Earned Settlement: The Cobra effect

The UK Government has proposed a fundamental redesign of the settlement regime (Indefinite Leave to Remain, or ILR) under a new “earned settlement” framework. Set to be implemented in Autumn 2026, the proposals would extend the standard qualifying period for ILR from 5 years to 10 and introduce a system whereby eligibility is accrued through demonstrable economic contribution, alongside enhanced suitability and integration thresholds.

A public consultation on the proposals ran until 12 February 2026. According to the Home Secretary, it attracted approximately 130,000 responses, indicating substantial stakeholder engagement. Ministerial statements indicate a clear policy direction: settlement is to be earned, not assumed.

In this analysis we explain:

• The policy drivers behind the proposals
• What is changing
• The Cobra Effect: Adverse Consequences of Earned Settlement Model
• Practical considerations for prospective ILR applicants and employers

•  

How we got here

The proposals have emerged against a backdrop of “an unprecedented level” of migration between 2021 and 2024. Approximately one in every 30 UK residents arrived during that period. Home Office modelling suggests that around 2.2 million people could become eligible for settlement (ILR) between 2026 and 2030. Of these, an estimated 1.6 million are expected to flow from the 3.6 million non‑EU arrivals recorded between 2021 and 2024.

A series of policy changes also reshaped economic migration. In December 2020, the Skilled Worker route replaced Tier 2 (General). Whereas Tier 2 largely confined eligibility to roles at RQF Level 6 and above (typically graduate‑level), the Skilled Worker route broadened eligibility to include roles at RQF Levels 3–5 and removed previous annual quotas. As a result, the share of Skilled Worker main applicants sponsored below RQF Level 6 rose from 13% in 2021 to 53% in the year ending June 2024.

Adjustments to the Health and Care route in February 2022, following advice from the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), made Senior Care Workers and Care Workers eligible. Approximately half of Health and Care entry‑clearance visas issued to main applicants in 2022 were for these roles, increasing to over 70% in 2023. This shift drove a marked increase in visas for sub‑RQF‑6 occupations. By 2023, 75% of Skilled Work visas on the Health and Care route were for roles below RQF Level 6, up from 11% in 2021.

Between 2016 and 2019, Tier 2 (General) main applicants brought, on average, 0.74 dependants each. During 2021–2024, Skilled Workers (including Health and Care) brought an average of 1.14 dependants. In 2022–2023, dependants accounted for 56% of visas issued to new entrants on the Health and Care route, compared with 43% across the broader Skilled Worker route. Research by the Migration Observatory indicates that main applicants who arrive with dependants are statistically more likely to progress to settlement than those who arrive alone.

These dynamics feed directly into near‑term settlement projections. The Home Office forecasts around 462,000 ILR grants between 2026 and 2030 to individuals who entered on the Health and Care route, a substantial new cohort, given that route produced no settlement grants prior to 2025. Over the same period, approximately 306,000 ILR grants are forecast for those who entered on non‑Health and Care Skilled Worker visas, averaging about 61,000 per year, up from 39,000 in 2024 for individuals who arrived on Worker routes. As most recent growth in entries has been into medium‑ and lower‑skilled roles, a significant share of Skilled Worker‑route settlements in 2026–2030 is expected to be granted to these cohorts and their dependants.

Additionally, the minimum income requirement (MIR) for sponsoring a partner on a Family visa rose from £18,600 to £29,000 in April 2024, its first increase since the MIR was introduced at £18,600 in 2012. Over that period, inflation materially eroded the MIR’s real value, which the 2024 uplift seeks to address. Based on historical settlement behaviours, the Home Office projects around 280,000 grants of settlement between 2026 and 2030 arising from Family and dependant routes, the majority relating to individuals who arrived before the 2024 MIR increase.

Over the past 2-3 years, the Government has introduced measures intended to reduce inflows on economic and family routes and moderate downstream settlement eligibility, including:

• • Narrowing the range of sponsorable roles under the Skilled Worker route by removing most RQF Level 3–5 occupations from sponsorship of new hires unless retained on the Immigration Salary List or any temporary shortage list

• • Substantial increases to salary thresholds across sponsored work routes

• • Ending overseas recruitment of social care workers

• • Shortening the Graduate route (post‑study) from two years to 18 months

• • Tightening English language requirements, with higher minimum standards for those required to sit approved tests

• • Increasing the family route Minimum Income Requirement (MIR).

