The End of 5-Year ILR? ‘Earned Settlement’ Explained

Auto-generated using YouTube's transcript and OpenAI (accuracy cannot be guaranteed)

Hi and welcome to this latest immigration law update. Today I'm going to talk about the end of five-year ILR and I'm going to explain earned settlement because the government have proposed a move from the traditional 5-year route to ILR to a new baseline period of 10 years for most people. For some people, it's going to be 15 or 20 years. There's also proposals that that baseline period can move up or down based on contribution or integration factors. It's not time to panic, but let's have a look at the proposals and try and bring some clarity to this area because I'm sure those who are on 5-year visas or immigration lawyers watching this, there's been a huge amount of concern since these proposals came about.

So these proposals come from the government's white paper from last May, from the 12th of May 2025, "Restoring Control Over the Immigration System". Now there's some links on my slides; while I'm not making these slides available, in the video description all of the links are available so you can follow up on what I'm saying. So here's an extract from the white paper, and I did lots of webinars and YouTubes on the white paper last year which you can go back and have a look at.

But look at what they said in the white paper last year: "We will therefore reform the current rules around settlement through an expansion of the principle behind the points-based system that individuals should earn their right to privileged immigration status in the UK through long-term contribution to our country. This expansion will increase the standard qualifying period for settlement to 10 years. We will continue to offer a shorter pathway to settlement for the non-UK dependents of British citizens to 5 years, provided they've remained compliant with their requirements."

Interesting there. And in the follow-up documents, they talk about the dependents of British citizens, not the dependents of those settled. I don't know if that's deliberate. I presume it must be.

"Through the expansion of the points-based system, individuals will also have the opportunity to reduce the qualifying period on points-based contributions to the UK economy and society. We will consult on these changes later this year."

So that consultation was then published, and it was called "A Fairer Pathway to Settlement", and it closed just prior to midnight on the 12th of February 2026, and there were over 200,000 responses to the consultation. So this is the stage we're at at the moment where the government are considering those responses to the consultation.

But within the consultation, the baseline proposal wasn't out for consultation. So the government's resolute plan is to up the baseline to 10 years. So in "A Fairer Pathway to Settlement", it talks about this new model having four core pillars. So they say this: the new model will increase the standard qualifying period for settlement to 10 years. However, individuals will also have the opportunity to reduce this period based on their contributions to the UK economy and society.

So the four core pillars of this character:

So people have to have good character. Integration: people will have to demonstrate meaningful engagement with British society. Contribution: so individuals who have contributed to society and made a sustained and measurable economic contribution will be on an accelerated path to settlement and residence. The reformed system will recognize lawful continuous residence in the UK. Individuals will not, however, normally qualify on the basis of residence alone. So it's that move from time served, which has been our previous model, to an earned contribution. The default qualifying period is increasing from 5 to 10 years.

Now this is a speech given by the Home Secretary at the time the consultation was set out and she said this: "Those who work in public service, including doctors, teachers, nurses, would qualify after 5 years. Those who volunteer, subject to this consultation, could qualify between five and seven years." We'll come back to that in a minute. Not subject to consultation: "The partners of British citizens will continue to qualify at 5 years as today." So again, they refer to the partners of British citizens, not just the partners of British and settled people. "British National Overseas from Hong Kong will qualify after five years." That's not subject to consultation either. "This won't impact those granted under Windrush or the EU Settlement Scheme."

And she says while some will be able to qualify earlier than 10 years, others will be forced to wait longer. And there's reference there to claiming benefits—we'll have a look at that in a minute—for those who arrived illegally, could take up to 30 years. And then the asylum changes: we've already seen announced and introduced changes to the leave granted to those who've claimed asylum after a date in March of this year. And they're going to be on core protection, not qualify for settlement until after 20 years. But there is this proposal for a work and study settlement protection route.

Applicants must have a clean criminal record. They must speak English to a high standard. And we've already seen in the statement of changes—we'll come and have a look at that—changes to the English language requirement coming in. They must have made a sustained and measurable economic contribution and they must have no debt in this country. That's government debt it's talking about there.

There's also reference, look at the bottom of the slide and what I've highlighted, to those who came on the health and care visa, and they're going to consult on a separate baseline qualifying period for those for 15 years, and most of those arrived after 2022. "Crucially for these and every other group mentioned here, we propose to apply these changes to everyone in the country today who has not already received indefinite leave to remain." Well, we're not clear yet in terms of transitionals who that will apply to. We'll have a look at what she said further in a minute.

