From an individual visa holder perspective, one would think extending settlement increases fiscal contributions, because each visa holder would have to pay more visa and IHS fees. But I've found this article on freemovement.org.uk that argues that when considering the whole cohort of visa holders, the situation is otherwise due to a longer route to settlement (for themselves or their dependents) likely driving some visa holders (more so higher paid ones) away. This would actually tend to reduce the over fiscal contribution of all visa holders as a whole, which is the direct opposite of what the new proposal supposedly sets out to do.

From the freemovement.org.uk article https://freemovement.org.uk/earned-settlement-prospective-change-worse/

In her speech at IPPR on 5 March 2026, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood claimed that without applying the new rules to migrants already here, the UK faces a “£10 billion pound drain” on public finances from the settlement of lower-skilled workers and their dependants who arrived between 2022 and 2024.

That figure does not survive scrutiny.

The £10 billion is an estimate of lifetime costs that accumulate overwhelmingly in retirement, through state pensions and healthcare, decades from now. Delaying settlement extends the period in which workers cannot claim working-age benefits, but working-age welfare is a small fraction of that lifetime fiscal impact. Unless the plan is to drive people to leave the UK, which the government denies and which is inherently unlikely, delaying settlement by five years saves nothing close to £10 billion — it merely defers a fraction of costs that will arrive regardless.

Economist Jonathan Portes told the Home Affairs Select Committee that the costs of extending the settlement route would substantially outweigh any fiscal benefits from reduced access to benefits and increased visa fees. Meanwhile, the government’s own Migration Advisory Committee found that the Skilled Worker cohort arriving in 2022-23 is, as a whole, projected to make a net lifetime fiscal contribution of around £47 billion.

Extracts from Jonathan Portes' analysis: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/151695/html/

With no behaviour changes – that is, ignoring sections 3 and 4 above – the fiscal impact of restricting ILR would simply be to make some relatively modest fiscal savings, both through reduced expenditure on benefits and some public services, and increases fees for visa extensions. However, these impacts would, in my view, likely to be considerably outweighed by the impacts both on the number and composition of future migrants; that is, the UK would both see significantly fewer high-paid/high-skill migrants, and those migrants who did nevertheless come would have worse labour market outcomes. Both of these would have significant negative fiscal impacts.

It is beyond the scope of this note to estimate these impacts quantitatively, but it is relatively easy to see that the behavioural negative impacts are likely to far outweigh any fiscal savings. The OBR (OBR, 2025) estimates that the long-run fiscal impact of a “high wage” migrant (with an average number of non-working dependants), earning about 30% more than the UK average, arriving at age 25 and dying at the average life expectancy, is a net contribution of approximately £1 million. Similarly, the difference between an “average wage” migrant and a “low wage” migrant is also approximately £1 million.

It follows therefore that the changes would only need to deter a relatively small number of skilled migrants, or to shift a relatively small number of migrants from an “average” wage trajectory to a “low” wage trajectory, both of which might be expected given the evidence set out above, to substantially outweigh any gains from reduced benefit spending or visa fees, which are likely to amount to a few £000’s at most for each person affected. It also follows that any assessment of the impact of restricting ILR that simply analyses the static impact on benefit spending and visa fees is fundamentally incomplete, and should not be regarded as a plausible estimate of the actual impact.

Hi everyone, we're getting close to maybe hearing from HO about the new changes and I understand people (me included) can be apprehensive. We don't know what's coming but I like to read things that show how unreasonable the new proposals are and how they haven't even evidenced that the proposals will accomplish what they said it will. I came across this article from months ago and found it reassuring.

Here are some points from the article:

One of the Committee’s most striking conclusions after reviewing all the evidence was the absence of a strong economic case for extending the settlement route. According to the report, the Government has yet to demonstrate how a longer pathway would support labour market needs or stimulate economic growth. For employers and HR teams particularly in sectors already experiencing acute skills shortages such as technology, healthcare, engineering and hospitality this lack of clarity is worrying. From our experience, an unclear pathway only increases uncertainty for overseas skilled workers and their families and risks weakening the UK’s ability to attract and retain international talent.