Notwithstanding these measures, the cumulative effect of earlier liberalisations from 2020 (removal of the annual cap, abolition of the resident labour market test, lowering the skill threshold to RQF Level 3, and relatively modest salary thresholds) combined with the post‑EU‑exit need to address skills and labour shortages, drove higher employer sponsorship volumes. The closure of high‑value routes (such as Tier 1 Entrepreneur, Investor and Sole Representative) did little to offset this, and large cohorts admitted under the expanded work routes are now approaching the five‑year point at which, under current rules, settlement would ordinarily be available.

The UK Government’s “earned settlement” proposals seek to reset long‑term migration policy by replacing automatic progression to settlement with a framework under which settlement must be demonstrably earned.

 

What Is Changing: Earned Settlement

The proposed earned settlement framework would replace the near‑automatic five‑year route to ILR with a ten‑year baseline qualifying period for most categories. Time to settlement would then be adjusted up or down according to four core pillars: character, integration, contribution and residence, together with immigration compliance.

 

• • Mandatory conditions: All applicants would have to meet stricter universal requirements, including a clean criminality and compliance record, higher English language ability (proposed B2 as a minimum) and passing the Life in the UK Test, alongside evidence of financial responsibility (for example, no outstanding NHS or tax debt). Proposals also contemplate a minimum earnings history (indicatively around the level of £12,570 per year for a defined period).

• • Time reductions: The ten‑year baseline could be shortened where applicants demonstrate sustained economic contribution or exceptional integration, such as:
    

     

    • • High taxable earnings over a multi‑year period;
    • • Occupation in specified frontline public service roles;
    • • Holding Global Talent or Innovator Founder permission (proposed fast‑track to three years);
    • • Higher English proficiency (e.g., C1) and recognised community participation/volunteering.

• • Time increases: The qualifying period could be lengthened where there has been reliance on public funds (illustratively +5 or +10 years depending on duration), or serious non‑compliance such as illegal entry or significant overstaying (potentially adding up to 20 years).

• • Route‑specific positions: Certain cohorts would retain shorter routes, most notably partners/parents/children of British citizens and BN(O) status holders (proposed five‑year routes). By contrast, baseline periods of around 15 years are under consideration for some medium‑ or lower‑skilled roles below RQF Level 6, particularly where there are fiscal costs.

• • Dependants: Adult dependants would no longer automatically mirror the main applicant’s timeline. Each dependant would accrue their own qualifying period and must independently meet the mandatory criteria.

In short, settlement would no longer follow from five years’ residence and route compliance alone. Applicants would be required to satisfy tougher baseline criteria and “earn” any acceleration through measurable economic contribution, integration and sustained compliance, while past public funds reliance or immigration breaches could significantly extend the pathway.

 

Mandatory Requirements for ILR Under the New System

Every applicant must satisfy all core conditions. Failure on any mandatory condition would be determinative, regardless of time accrued.

PILLAR	REQUIREMENT
Suitability	No criminal record, no government debt, full compliance with immigration rules
Integration	English at B2, passing the Life in the UK Test
Contribution	Meet a minimum earnings benchmark, indicatively £12,570 per annum, for a sustained period (provisionally 3–5 years) prior to application. Both the threshold and duration remain subject to consultation.

Baseline Qualifying Period for ILR: 10 years

Adjustments:

• • Reductions where defined contribution or integration criteria are met.

• • Increases where there have been immigration breaches or reliance on public funds.

 

Reductions to the ILR Qualifying Period

Where multiple factors apply, the largest applicable reduction and the largest applicable increase are combined to determine the net qualifying period.