So, here are the factors that can reduce that baseline qualifying period. And one of the key takeaway points here is you can't combine these. You will use the single biggest one, but you can't combine them. Remember these are just proposals within the consultation; these are not yet law. We have not yet had these changes, but you can reduce from 10 years to 9 years, or a reduction of one year, if you've got C1 level of English.

Then for the higher tax brackets, there are some significant reductions. So if you look at the third one, if you've earned £50,270 for 3 years prior to applying for settlement, you knock five years off. But look at the second bracket, the second bullet point: if you're up at £125,140, you can knock seven years off and qualify after 3 years. So a huge one there.

Applicant has been employed in a specified public service occupation for 5 years. That would knock five years off. That's the doctors, teachers, nurses that she was referring to. Applicant has worked in the community, volunteering, etc., could knock from 3 to 5 years off. Now that's a bit concerning in some areas because there's a risk of exploitation there certainly, and one would have thought the volunteering needs to be with recognized, registered organizations. I suppose it doesn't hurt, and I've been saying this in my training seminars around the country, for people to get involved in volunteering now to keep records of that, but only to do it through recognized charities because there is that, I think, concern around abuse there.

Applicant holds permission as the parent, partner, child of a British citizen and meets core family requirements, knocks five years off, not subject to consultation. But again, notice it's British citizen, not parent, partner, child of a settled person. BN(O) route: minus 5 years, not subject to consultation. But then look at this: global talent or innovator founders can qualify after 3 years. So when you're planning your immigration journey, and I'm speaking particularly to legal advisers here, when you're advising people, think about these routes because they are going to get people much quicker to settlement. Now global talent and innovator founder, they are endorsement routes and you have to get that endorsement, so they're not simple by any means, but do think about this. And then there was reference to specific vulnerable groups having reductions, which was subject to the consultation.

There can also be increases to that baseline, so factors that increase the baseline. Now I referenced earlier public funds. So if an applicant has been in receipt of public funds for less than 12 months, it adds a huge whopping five years, so from 10 to 15. But if you've received public funds for more than 12 months during your route to settlement, it doubles it from 10—it adds another 10 on to take it to 20. Now, just one thing to note in the consultation, there was talk about whether dependents wouldn't necessarily qualify at the same time as lead applicants. So, you could imagine if you had an adult dependent child who, after they turned 18, say, claimed benefits, could qualify much later than the rest of the family.

Illegal arrival can add 20 years to the baseline, so that could take it up to 30 years. Entered on a visit visa: up to 30 years, and overstayed a permission for six months or more could add another 20 years. So significant potential increases.

Now I already talked about English language and the government have already announced the change to English language in relation to settlement. So in the spring statement of changes, HC 1691 on the 5th of March, these paragraph numbers on the slides are from the explanatory memorandum and, again, I've put all the links there, they will be below the video. The government announced the change from B1 to B2 for settlement, coming into force from the 26th of March next year, 2027. So they've given people 12 months to prepare. Now this is important because this is an increase and it's important to prepare for that. And if you have, say, sponsored workers who this will apply to, or you work with people like that, make sure that people are preparing for this increased level that's going to come in for those applying on from the 26th of March next year.

Now we've seen some further developments. This was evidence that the Secretary of State gave to the Home Affairs Committee in February of this year. She said this on transitional arrangements for those in the UK. She said, "In the consultation, we ask a specific question on transitional arrangements. We're genuinely consulting on that." She acknowledged that the changes would be significant, telling the committee, "I recognize that big changes are potentially happening." She cautioned that some impact on those already here was inevitable. "It is inconceivable that literally nobody who is currently here would be affected by any of these changes and I think we should be upfront about that."

So certainly the proposals are that people already here will be affected by those changes, but we don't know the extent to which. We've already, the other highlighted bit, we've already announced that we want to go from a baseline 5-year qualifying period to 10 years, which we are not consulting on, so that is their fixed proposal, she told MPs. The Home Secretary continued, "We have a relatively generous welfare state. 5 years is actually quite a short period before people can be permanently settled in the country with all the benefits that brings. It is therefore right that we extend it."

There was also a hint at the bottom of this slide that the changes are going to come in the autumn statement of changes, but again there were huge responses to the consultation. So the government have got a lot to work through and we just, as I'm recording this, had published the Immigration Bill as well.

