Friday 27 February 2026

Laura Devine Immigration has submitted a detailed 40-page substantive response to the Home Office’s earned settlement proposals to offer constructive, evidence based analysis (beyond the narrow constraints and limited character fields of the proforma response template). Our intention is to draw attention to areas where the current proposals may produce unintended adverse consequences, including disproportionate impacts on particular groups, and to identify practical solutions.‑based analysis

Introduction and background
The Home Office’s earned settlement proposals mark a shift from route-specific settlement criteria to a model based on individual characteristics such as contribution and integration. We in particular have raised concerns about lack of clarity, insufficient guidance and potential adverse impacts, especially for migrants already in the UK and their dependants. The consultation document’s limited detail restricts meaningful stakeholder engagement, prompting our call for a second consultation round after necessary clarifications are provided. The proposals appear primarily aimed at reducing net migration and restricting access to settlement for migrants who arrived during high migration periods. We stress the importance of clarity, consistency and fairness, which the current proposals may not fully achieve.

Potential negative ramifications of earned settlement
The earned settlement model emphasises economic contributions by way of taxable income, but may not yield fiscal benefits which may in any event be outweighed by various detrimental impacts. Longer qualifying periods risk discouraging skilled migrants, harming the economy and integration. Increased uncertainty and extended timelines could deter migrants from investing in communities and their careers and prolong sponsorship dependency, increasing vulnerability to exploitation. Employers face challenges from varied settlement timelines across employees, complicating workforce planning and increasing costs, especially for small and regional businesses. The model’s unpredictability and intended retrospective application raise concerns for fairness and operational feasibility.

Public attitudes and perceptions        
Public concern tends to focus on irregular migration rather than lawful migration. Tightening settlement access for lawfully resident workers and families who contribute financially does little to address these anxieties and could exacerbate skill shortages and integration challenges.

Current settlement requirements
The consultation’s foreword (by the Home Secretary)  describes current settlement as ‘near automatic’ after five years of residence with minor criminal restrictions. In reality, settlement requires meeting demanding route-specific criteria including employment at prescribed skill and salary levels, income or savings thresholds, business success metrics, language proficiency at B1 level, passing the Life in the UK test, maintaining continuous residence with limited absences and meeting strict suitability grounds that include criminality, immigration history and financial liabilities. These complexities contradict the consultation’s simplified portrayal and highlight risks that the proposals could undermine integration, regional development and economic growth.

Mandatory requirements

Suitability
The proposals include a ‘root and branch’ review of criminality thresholds intending to bar settlement for anyone with a criminal record, but lack detail on definitions. This could lead to disproportionate outcomes, such as lifetime bars for minor historic offences or overseas convictions without consideration of rehabilitation. The requirement to have no current litigation, NHS, tax or government debt is also vague, raising uncertainty about what debts disqualify applicants and potentially causing undue anxiety.

Integration
The English language requirement would increase from CEFR B1 to B2 level for settlement eligibility, including for partners of British citizens. It is unclear if transitional arrangements will apply, although this is something that we have recommended. Migrants with degrees taught in English or from English-speaking countries should be exempted from retesting.

Contribution
It is proposed that applicants must earn at least £12,570 annually for three to five years or have an alternative income amount, but definitions and periods are unclear. The proposals do not account for fluctuating incomes, part-time work or caregiving responsibilities. Averaging income over the qualifying period and recognising various leave types, including maternity, paternity and sick leave, are recommended. The requirement poses challenges for family route applicants, Innovator Founder entrepreneurs who reinvest earnings and Global Talent migrants with variable incomes. Dependants, especially non-earning partners and children, may face longer settlement timelines, risking family separation and unfairness.

Residence requirements and baselines

Continuous residence
The earned settlement model sets a baseline qualifying period of 10 years, potentially extending to 15 years for certain occupations. The current 180-day annual absence limit may be too strict over longer periods, risking disproportionate penalties. A cumulative absence approach is suggested. The consultation lacks clarity on whether time spent in different settlement routes can be combined, which is critical given likely route changes over extended timelines. The proposed abolition of the 10-year long residence route, which currently allows time in non-settlement categories to contribute towards a pathway to settlement, raises particular concerns for children and long-term residents.

Baseline for RQF levels 3–5   
Workers in roles classified RQF level 3–5 would face a 15-year baseline residence period regardless of salary, including some high-salary occupations. This risks outcomes where lower-paid higher-skilled workers have shorter settlement routes than higher-paid lower-skilled workers. The proposal conflicts with the government’s economic objectives, especially for occupations on shortage lists such as health and care workers. Clarity is also needed on progression between skill levels and how this affects qualifying periods.

Factors reducing baseline settlement period

Earned taxable income           
Income thresholds linked to income tax bands, £50,270 for a five-year reduction and £125,140 for a seven-year reduction, are proposed, but are static and not aligned with regional tax variations. Aligning the lower threshold with the Skilled Worker general salary threshold of £41,700 would simplify administration and better reflect economic contribution. The definition of taxable income needs clarification, including treatment of bonuses, benefits, pension contributions and non-employment income such as dividends or rental income. Evidence requirements must accommodate delays in self-assessment returns. Flexibility for career breaks such as maternity, paternity, shared parental and long-term sickness leave is also essential.

Public service occupation
A five-year reduction is proposed for those working five years in a ‘specified public service occupation’, but the term lacks consistent definition across the consultation. Clarification is needed on which roles qualify, for example health, education and care workers, whether private sector roles count and how ‘seniority’ is assessed to avoid arbitrary exclusions.