Pillar	Attribute	Adjustment to baseline qualifying periods
Integration	Applicant has competency in English language at C1 Level under the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages	Minus 1 year
Contribution (Income-Based Reductions)	Applicant has earned a taxable income of £125,140 for 3 years immediately prior to applying for settlement	Minus 7 years
	Applicant has earned a taxable income of £50,270 for 3 years immediately prior to applying for settlement	Minus 5 years
	Applicant has been employed in a specified public service occupation for 5 years	Minus 5 years
	Applicant has worked in the community (volunteering, etc)	Minus 3-5 years
Entry and residence	Applicant holds a permission as the parent/partner/child of a British citizen and meets core family requirements Not subject to consultation	Minus 5 years Not subject to consultation
	Applicant holds a permission granted under the British National Overseas route Not subject to consultation	Minus 5 years Not subject to consultation
	Applicant has 3 years continuous residence as the holder of a permission as a Global Talent worker or Innovator Founder	Minus 7 years
	Acknowledgement of specific and vulnerable groups having a reduction	Subject to consultation

 

Increases to the ILR Qualifying Period

Only one increase factor applies per application: the single largest applicable increase. It is applied before any reduction and takes precedence over reductions. Any permitted reduction is then applied to the increased baseline (subject to any minimum periods specified), to determine the net qualifying period.

Pillar	Attribute	Adjustment to baseline qualifying periods
Contribution	Applicant has been in receipt of public funds for less than 12 months during route to settlement	Plus 5 years
	Applicant has been in receipt of public funds for more than 12 months during route to settlement	Plus 10 years
Entry and residence	Applicant arrived in the UK illegally e.g. via small boat/clandestine	Plus up to 20 years
	Applicant entered the UK on a visit visa	Plus up to 20 years
	Applicant has overstayed a permission for 6 months or more	Plus up to 20 years

Impact on Skilled Workers and lower‑skilled routes

• • Skilled Workers can normally qualify for ILR after five years’ continuous permission.

• • Proposed model: Most Skilled Workers would move to a ten‑year baseline for settlement, with time reductions available only where defined contribution or integration criteria are met.

• • Lower‑skilled roles: For occupations below RQF Level 6 (i.e., below graduate level on the Regulated Qualifications Framework), pathways of up to 15 years are under consideration. This represents a marked shift towards contribution‑based settlement and away from near‑automatic eligibility after five years of compliant residence.

Dependants and children: material changes

• • Adult dependants would no longer acquire ILR automatically in line with the main applicant. Each adult dependant would have to:
    
    • • Complete their own qualifying period; and
    • • Meet all mandatory suitability, integration and contribution requirements in their own right.

• • Children who turn 18 during the qualifying period may need to transition to an individual route to ILR and satisfy the mandatory criteria themselves.

• • A limited “grace” provision is envisaged to allow some children who have turned 18 to settle alongside their parents, subject to conditions to be defined.

• • Safeguards are expected to remain for children who have spent most of their lives in the UK without secure status, reflecting existing long‑residence and best‑interests protections.

Transitional arrangements

The Government has sought views on whether transitional protections should apply to:

• • Migrants already on a route to settlement under the current five‑year framework; and

• • Those close to meeting the existing five‑year ILR requirements.

No final position has been announced. However, when pressed on the position of migrants who had planned their lives around a five‑year route, the Home Secretary emphasised that “The basis on which an application for indefinite leave to remain is assessed is based on the rules at the time that you apply,” adding, “That has always been the case… it has been tested in court and been upheld in case law since 2009.” When asked what would happen to someone who qualified under today’s rules but could not yet afford the application fee, she reiterated: “An application is assessed based on the rules that were in force at the point at which the application is made, not what the rules were when the person came to the country”.

In practical terms, applicants should not assume grandfathering or retrospective protections. Those able to meet current ILR criteria are well‑advised to prepare and file as soon as possible to be assessed under the rules in force at the date of application.

More recently, the Home Secretary confirmed that the new rules will affect those who arrived between 2022 – 2024 and have not yet secured settlement. 

 

Who may benefit under the proposed system

Subject to consultation outcomes, the framework is likely to favour applicants who can evidence sustained economic contribution and strong integration. This includes high earners and highly skilled workers able to meet or exceed proposed earnings and language benchmarks; public service professionals where the policy contemplates recognition of specified frontline roles; and individuals with demonstrable community ties through recognised participation and integration. Routes that are expected to retain comparatively shorter pathways such as BN(O) status holders and certain family routes also stand to be comparatively advantaged.

