Earned Settlement: What the Home Office's Own Evidence Tells Us

The government asked. More than 200,000 people answered.

On 2 November 2026, the Home Office published two things side by side: its final policy on Earned Settlement, and the evidence it gathered while deciding it. The evidence is worth reading slowly, because it says more than the policy does.

The public consultation drew 204,667 online responses and 904 by email. 84% of individuals and 79% of organisations disagreed with the proposals. Alongside it, the Home Office commissioned IFF Research to survey 4,728 current and former visa and protection route holders about how the changes would affect their plans.

The headline policy survived largely intact: the standard route to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) moves from five years to ten. Some proposals were genuinely improved. But on the single issue respondents raised most consistently, the people already here who planned their lives around five years, the government has offered targeted concessions rather than general protection.

At Immigrationist, we work with visa holders and their employers every day. We read both reports and the underlying data tables in full, with one group in mind: people already living here, part-way through a five-year route. They are the readers we serve, and the people this policy reaches first. This is what the evidence says about them, and what we think the government should do next.

What the government decided

The response, A Fairer Pathway to Settlement (CP 1707), sets a tiered model. Most of it still needs changes to the Immigration Rules, which the Home Secretary said would begin from December 2026 and roll out through 2027.

There are real improvements on the November 2025 proposals, and they deserve credit:

• Dependants. The government dropped its plan to make partners earn settlement individually. Partners arriving together can settle together, and couples can combine income toward a household threshold.
• Care workers. The proposed 15-year route for roles below degree level is gone. Care workers who were on the route before the May 2025 White Paper keep a five-year path if they earn £25,000.
• Flexible earnings tests. A "best years" approach means a period of maternity leave or illness does not automatically reset the clock.
• Protected routes. BN(O) visa holders, partners and parents of British citizens, and several other groups keep their existing arrangements.

What is not there is general transitional protection. A Skilled Worker who arrived in 2023 on a £40,000 salary, expecting ILR in 2028, may now be looking at 2033. Higher English requirements (B2) also apply from 26 March 2027, and the 10-year Long Residence route is set to close.

If you are already here: what the detailed data shows

The Home Office's published data tables let us look specifically at people already in the UK and part-way through a five-year route. That is most of the survey: 93% had lived here more than a year, and 62% were within three years of eligibility under today's rules.

Many are close to the finish line. 16% were less than a year from eligibility, and another 18% were one to two years away. For them, ten years is not a rule for the future. It is a second five years bolted onto a plan already in motion.

The middle years are the most fragile. Commitment holds among those who have been here longest. It wavers most among the largest group: people here one to five years, who make up seven in ten respondents.

Few will wait ten years without status. Only about 9% said they would stay in the UK ten years or more without settled status. Among Skilled Workers it was about 2%, and among Health and Care visa holders about 4%. More than half of those here one to five years (54%) would wait five years at most.

Exit plans are already forming. Of those unsure or not planning to apply under Earned Settlement, 63% were considering leaving the UK, and 40% were looking only at leaving. That rose to 78% among Skilled Workers. Among those already within a year of eligibility, it was 66%.

Families feel it most. Among visa holders with both a partner and children on their visa, 65% said they would not have come had the wait been ten years; only 19% would. Of those with a dependent partner, just 25% would still apply if their partner faced a longer wait than them, and 28% would not apply at all. The government's decision to let couples settle together answers this directly, and deserves credit.

Former students and graduates are among the most exposed. Nearly a third of Student and Graduate route respondents (31%) had already lived here five to ten years. Under the new framework, time on those routes will no longer count toward settlement, and the 10-year Long Residence route closes. Only 31% said they would apply under Earned Settlement, while 22% would not and 47% were unsure. Of those unsure or not applying, 72% were considering leaving the UK, and just 3% would stay more than ten years without settled status.

Protection would restore most plans. If Earned Settlement applied only to new arrivals, 72% said they would still apply and a further 7% said they would now apply. That is roughly four in five, against 48% without protection. Support for the principle was 82% overall, 86% among those with dependants and 87% among those here one to five years.