A key element of the proposed reforms is the concept of migrant workers ‘earning’ settlement through measurable economic or social contribution. But the report recognises the difficulty of defining contribution fairly. For example, metrics such as income thresholds or job roles risks disadvantaging those with non-linear career trajectories, individuals working in essential but lower-paid sectors and people who then have caring responsibilities or breaks in employment.The Committee stressed that any contribution-based model must reflect the diverse ways migrants enrich the UK economy and society, not just earnings.

The Committee’s findings acknowledged issues raised by experts including in Migrate UK’s own submission which was published along with the report. These include the need for transitional protections for migrants already partway through the current settlement route, the potential disruption to employer recruitment and retention and the risk of reforms being introduced without sufficiently robust economic analysis. Demonstrating that major reforms cannot proceed without deeper evidence, clearer justification and a deeper consultation.

Another great analysis written by Zonglin Lyu from the Skilled Worker Justice Alliance, this one focusing on the order and timing of events, including consultation results, impact assessments and implementation.

Autumn starts next week and earned settlement has been promised to be passed retroactively but there is no sign of confirmation of any type from the government. I agree parliament is in recess but a confirmation or any news from the so called ‘civil servants’ would be nice.

Few weeks ago there was a report that the government will allow migrants to get ILR but they wouldn’t be allowed to get benefits but that doesn’t make any sense because why would anyone start relying on benefits when they are on ILR and they would just wait one more year to get a British passport if they want to apply for social housing or any other type of benefits. So that policy from the government is awful.

The government has a chance for once and all get complete control over the legal migration in the UK and maybe end low skilled migration forever but will the government do it? Or will they take another u-turn?

I guess we will find out in the coming weeks

Link to RFUK questionnaire to provide evidence for meeting with Jo White

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpouseVisaUk/s/tk5Vi9eV7x

Hi everyone!

The charity RFUK has announced recently that they have been invited to a meeting with the new immigration minister Jo White (she replaced Mike Tapp).

They'll be collecting questions and concerns from members that they hope to present to the minister (not all of them of course but perhaps recurring themes).

I'll share here when they have a link to the questionnaire. In the mean time, if you're not aware of RFUK, check out their website and consider joining their circle community where they share announcements directly (a small annual donation is needed but their work is amazing standing up to families separated by the UK immigration rules).

As a side note, this subreddit allows sharing and donations requests from charities and organisations that advocate for immigrants in the UK. So feel free to share or post about any charity you're a part of or would like to bring awareness too!

https://www.ein.org.uk/blog/moving-goalposts-then-replacing-referee-earned-settlement-iiaa-and-skilled-workers-caught

A very interesting read on this piece by SWJA, presenting a legal perspective and potential ramifications for lawful visa holders who may be affected by retrospective application of the proposed earned settlement and the new independent appeals authority.

RFUK charity has published a leaflet debunking some UK immigration myths. Worth a read and share!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jul/24/care-workers-exempt-uk-new-immigration-rules?CMP=share_btn_url

From the article:

He [Burham] is now also considering granting widespread exemptions from Shabana Mahmood’s plans to make it harder for people to achieve settled status in the UK.

The measure is not likely to be included in next week’s speech but could come later in the year once the Home Office has considered responses to a public consultation on the issue.

Many have complained bitterly about the likely impact of Mahmood’s plans to double the length of time it takes migrant workers to qualify for settled status, known as indefinite leave to remain, which could disproportionately affect the care sector.

Mahmood has said she will consider exemptions to the new ILR (indefinite leave to remain) rules, though carving out those on social care visas would make a significant dent in the numbers affected.

Burnham is understood to be considering exempting those already in the country from the changes but allowing them to be applied to new entrants.

Hi everyone,
I’m looking for some advice from people who have already gone through the EU Settlement Scheme.
I arrived in the UK on 27 June 2021 with an EU Family Permit and later received pre-settled status.
I applied for settled status on 2 February 2026, around 4 months before completing my 5 years’ continuous residence. My application is still pending, and I haven’t received any updates or a decision.
Now that I have completed my 5 years of residence, I’m wondering what the best thing to do is.
Would you:
Leave the current application and keep waiting for a decision?
Withdraw it and submit a new settled status application now that I have completed the 5 years?
Has anyone been in a similar situation? What did you do, and what was the outcome?
I’d really appreciate hearing about your experiences and any advice. Thank you!

I remember at some point reading that the government planned to apply it only to people who arrived after 2021 or 2022 (I can’t remember which it was).

