-skilled occupations. ILPA's paper states: "There is no precedent we know of, either in past practice, or in comparable countries, for the extensive variability in qualifying periods as is contemplated in the earned settlement plans."
Refugees face a 20-year residence requirement. Comparing this with other countries, the paper highlights: "In the EU, the 2003 Long-Term Residence Directive was extended to beneficiaries of international protection in 2011, which entitles them to long-term resident status after five years' residence. … In Ireland - which is not covered by the EU Directive - since 8 December 2025, individuals granted international protection have been eligible to apply for citizenship after five years' post-recognition residence. In Canada, all protected persons – Convention refugees and others granted humanitarian protection – are eligible for permanent visas, without a qualifying period. The same is the position in New Zealand for those recognised as refugees and protected persons. In the United States, individuals granted asylum after entry are eligible to apply for a lawful permanent residence after one year's physical presence."
The briefing also draws attention to the proposals mandatory minimum earnings thresholds. It notes that the plans would, "for the first time," require applicants to demonstrate annual earnings of at least £12,570 over a period of years as a condition of settlement. It suggests the measure "has the potential to exclude many individuals from permanent residence," including those in households with sufficient overall resources but without an individual income meeting the threshold.
The paper further notes the plans around recognising voluntary contributions in the settlement process echo similar "active citizenship" proposals from the Labour government in 2008, when additional residence requirements were suggested for those who did not meet certain civic participation criteria. Those plans were ultimately dropped after "deep unease" expressed by the voluntary sector. ILPA's paper says it unclear why this idea should be any more viable this time round.
Concerns are raised about the Government's intention to retrospective apply the plans, noting it would be at odds with the consistent approach over the past 15 years, which has been to protect those already in the UK from changes made to the categories they are in.
To illustrate this, the briefing paper points to a series of past changes across visa routes. For example, when the qualifying period for partners was increased from two to five years in 2012, and when the minimum income requirement was later raised, individuals already within the affected routes were allowed to continue under the previous thresholds. Similar protections were applied in work routes, including changes to salary requirements for skilled workers and investment thresholds for investor visas, where those already admitted were permitted to extend their stay and qualify for settlement under earlier rules. According to the paper, these examples demonstrate a longstanding policy practice of avoiding retrospective disadvantage - an approach that the current proposals would depart from.