What the consultation actually said

The consultation is not a story of migrants rejecting rules. Read closely, it is a story of people asking for rules that are clear, proportionate and kept.

Opposition was broad, not just self-interested. 73% of individual respondents were current visa holders, so the Home Office rightly notes the results are not representative. But disagreement among British citizens who responded was still 77%. And 72% of individuals and 78% of organisations rejected the proposed 15-year route for jobs below degree level, a proposal the government has now largely dropped.

Fairness to those already here was the dominant theme. 68% of individuals and 73% of organisations said there should be transitional arrangements for people already on a pathway. The report describes this as the most prominent theme across every open-text question. Respondents linked retrospective change to psychological distress and to a loss of trust in the immigration system.

Migrants were often tougher on rule-breaking than anyone. 77% of current visa holders backed a penalty of at least five years for illegal entry, compared with 45% of British citizens. People who followed the rules want that to count. That is precisely why moving the goalposts on them lands so hard.

People accept the pillars, but want them measurable. Respondents broadly supported considering character, and most accepted English requirements. What worried them was subjectivity: vague integration tests, volunteering that is hard to verify, and salary thresholds that ignore regional and sector pay.

Employers flagged real costs. 73% of responding organisations expected more administrative burden. 71% said hiring would be harder, 71% said workforce planning would suffer and 70% expected to lose existing migrant staff. Of those intending to sponsor, 62% said they would be less likely to do so.

What visa holders told the Home Office's own researchers

The targeted survey is the more revealing document, because it asks not what people think but what they would do.

Under the current rules, 87% of those on a route to settlement who had not yet applied said they would apply. Under Earned Settlement, that fell to 48%, with 36% unsure and 16% saying they would not apply. Nearly half (49%) said the changes would or might alter their plans, and 76% of them named the longer wait as the reason.

The groups most likely to waver are exactly the ones the UK says it wants to keep:

Other findings sharpen the picture:

• Settlement drives arrival decisions for skilled workers. Of Skilled Workers who weighed settlement before applying, 93% said it influenced their decision to come.
• Few will wait without status. Only 14% would stay more than five years without settled status. 35% had considered other countries, led by Canada, the US and Australia.
• The incentives are hard to reach. 55% of basic-rate taxpayers said moving into a £50,270+ job within a year was not feasible.
• Public funds are a marginal issue for this group. 88% were not eligible to claim them, and 93% had no government debt.
• These are people who intend to stay and belong. 87% planned to apply for British citizenship after settlement, and 11% planned to start a business.
• Transitional protection would stabilise plans. 82% supported protecting those already on a five-year path, rising to 92% among Skilled Workers. With that protection, 75% said their intentions would not change.

The government's case deserves a fair hearing

There is a serious argument for Earned Settlement, and an honest op-ed should state it. Settlement is a permanent grant with long-term fiscal consequences. The government argues it should reflect sustained contribution, integration and good conduct, not just time served. Many voters agree, and other countries, Canada among them, already weigh skills and contribution when granting permanence.

The survey also carries caveats the government is entitled to stress. Respondents were self-selecting and those most worried about the changes were likelier to reply. Stated intentions overshoot reality: the Migration Advisory Committee found that only 74% to 85% of Skilled Workers still held valid status five years after arrival. And among people who already hold ILR, 51% said an Earned Settlement system would not have changed their decision to come.

Some of the worst-hit groups in the survey have also since been protected. Many care workers keep a five-year route, and BN(O) holders keep their existing arrangements.

Nor was support for transitional protection unanimous. In the consultation, 24% of individuals agreed there should be no transitional arrangements, including 23% of current visa holders and 27% of British citizens. The question was worded in the negative, and the Home Office added guidance to help people answer it, so some responses may reflect confusion. Still, it is a minority view that deserves acknowledging.