Who may be disadvantaged under the proposed system

By contrast, lower‑paid workers (particularly in roles below RQF Level 6) may face materially longer pathways, potentially up to 15 years, absent qualifying contribution or integration accelerators. Applicants with any history of reliance on public funds could see increases to the qualifying period and be ineligible for reductions, and those with immigration breaches (such as overstaying or unlawful entry) may face further extensions. Adult dependants who do not have their own income or employment will need to satisfy mandatory criteria in their own right and will no longer progress automatically with the main applicant. Skilled Workers who had planned on five‑year ILR under the current rules may also face extended timelines unless transitional protections are confirmed.

 

The Cobra Effect

 In ministerial remarks, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp) set out the Government’s core concern about downstream pressures if large cohorts progress to settlement: “Such numbers jeopardise our public services, our economy, the whole housing market and cohesion in local communities. Doing nothing is simply unacceptable. Around 1.34 million people are currently on our social housing waiting list […] which has increased by 200,000 since 2020. Combining that with a potential 2.2 million people becoming eligible for settled status between 2026 and 2030 would put a massive strain on our public services. We have already set out plans to increase the standard qualifying period towards settlement from five to 10 years.” He also emphasised the policy’s framing around contribution and compliance: “As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this process is not about deporting people; it is about creating a system that is based on contribution and integration, and people who are not committing crime. That is what the public expect. However, the new model will also impose penalties on people who claim public funds or who have breached immigration laws. Those are not punitive measures; they are deterrents for those who are thinking about choosing a life of benefits when they can work, or who fund criminal gangs in order to cross the channel on small boats, endangering their own lives in the process.”

Public interest has been high. Two petitions triggered a Westminster Hall debate: Keep 5-Year ILR and Restrict Access to Benefits for New ILR Holders (over 234,000 signatures) and Protect Legal Migrants: do not implement the 10-Year ILR proposal (over 106,000 signatures).

In the debate, Labour MPs focused on retrospectivity, legal certainty and disproportionate cost burdens. Opening the debate, Labour’s Tony Vaughan said the proposed changes would “move the goalposts” for migrants who had come to the UK under the expectation of a five-year route to settlement, warning that retrospective reform would amount to a breach of trust. In his view, “retrospectivity is un-British and undermines our sense of fair play.” Labour MP Barry Gardiner warned that “retrospectivity and arbitrary or subjective criteria make for bad law, precisely because they destroy clarity and certainty” and cited a family in his constituency who had already paid “£28,726” in visa fees and charges, and who could ultimately face “costs exceeding £43,000” if required to continue on an extended pathway “with no guarantee that the rules would not change again in the meantime.”

Amnesty International in their guidance on consultation response on a Fairer Path to settlement flags: “Many migrant people’s lives in the UK will become far more uncertainty for far longer periods. The financial and other costs to them will be made far greater (having to pay many more times for permission to stay a little longer and pay the very high migrant health charge many more times). At best, people will be made less welcome and more marginalised. At worst, people will be made more at risk of destitution, homelessness, ill-health, and exploitation. very higher earners are to be privileged with a relatively fast route to permanent residence whereas most migrant people who may ever be permitted to become permanent residents are to have a slow and painful route. The proposals reward xenophobia and racism. They are a direct response to hostility to migrant people and their immigration. This is precisely the opposite of what any responsible Government should do and risks encouraging even more dreadful demands for policies that penalise and demonise migrant people. The proposals will cause considerably more work and expense for the Home Office (having to deal with many more applications of people who are either stuck in the immigration system indefinitely or for far longer and needing to frequently and repeatedly apply to stay). That department is already failing to manage its workload fairly and efficiently. The proposals will likely cause other government departments, local authorities, and courts more work too”.

Further, critics argue the Government is placing excessive emphasis on net migration figures and settlement forecasts, noting that “net migration has already declined by two thirds in the year ending June 2025. According to a January 2026 Resolution Foundation report, “2026 may be the first year in a new era when deaths exceed births by an ever-widening margin,” pointing to a shrinking working‑age population. More demanding “contribution” requirements may deter or exclude valuable workers and disproportionately impact families, carers, part‑time workers, women, those on protection routes and young adults in higher education. Extended and complicated routes to settlement risk undermining integration by prolonging insecurity and diminishing incentives to invest in education, employment progression and community life, particularly harsh for families with children on long routes who already experience difficulties in meeting basic costs.

