The UK Home Secretary has opened a public consultation on reforming Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) with a move to an earned settlement system.
UK Earned Settlement Consultation
The proposals would replace the long-standing five-year standard Indefinite Leave to Remain route with a ten-year baseline for most migrants, combined with stricter checks on behaviour, economic contribution and integration.
Certain high earners and high-skill routes would gain faster access to settlement, while many lower-paid workers would face longer and more conditional journeys.
Although the consultation runs until 12 February 2026 and no Immigration Rules have yet changed, the paper sets out a clear direction of travel that ILR will be harder to secure and more closely linked to long-term performance against four core pillars.
Four Pillars of Earned Settlement
The consultation document explains that future ILR decisions should be based not only on years spent in the UK but on four pillars: character, contribution, integration and residence.
Each pillar has a distinct function. Together they create a framework under which time in the UK provides the foundation, but settlement is only granted where an applicant also shows good conduct, genuine engagement in UK life and sustained economic independence.
The government’s argument is that settlement should reflect who stays, how they behave and what they bring over time, rather than operating as an almost automatic reward for reaching a five-year milestone.
Character
The character pillar tightens the suitability rules around criminality and other forms of misconduct. Under the proposals, applicants would need to satisfy new thresholds under Part Suitability for settlement. The stated expectation is that ILR should not normally be granted to someone with a criminal record, even if they have completed the residence period. The consultation points towards a firmer stance where offences that might previously have been overlooked at the settlement stage now weigh more heavily. In practice, this means that conduct over the entire period of stay becomes a more decisive factor. A single conviction, or a pattern of minor offences, could prevent a grant of ILR despite full compliance with salary, residence and other requirements.
Contribution
The contribution pillar focuses on economic activity and financial independence. Applicants would be expected to demonstrate sustained employment and National Insurance contributions at levels that show they support themselves and any dependants. The paper refers to earnings above the income tax and NIC threshold for a specified period, which signals a move away from simply checking that someone has worked at some point, and towards a test that looks at whether they have genuinely carried their own weight in fiscal terms. Unpaid debts to the state, such as outstanding NHS charges, tax liabilities or unresolved government litigation, would count strongly against the applicant.
Contribution also underpins the proposed time reductions. Under the time adjustment model, taxable income above £125,140 for three years could reduce the standard ten-year route by seven years, creating an effective three-year path to ILR. Taxable income above £50,270 for three years could generate a five-year reduction, retaining a five-year route in effect. These reductions would depend on the applicant meeting all mandatory conditions and not attracting any upward adjustments. The model therefore uses contribution not only as a gatekeeper but also as a way to reward those whose fiscal footprint is highest.
Integration
The integration pillar focuses on language, knowledge and participation in UK life. The consultation proposes raising the English language requirement for settlement to at least B2 level, which is broadly aligned with A-level standard, alongside a continued Life in the UK test that may itself be updated. These changes would mark a clear step up from current ILR requirements and are intended to secure higher levels of fluency and civic understanding among those who settle.
The paper also explores whether integration activities such as volunteering and community involvement should provide scope for reducing the qualifying period. While the exact mechanisms are being consulted on, the direction is that engagement beyond paid work could shorten the route to ILR for some applicants. That again ties long-term status to a wider view of participation, rather than limiting the analysis to salary and tax data.
Residence
Residence remains central but in a different way from the present system. The baseline qualifying period for most routes that lead to ILR would increase from five years to ten years. Applicants would then need to show they meet the other pillars before they can be granted settlement. The separate ten-year long residence route is proposed to be removed, with its function absorbed into this single ten-year baseline and adjustment model.
The consultation proposes a longer standard period for certain cohorts. Skilled Workers in roles below RQF level 6, including many Health and Care roles, are the subject of proposals for a 15-year qualifying period instead of the ten-year default. The government highlights the perceived fiscal impact of lower-paid migration and signals that longer routes are intended to reflect that cost. Residence is also affected by use of public funds. Claiming public funds for less than twelve months could add five years to the qualifying period. Claiming public funds for twelve months or more could add ten years. For some applicants this could create twenty-year or longer settlement journeys. For people who entered illegally or overstayed, example scenarios in the paper extend the path to ILR to around thirty years, underlining how heavily past breaches may weigh under the new structure.
Implications for ILR Applicants
For many applicants, the most immediate effect of the earned settlement consultation is the likely shift from a relatively short, time-driven process to a longer, more performance-based route. Where the current model allows most workers to apply after five years, subject to relatively limited checks, the new system would expect ten years of residence as a starting point, plus evidence of clean conduct, strong English, sustained economic independence and freedom from debt to public bodies. That combination raises both the bar and the cost of non-compliance.
Workers in lower-paid roles, particularly those below RQF level 6, would see the most significant extension in timelines. A proposed 15-year standard qualifying period, coupled with the risk of upward adjustments where public funds are used, creates a long horizon before permanent status can be secured. Any period of unemployment or reduced hours that leads to benefit use may have a direct impact on when, or even whether, ILR becomes available. For some, life events such as illness, caring responsibilities or economic downturns may prolong the route beyond two decades.
By contrast, the proposals are more favourable to high earners and some high-skill categories. An applicant with taxable income above £125,140 for three years could qualify for ILR after three years. Those with income above £50,270 for three years could keep an effective five-year settlement route. Migrants on routes such as Global Talent and Innovator Founder are singled out for similar reductions, subject to the same core conditions. This allows the government to present the UK as more attractive to senior professionals and entrepreneurs, while tightening permanent access for most other workers.
Dependants are drawn into the earned settlement architecture as well. Partners and adult family members would be expected to meet similar standards on character, integration and contribution, rather than relying solely on the main applicant’s profile. A partner with weaker English, a criminal record, a fragmented work history or government debt may find their route extended or blocked even if the main worker qualifies. This pulls household-level choices about work, study, care and benefits firmly into the ILR equation and may lead families to plan their lives around the settlement timetable in a way that has not been necessary to the same extent under the five-year system.
Overall, the consultation signals a step towards a more selective and graduated settlement regime. ILR would remain achievable but would depend on sustained standards over a longer period, with more scope for both reward and penalty. Applicants and their employers will need to approach long-term planning with a clearer view of how decisions taken across ten or fifteen years may affect the eventual outcome once the earned settlement model is in place.