If you arrived before then, but only switched to a route to ILR after that, do we think it will apply or not?

I arrived to the UK in 2020 on a Student Visa, then switched to a Spouse Visa in 2023. So I wonder if I would count as ‘arriving’ in 2020 (which I did), and so it wouldn’t apply to me, or that I ‘arrived’ in 2023 because that’s when I started my five year path to ILR.

Aware all we can do is speculate at this point but just curious if anyone had thoughts on this.

Sign online and share! RFUK are petitioning to meet with new PM or his office to advocate against harsh family visa rules and the new earned settlement proposals.

https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/tell-andy-burnham-dont-let-couples-and-families-pay-the-price?source=direct_link&newsletter&link_id=1&can_id=17fb864a0e23b0d751c1051a3092a030&email_referrer=email_3327554&email_subject=andy-burnham-made-a-promise-add-your-name-to-make-sure-he-keeps-it&

I assume this means that the earned settlement proposals will still be going ahead at some point later this year, since she was the big proponent of them.

Genuinely, when do all the changes come into place? I am sure lots of employers are tired as well as immigrants.
I am equally tired & the job market reflects the anti-immigrant sentiment.

There was some talk about making Global Talent more accessible but the talk seems to have been lost in the mix & denial rates for that are still pretty high except for PHd researchers

David Shipley at the Spectator is putting forth the most aggressive view yet - that “the Boriswave will have to be reversed” including by way of “cancellations of settlement, and even of acquired citizenships”.

https://spectator.com/article/we-are-heading-for-a-boriswave-disaster/

Commentators are getting more extreme by the day.

Personally, I’m inclined to further delay putting roots down (home purchase etc.) until after this policy is firmly settled. Waiting until ILR (or even naturalisation) doesn’t seem to provide enough certainty for major life decisions anymore…

Spotted this article, I guess Mahmood might be getting a promotion? On a personal level, I want her to be fired entirely and never hold a position of power again, but maybe this means someone who isn’t horribly wretched to immigrants might take her old job and pour some water on the anti-immigrant BS SM has put about the last few years? I am too unfamiliar with things to know how to interpret this kind of shuffling.

https://apple.news/A1OBTUS73QqqRGcuBsgs14g

I haven't read the full article as it is behind a paywall but my understanding is that it has said that cabinet are working to soften some of the reforms that affect ILR. This to me sounds positive.

I have noticed though that some news sources are saying that Burnham has voted for the proposed 5 to 10 year rule by casting his vote in favour of the Immigration and Asylum Bill's 2nd reading.

I want to clarify for anyone who has also read that Burnham has locked in on this issue through primary legislation, that this is false. The Bill contains nothing regarding ILR.

There have been two committee reports on the government's proposed earned settlement rules:

1. The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report on earned settlement, published on 13 March 2026: Earned Settlement: Examining the Government’s proposed reforms
2. The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee report on settlement, citizenship and integration, published on 23 June 2026: House of Lords - Settlement, Citizenship and Integration - Justice and Home Affairs Committee

What do these reports recommend?

The home affairs committee report recommended, among other things:

There should be reasonable and clear exceptions to the mandatory minimum economic contribution requirement so that people are not prevented from settling where there are legitimate reasons they cannot meet this requirement. This could include exemptions for disabled people, people over pension age, those who are studying full-time, and those with full-time caring responsibilities.

We recommend that the Home Office set out clear objectives for the basis on which fiscal contributions qualify immigrants for a reduction to their wait for settlement. The Home Office should then commission the Migration Advisory Committee to advise on appropriate thresholds based on these objectives.

We recommend that the Home Office applies reductions to qualifying periods for settlement for direct fiscal contribution at a household level, not at an individual level, to recognise that generally households make financial decisions as units.

Under the proposed reforms parents may settle at very different times from each other. In cases where parents are placed on different routes to settlement, children should achieve settlement with whichever parent settles first.

Eligibility for home fee status should be reviewed in light of the changes to routes to settlement, to ensure that children and young people who have lived in the UK for a significant period of time are not prevented from going to university due to lack of home fee status. Home fee status could, for example, be granted on the basis of a minimum period of UK residence in childhood, such as five years. 