For employers, keeping workers on temporary sponsorship for longer increases expense and administrative burden: repeated Right to Work checks, extended sponsor reporting on job and salary changes, further legal fees, additional Certificates of Sponsorship and Immigration Skills Charge payments, especially if transitional protections are limited.

European nations, Australia, New Zealand, Canada provide comparatively much quicker pathways to settlement than the proposed 10‑year baseline, making the UK less competitive and potentially conflicting with the strategy to position the UK as a leading tech hub. Even where higher‑paid tech roles might retain five‑year or shorter routes, reported operational frictions such as significant delays in simply securing CoS allocation or sponsor licence with priority service, compound costs and uncertainty will divert talent to competitor countries with clearer, faster pathways.

These factors together risk the very “cobra effect”, a term derived from British colonial rule in India, where the authorities sought to address the growing cobra population by offering a bounty for dead cobras, only for people to begin breeding cobras for reward and thereby making the problem worse. Similarly, the earned settlement model risks becoming an ill‑conceived attempt to strengthen the system that may instead deter the talent and investment the UK seeks to attract, leave many migrants in prolonged limbo or at greater risk of exploitation and destitution, and place further strain on already stretched public resources. The proposals, if implemented, will introduce increased complexity, repeated renewals, and extended periods of insecure status in a system already affected by long delays, high costs, and inconsistent decision-making. There is no evidence that making people wait longer for settlement improves integration. On the contrary, insecurity of status is well established as a driver of poverty, homelessness, exploitation, poor mental health and disablement, with knock-on impacts for communities, local authorities, and public services.

As reported by The National, a newly formed organisation, Skilled Migrants Alliance, is preparing to challenge in court Government plans to apply the proposed “earned settlement” policy retrospectively by lengthening the current five‑year qualifying period for ILR. The Alliance, which launched its website this week, describes itself as a community‑led initiative representing skilled migrants and their families across the UK, and says it advocates for approximately 1.6 million workers, businesses and individuals in sectors including healthcare, infrastructure and technology. The group argues that migrants entered under the existing framework with a legitimate expectation of settlement after five years and that retrospective extension would be unfair and create substantial financial and personal uncertainty for affected households. It has indicated it is prepared to pursue judicial review. The Alliance says it will decide on next steps once the Government publishes its consultation response and an official policy announcement, and that the second phase of its legal action issuing a pre‑action protocol letter would follow any finalised amendments to the Immigration Rules.

An instructive parallel is the litigation concerning the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP), where an attempt to tighten and extend settlement requirements was successfully challenged in HSMP Forum Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 664 (Admin), in part because the scheme’s wording created a strong legitimate expectation for existing participants. Similarly here, if judicial review succeeds, elements of the earned‑settlement package could prove short‑lived. However, even in this case they can produce disruption with consequences that may be felt for years.

The UK’s withdrawal from the EU was framed around “taking back control” of immigration. As EU migration declined, skills and labour shortages followed. The Government’s near‑immediate response was to liberalise the rules on economic migration by removing quotas, abolishing the resident labour market test, lowering the skill threshold and holding salary thresholds comparatively low to fill gaps in the labour market. The current move to tighten settlement for those who have lawfully relied on these routes risks repeating the cycle: restrictions introduced after earlier liberalisation that may again backfire, exacerbating recruitment pressures and weakening the UK’s competitiveness.

Overall, the proposals are completely contrary to the significant body of evidence on integration and social cohesion. While it is legitimate for immigration policy to evolve, shifting settlement parameters for cohorts already progressing under established routes is unnecessary. Carefully designed transitional measures and evidence‑led implementation will be essential to mitigate perceived unfairness and avoid unintended consequences.