The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee have published a report with recommendations to the government and there's the link here in the slide. But the paragraphs I've put on the slide emphasize the importance of the sort of transitional provisions and making sure that it's clear who they will be applied to and there's a clear implementation timeline so people can make informed decisions. I'm not going to go through that report. It's a helpful report to go through, but the Home Affairs Committee emphasizing the importance of clear, planned changes by the Home Office so people know what's going on and how it will affect them, because as we know this has already caused a lot of anxiety to those here on temporary visas. I know solicitors and immigration advisers had a huge number of queries about this.

One thing I wanted to direct people to is the Skilled Worker Justice Alliance record tracking. So what they've done, really helpful, is put an online record tracking all the developments in relation to earned settlement. So if you're a legal advisor, an academic, or you're a migrant who is worried about this, do keep an eye on that because of any developments, it is published there.

I want to bring this bang up to date and talk about the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee report that was published on the 23rd of June, a wide-ranging report that doesn't just cover earned settlement and makes some significant proposals and critiques of the immigration system. And I've put at the end of these slides some helpful articles digesting the report, but look at some of the conclusions of the report and what they say: "Extending the route to settlement, a baseline ten-year path for migrants with work and family visas, would be more restrictive than equivalent routes in comparable high-income countries. Paths exceeding 10 years are far less common and would make the UK an outlier."

And at paragraph 18, they actually talk about the unintended consequences: that actually it could undermine integration by reducing affected migrants' security of status, limiting their ability to make long-term employment, family, and housing decisions. "In addition, the high cost of immigration application fees and the IHS for migrants risks increasing poverty among low-income migrants. In some cases, those who are unable to afford to renew their status may fall sorry of legal status, increasing the size of the unauthorized migrant population if they do not depart the UK." So unintended negative consequences.

"The government's proposal of a 20-year settlement route for refugees with reviews of their refugee status every 2.5 years risks compromising integration and undermining opportunities for refugees to make long-term decisions regarding work, family, or other aspects of their life."

So what do they say? They say this: "We do not support the government's proposals to extend the baseline qualifying time for indefinite leave to remain to 10 years, to 15 years for those on work visas below RQF6, and to 20 years for refugees on the core protection route. The government should instead explore the option of retaining the 5-year baseline qualifying time for ILR while separating indefinite leave from access to public funds. Migrants with ILR could remain subject to the no recourse to public funds condition until they've resided in the UK for 10 years and or obtained British citizenship." So some alternative proposals there which the government are going to have to address while they consider the consultation responses and this report.

We've talked a number of times about who this is going to impact. Well, they've said this about the retrospective application of the new immigration rules: "Any retrospective change would be manifestly unfair and maybe unlawful towards migrants." And I'm sure we're going to see legal challenges to this. For those of you who are old enough to remember, there was all the HSMP litigation that went up to the House of Lords, and I can see a similar type of litigation coming down the pipeline.

"So it may be unlawful towards migrants who have planned their lives around the current system and made significant long-term decisions such as career, housing, and family life decisions with the expectation that they'll be able to qualify for ILR under the current rules. 22. The UK's reputation would be adversely impacted by retrospective action. So that those changes would make the UK a less attractive destination for highly skilled migrants in the future."

So what do they say? They say this: "Any changes," paragraph 23, "to ILR rules should not apply retrospectively to individuals who are already on a qualifying route. While the government may not support the previous government's decision to open certain visa routes," so they're hinting there then at 2022 in the health and care visas, "that decision has already been made. Many migrants made significant long-term decisions with the expectation of acquiring ILR after five years." So just because this government is critical of what the previous government did in terms of health and care visas, those migrants shouldn't be punished now for the decisions of previous governments where people then have legitimately made decisions to migrate, take up employment in this country on the basis of that policy.

I put some helpful articles there on the slides. So I hope that's helpful to you. The baseline change wasn't up for consultation, so currently the government is full steam ahead with that. But a lot of other stuff was up for consultation. There was a huge number of consultation responses and we've seen this critical report particularly from the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee report. So changes are due this autumn, but there is a lot for the government to chew on in the meantime.

I'll keep you updated with any changes, developments, announcements in the meantime. Remember the links are in the slide, in the description. The links on the slides are in the video description. But I hope that's helpful to you. Thank you so much for joining me today.