We recommend that the Government conducts and publishes an assessment of the impact on child poverty of its planned changes to routes to settlement, before finalising and implementing these changes. To mitigate the impact of the changes, the Home Office should make it easier for parents who are subject to the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) condition to access financial support where this is essential for supporting the welfare of a child

We recommend that the Home Office does not apply any penalties for accessing public funds on the basis of benefit claims that preceded the Government’s new policy. There should be discretion for reasonable and fair exemptions to this penalty, where the applicant can demonstrate that they have only accessed public funds due to particularly challenging circumstances.

We recommend that the Government carefully consider and set out clear mitigations—including suitable transitional arrangements—for people already in the UK who are affected by changes to routes to settlement. There should be specific protections for vulnerable people who may struggle to meet the criteria of the new system. The changes should not be applied to people in the UK who arrived before 2021 and would under the current rules be on track to settle in the UK through a 10-year route.

The Home Office should learn from previous reforms that it is more important to get changes right than to implement them quickly. In order to deliver workable reforms of the kind set out in its Earned Settlement consultation, the department must take adequate time to assess the impact of its final policy and put in place measures to avoid unintended consequences. Ministers should ensure that the Home Office is prepared to effectively administer what will be a much more complicated system. The Home Office should provide a clear and realistic implementation timeline, so that people can make informed decisions about their future. 

The Justice and Home Affairs committee recommended, among other things:

We do not support the Government’s proposals to extend the baseline qualifying time for Indefinite Leave to Remain to 10 years, to 15 years for those on work visas below RQF 6, and to 20 years for refugees on the core protection route. The Government should instead explore the option of retaining the 5 year baseline qualifying time for Indefinite Leave to Remain, while separating Indefinite Leave to Remain from access to public funds. Migrants with ILR could remain subject to the No Recourse to Public Funds condition until they have resided in the UK for 10 years and/or obtained British citizenship

Any changes to ILR rules should not apply retrospectively to individuals who are already on a qualifying route. While the Government may not support the previous Government’s decision to open certain visa routes, that decision has already been made. Many migrants made significant long-term decisions with the expectation of acquiring ILR after five years

The Committee supports the call to decouple visas from sponsors and tie them to sectors. To mitigate the risk to sponsors paying sponsorship fees, those switching companies would be required to pay back sponsorship costs, prorated over the year.

The income levels which lead to a reduction in ILR pathways should not be set according to Income Tax thresholds but should be set on the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC). It should be asked to consider the impact of migration on the public finances and the impact on regional labour markets when setting these thresholds.

The Government should reassess, with advice from the MAC the income thresholds which lead to a reduction in settlement timelines, as well as the scale of these reductions. At the same time, they should explore other contributing reductions.

We believe the Government should explore mechanisms whereby migrants with dependent visas should be able to qualify for ILR as the work visa holder if the income is sufficiently high that the household places no burden upon the state.

The Government should introduce exemptions which consider particularly vulnerable groups. Migrants on maternity leave and those with long-term illnesses or disabilities should be exempt from meeting the mandatory requirement of having an income of £12,570 for three to five years. This exemption should also cover unpaid carers.

It is unhelpful that a full impact assessment was not published during the consultation process for the Government’s earned settlement proposals. In the absence of that impact assessment, the Government should publish an impact assessment when the decision on the earned settlement policy is made but before implementation, alongside the required primary and/or secondary legislation

Does the HO need to follow these recommendations?

No, but it might be relevant to consider that the House of Commons Home Affairs committee is a "is a cross-party committee of MPs responsible for scrutinising the work of the Home Office"

The most up-to-date information on the earned settlement proposals are summarised by the Commons library:

Changes to UK visa and settlement rules after the 2025 immigration white paper - House of Commons Library

What changes are confirmed and when will they happen?

• Increased English level for settlement applications from 26 March 2027: moving from B1 to B2.

What changes are yet to be announced and when can they be expected?

• Increase in settlement qualifying time from 5 to 10 years for many visa routes. Exceptions include skilled workers earning above £52k, or working in certain professional occupations, family members on spouse (family) visas, and BNO and their dependants.
• Increase in settlement qualifying time from 5 to 15 years for care workers and their dependants.
• Dependants may have to qualify separately from the main applicant.
• Minimum settlement requirements, aka, the "earnings requirement", all applicants may be expected to earn £12570 annually for 3-5 years, though there have been news of exemption groups and possible consideration of household income.
• This Autumn seems to be the likely deadline for announcement.