 

Practical preparation steps for prospective ILR applicants and Employers

 

Individuals

• Prioritise confirming whether you (and all eligible family members) can meet current ILR rules now. If so, prepare and submit applications as soon as possible, including booking appointments and collating evidence. Assess eligibility to apply before April 2026 and file promptly.
• If you will qualify for 10‑year long residence before April 2026, bring the application forward. Future rules may restrict the ability to combine time from non‑settlement routes (e.g., Student, Global Business Mobility). Recent changes require 10‑year long‑residence applicants to have been on their current route for at least 12 months before applying. Build this into your timing and avoid late route switches that restart the 12‑month clock.
• It is not yet clear which categories will count towards ILR under the new model. Time spent on routes that do not lead to settlement (e.g., Student, GBM) may not be acceptable. Where possible, consolidate time on a settlement‑leading route now.
• Compile a complete absences schedule (business and personal travel) for the qualifying period. Keep supporting items (itineraries, entry/exit stamps, employer letters).
• If records are incomplete, submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the Home Office immediately. Standard timelines are around one month, and delays are common.
• Book and pass the Life in the UK Test early.
• Where higher English standards are contemplated (e.g., B2 minimum, with potential incentives at C1), arrange an approved SELT and retain certificates.
• If aiming for an accelerated period based on earnings (for example, a potential five‑year reduction at salaries of £50,270 if adopted), ensure taxable income remains consistently above the relevant threshold.
• Keep robust evidence: payslips, P60s/SA302s, HMRC records, employer letters, bank statements.
• Resolve any criminality disclosures as required and make accurate declarations.
• Clear outstanding public debts (e.g., NHS charges, tax liabilities) and keep proof.
• Maintain strict compliance with visa conditions; avoid overstaying and ensure address/employment changes are properly notified.
• Do not claim public funds, especially if your leave is subject to a no‑recourse to public funds condition. Limited exceptions exist (e.g. where reciprocal arrangements apply) though it is not clear whether these will be permissible under the new model. Confirm eligibility before claiming and keep written evidence where an exception applies.
• Where possible, align both parents’ eligibility so that children can settle in line. Without both parents holding (or applying for) ILR, children’s routes may become more complex.
• Ensure children over 18 do not start leading an independent life as that would make them ineligible to apply for ILR with the parents.
• Consider UK‑born children’s eligibility to register as British once a parent is settled.
• Keep all future absences within permitted thresholds.
• If you cannot file before October 2026, budget for potential extensions under current rules (visa fees, Immigration Health Surcharge where applicable, appointment time). Consider switching into a settlement‑leading route sooner if appropriate.
• Track policy announcements closely. Keep records of your reliance on published guidance in case transitional protections are defined by reference to a status/date.

1. 1. 1.  

Employers and organisations

• Audit your sponsored population to identify who can meet ILR now and who is approaching eligibility before October 2026. Encourage and support timely filing for main applicants and eligible dependants (e.g., letters confirming employment and business travel).
• Tighten Right to Work re‑checks and ensure Sponsor Management System reports (role, salary, work location) are done promptly and accurately.
• Assess longer pre‑ILR timelines: plan for additional extensions and associated reporting. Secure Certificates of Sponsorship (defined/undefined) early and factor in priority service constraints.
• Model increased sponsorship expenditure where ILR is delayed: Certificates of Sponsorship, Immigration Skills Charge, visa fees (including dependants), legal fees, and possible priority processing.
• Budget for repeat compliance activity over a longer horizon (RTW checks, audits, record‑keeping).
• Where business‑critical and lawful, consider whether salary progression can help key staff meet any proposed earnings thresholds for accelerated settlement (e.g., £50,270), mindful of equalities and pay policies.
• Offer practical support for Life in the UK and SELT (study time, test fee reimbursement) and provide robust employment/absence letters.
• Maintain accurate, consistent personnel records aligned with UKVI requirements (contracts, job descriptions, salary history).
• Monitor Government announcements on transitional arrangements and cut‑off dates. Be ready to pivot filing strategies quickly.
• Communicate clearly with affected staff about timelines, documentation requirements and support available.
• Factor longer settlement timelines and increased compliance overheads into workforce planning and offers, particularly in competitive sectors.

These actions aim to preserve eligibility under current rules wherever possible, reduce timing risk, and mitigate the cost and compliance exposure that may arise if the earned‑settlement framework is implemented.

 

How we can help

We can assist with eligibility assessments (including five‑year and ten‑year routes), long‑residence strategy and timing, evidence collation (absences, earnings, integration), sponsor compliance and HR controls, and cost and contingency planning.

If you have any concerns about how these proposals may affect you, your family, or your workforce, please get in touch with Distinct Law to discuss next steps and design a tailored preparation plan.