Volunteering and community work     
Discounts of three to five years may be granted for community work or volunteering, but the consultation lacks detail on assessment, verification and administrative feasibility. The voluntary sector’s capacity and the risk of exploitation or artificial volunteering markets are concerns, echoing issues from the abandoned 2008 ‘activity condition’ proposals. Clear guidance and collaboration with charity regulators are necessary.

English language at C1 level  
A one-year reduction is proposed for C1 CEFR English proficiency. We suggest a longer three-year reduction or allowing cumulative application with other factors to meaningfully incentivise language acquisition. The current approach may disproportionately benefit applicants from English-speaking countries and lacks funded language provision to support integration.

Factors increasing baseline settlement period

Receipt of public funds
Receiving public funds during a route to settlement results in a five or ten-year extension of the qualifying period, which we view as disproportionate, especially for vulnerable groups such as women, single mothers, disabled individuals and survivors of violence. Proposals include allowing repayment of public funds through tax contributions or direct repayment and exempting vulnerable groups. Clear definitions of ‘public funds’ are needed. We have proposed that the ‘repayment’ of public funds should be permitted to alleviate the potential impact of these proposals.

Switching from Visitor category
An additional 20-year qualifying period is proposed for those switching from Visitor to other categories, equating them with illegal entrants. We consider this unfair for those switching legally and under compassionate or operational discretion and urge consultation with Home Office colleagues to understand switching practices and to exempt children and vulnerable groups.

Illegal entry and overstaying
A 20-year addition is also proposed for illegal entry, but the Home Secretary has clarified refugees would be exempt from double penalties. We criticise the severity, warning it may increase irregular status. Overstaying penalties of 20 years are also seen as excessive, lacking nuance for short or technical overstays or those caused by Home Office delays. Recommendations include graduated approaches, exclusion for children, enumerated mitigating factors and discretion for caseworkers.

Dependants
Dependants must meet earned settlement criteria independently, risking longer qualifying periods than main applicants, especially for partners not earning income and children who may age out before parents settle. This could cause family separation, increased human rights claims and higher education fee challenges for children who are not settled. Recommendations include exempting dependants from contribution requirements or allowing income pooling, decoupling children from parental settlement requirements and exempting adult dependent relatives due to vulnerability. The proposals should align with the best interests of the child under UK law.

Costs, regional, devolved and equality impacts

Costs
The UK already has the highest settlement and citizenship application costs compared to other competitor countries for global talent. Extending qualifying periods will double or triple these costs for migrants and employers, compounded by recent increases in sponsorship fees and restrictions on cost recovery. Sponsors bear most costs, creating financial burdens, especially for small and medium enterprises. Application fees far exceed actual Home Office processing costs, highlighting disproportionate financial impact.

Regional and devolved impacts         
Lower average earnings in devolved nations and regions outside London and the South East mean employers in these regions are less likely to meet income thresholds for settlement period reductions, facing longer sponsorship periods and higher costs. These impacts risk exacerbating workforce shortages, especially in rural and remote areas with ageing populations. The proposals could therefore disproportionately disadvantage these regions, conflicting with regional economic and demographic needs.

Equality impacts         
The income-linked settlement criteria risk disproportionately disadvantaging women, ethnic minorities, young people and retirees due to existing pay gaps, caregiving responsibilities and income patterns. Women are more likely to work part-time or take parental leave, affecting earnings and settlement eligibility. Ethnic groups with lower average earnings may face longer qualifying periods. Pension income treatment and career breaks require clear guidance to avoid unfair impacts. The proposals’ effects on gender and ethnicity must be carefully considered.

Cross-cutting policy concerns
The retrospective application of new, stricter rules from as early as April 2026 without transitional measures would seriously disadvantage migrants already on settlement pathways and impose unexpected burdens on employers. Legacy routes and those with cut-off dates require special consideration to avoid unfairness. Clear definitions of key terms and parameters are essential for meaningful consultation and implementation.

Summary of recommendations
We provide extensive recommendations, including:

• publishing detailed changes to suitability criteria before implementation, avoiding rigid lifetime bars for minor offences and enumerating relevant debts;
• introducing transitional arrangements for language and contribution requirements, allowing migrants to rely on prior criteria and household income pooling;
• clarifying residence rules, adopting cumulative absence calculations and permitting amalgamation of time across routes;
• aligning income thresholds for settlement period reductions with Skilled Worker salary thresholds, allowing income averaging and accommodating career breaks;
• precisely defining public service occupations and volunteering contributions with sector collaboration;
• offering meaningful English language incentives with funded provision;
• mitigating disproportionate penalties for receipt of public funds with repayment options and exemptions for vulnerable groups;
• exempting or flexibly treating dependants, decoupling children’s settlement from parental status and considering impacts on education fees;
• addressing cost burdens by reducing fees, differentiating thresholds regionally and supporting sponsors; and
• conducting full equality impact assessments and addressing regional disparities.

Conclusion
 While the consultation is framed as creating ‘a fairer pathway to settlement’, many proposals risk unfairness and disproportionate impacts on migrants and their families. Greater detail and clear definitions are essential to enable meaningful engagement and to respect existing migrant expectations. The Home Office is urged not to rush implementation to avoid legal challenges, operational failures, unfair outcomes, economic harm and reputational damage. A predictable and evidence-based settlement framework would better support integration, employer confidence and the UK’s long-term interests.

We welcome the opportunity to speak with any members of Government, the Home Office or civil servants to provide additional recommendations and practical case studies.