We accept all of that. But the caveats cut against the policy's design, not in favour of it. If stated intentions overstate behaviour, they still point the same way, and the gap between 87% and 48% is too large to dismiss as noise. And the strongest response on record, the demand for transitional protection, does not depend on predicting behaviour at all. It is a question of fairness.

Our argument: change the rules for those coming, not those already here

A government is entitled to change who it admits to settlement, and on what terms. The question is who those terms should apply to.

People who arrived on a five-year route made a bargain in good faith. They paid visa fees and the Immigration Health Surcharge. They signed mortgages, enrolled children in school and turned down offers elsewhere. Many were explicitly recruited by UK employers on the strength of that route. Changing the terms halfway through penalises exactly the compliant, tax-paying behaviour the new framework says it wants to reward.

The Home Office's own numbers show what protection would buy. With it, roughly four in five people already on a route say they would apply for settlement. Without it, fewer than half do. And it would leave the new model for future arrivals untouched.

The government has already accepted this logic for some. Care workers who were on the route before May 2025 keep five years. So do certain nurses, teachers and teaching assistants. We welcome that. But it leaves an engineer, a pharmacist, a software developer or a chef on £40,000 with no such promise, despite having arrived under the same rules at the same time.

We propose three things:

1. A clean cut-off. Anyone who held permission on a five-year route before the May 2025 White Paper should keep that route, subject to the strengthened suitability, English and debt checks. This mirrors what the government has already done for care workers.
2. Clear rules before commencement. The Immigration Rules, the evidence requirements and a full impact assessment should be published well before any change takes effect, so people can plan rather than guess.
3. Measurable criteria only. Every pillar should rest on tests a person can check in advance: earnings records, test certificates, residence dates. Discretionary judgements about integration or volunteering will produce inconsistency and appeals.

None of this weakens the new model for future arrivals. It simply makes the system's word worth something. For a country that competes with Canada, the US and Australia for the same people, that reputation is an asset.

What visa holders and employers should do now

The policy is announced, but the law has not yet changed. That window matters.

If you hold a visa:

• Map your own timeline against the new tiers, including whether your earnings over the past three to five years could qualify you for the 3- or 5-year route.
• Check whether you fall into a protected group: pre-May 2025 care workers, eligible health and education roles, BN(O), or partners and parents of British citizens.
• Start preparing for B2 English now, ahead of the 26 March 2027 change.
• Clear any NHS, tax or Home Office debt, and keep payslips, P60s and residence records in order.
• Do not assume an early application locks in today's rules. Applications are normally decided under the rules in force on the date of decision.

If you sponsor workers:

• Audit your sponsored workforce by route, salary, start date and occupation code.
• Budget for additional visa extensions and sponsorship costs where staff move to a ten-year path.
• Talk to affected staff early. The survey found that uncertainty about the system, more than lack of desire to stay, is what pushes people to make exit plans.

A system worth trusting

Earned Settlement asks migrants to prove their commitment to the UK. The Home Office's own evidence shows that most already have: they work, pay tax, rarely touch public funds, and want to become British. What they asked for in return was simple. Keep the promise you made when we came.

The government has shown it can listen; the changes on dependants and care workers prove that. As the Immigration Rules are drafted over the coming months, it should extend the same fairness to everyone who arrived on a five-year route. A system that keeps its word is not a soft system. It is a credible one.

Sources

• Home Office, Earned settlement: Consultation findings (2 November 2026)
• IFF Research for the Home Office, Earned Settlement: Public Consultation analysis
• IFF Research for the Home Office, Earned Settlement findings report: targeted survey
• Home Office, A Fairer Pathway to Settlement: Government response to the consultation (CP 1707)
• WestBridge Business Immigration via Legal 500, UK Earned Settlement Reforms: Mahmood Confirms 10-Year ILR Route (6 November 2026)

Breakdowns by time in the UK, years to eligibility and dependants come from the Home Office's annex data tables (Earned Settlement Targeted Survey: Routes to Settlement and Student and Graduate Routes, and Consultation: Individuals), published on the findings page above. Figures marked "about" or "roughly" are our own sums of rows in those tables.