Legal Analysis & Opinion: The Proposed "Earned Settlement" Framework (CP 1448)

Executive Summary

On November 2025, Command Paper 1448 was presented to Parliament, proposing a fundamental restructuring of the UK's settlement (Indefinite Leave to Remain) regime. The proposal, termed "Earned Settlement," seeks to replace the current fixed-period residency requirement (typically 5 years) with a merit-based "Time Adjustment Model".

The headline proposal increases the baseline qualifying period for settlement to 10 years for most routes, with provisions to reduce this period based on economic and social contribution, or extend it based on "negative contributions" such as accessing public funds. Notably, the Government proposes applying these changes retrospectively to migrants currently in the UK who have not yet obtained settlement.

This Legal Analysis and Opinion evaluates the structural changes, the proposed "Time Adjustment" mechanism and the significant legal implications regarding retrospectivity and legitimate expectation.

Structural Changes: The 10-Year Baseline

The New Default Position

The Consultation proposes abolishing the standard 5-year qualifying period for settlement. The new default baseline will be 10 years. This aligns the standard route with what is currently the "Long Residence" or "Private Life" route, effectively making the 5-year route an exception rather than the norm.

Protected Immigration Categories (Exceptions)

Certain categories are explicitly excluded from the 10-year baseline or are granted automatic reductions to maintain the current 5-year timeline:

• British National (Overseas) (BN(O)): Status holders will retain their 5-year route.

• Family of British Citizens: Spouses/partners of British citizens will receive a 5-year reduction, effectively maintaining the 5-year route.

• Global Talent & Innovator Founder: Applicants will receive a 7-year reduction after 3 years of continuous residence, maintaining their accelerated pathway.

Sector-Specific Extension: Health and Care

A critical deviation applies to the Health and Care sector. For migrants sponsored in roles below RQF Level 6 (e.g., Care Workers), the baseline is proposed to increase to 15 years. This reflects the Government's fiscal analysis suggesting this cohort presents higher long-term costs to the public purse.

The "Time Adjustment" Model

The mechanism for determining settlement eligibility is a "Time Adjustment Model" based on four pillars: Character, Integration, Contribution and Residence.

Accelerated Settlement (Reductions)

Applicants can reduce the 10-year baseline through the following attributes:

• Economic Contribution (Income):

  • Taxable income of £50,270+ for 3 years: -5 years.

  • Taxable income of £125,140+ for 3 years: -7 years.

• Public Service: 5 years of employment in specified public service occupations (e.g., medical professionals): -5 years.

• Language Proficiency: English language at C1 Level (Advanced): -1 year.

• Volunteering: "Extensive" community volunteering: -3 to -5 years (subject to consultation).

Legal Observation: The "stacking" of credits allows for a theoretical reduction to a 3-year or 5-year timeline. However, the consultation notes that where multiple considerations apply, usually only the one causing the largest adjustment applies, unless stated otherwise (e.g., combining C1 English with other factors).

Penalties (Extensions)

The qualifying period is extended for "negative" behaviours:

• Public Funds:

  • Receipt for <12 months: +5 years.

  • Receipt for >12 months: +10 years.

• Immigration History:

  • Illegal entry or overstaying (>6 months): + up to 20 years.

Decoupling of Dependants

The proposal introduces a significant divergence in family migration law. Dependants (partners and children) will no longer automatically qualify for settlement alongside the main applicant. Instead, their qualifying period will be "separately determined according to their own attributes and circumstances".

This creates the potential for "split-status families," where a high-earning main applicant settles after 5 years, while a lower-earning partner remains on temporary leave for 10 years.

Legal Opinion

Retrospectivity and Legitimate Expectation

The most legally contentious aspect of CP 1448 is its retrospective scope. The document states: "We propose to apply these changes to everyone in the country today who has not already received indefinite leave to remain".

While the Government asserts it will not revoke existing ILR, applying new, more onerous criteria to individuals already part-way through a probationary period raises significant issues regarding legitimate expectation.

• Legal Risk: Migrants who entered the UK on a clear 5-year route (e.g., Skilled Worker) have made life decisions based on existing rules. Extending their probationary period to 10 years mid-residence can be challenged on fairness grounds, although the Government retains broad discretion to amend immigration rules.

• Transitional Arrangements: The lack of grand-fathering provisions for current visa holders is aggressive. It is likely to precipitate a surge in settlement applications prior to implementation and may invite judicial review regarding the proportionality of interfering with the private lives (Article 8 ECHR) of settled families.

Administrative Complexity and Discretion

The "Time Adjustment Model" introduces a high degree of complexity.

• Evidential Burden: Proving "extensive volunteering" or continuous public service adds subjective elements to what has traditionally been an objective, time-served assessment. This increases the burden of proof on applicants and the decision-making burden on caseworkers.

• Income Thresholds: The thresholds (£50,270 and £125,140) are fixed against current tax bands. This creates a rigid system that may not account for inflation or sector-specific pay variations, potentially discriminating against lower-paid but "high value" social roles outside the specific "public service" exemptions.

The Health and Care "Penalty"

The proposal to enforce a 15-year baseline for lower-skilled Health and Care workers creates a two-tier system within the Skilled Worker route.

This effectively creates a "guest worker" status for care workers, delaying settlement for a generation (1.5 decades). This raises questions about integration and social cohesion, as this cohort will remain in a precarious immigration status for a substantial portion of their working lives.

Conclusion

The "Earned Settlement" proposals represent a shift from residence-based qualification and eligibility to merit-based privilege. While the stated aim is to ensure integration and fiscal contribution, the legal mechanism is blunt and potentially punitive for those already in the system.

The immediate guidance to immigration applicants who qualify for indefinite leave to remain is to accelerate settlement applications where eligibility currently exists or is imminent. For corporate sponsors, the changes implies a longer sponsorship liability and potentially higher turnover if employees cannot see a viable route to permanence.