The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has backed calls for the Government to withdraw its proposed earned settlement reforms. At its annual Congress in Brighton, the TUC considered a composite motion concerning migrant workers and proposed changes to UK settlement rules.
The motion was brought together from proposals submitted by UNISON and the Society of Radiographers (SoR). It called for the current earned settlement proposals to be withdrawn in full.
The debate comes as the Government considers significant reforms to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has also provided further information about the Government’s approach during a recent appearance before the Home Affairs Committee.
What is the Government proposing for earned settlement?
The Government consulted on replacing the current settlement framework with an earned settlement model. Under the proposals, the standard qualifying period for settlement would increase to ten years. However, that period could be shortened or extended depending on an applicant’s circumstances and contribution.
The consultation sets out four main pillars: character, integration, contribution and residence. Applicants would need to satisfy mandatory requirements. These include suitability requirements, English language requirements and the Life in the UK test.
The Government also proposed assessing economic contribution. Under the consultation model, certain levels of taxable income could reduce the qualifying period.
For example, the consultation proposed a five-year reduction for applicants earning taxable income of £50,270 for three years before applying. A seven-year reduction was proposed for those earning £125,140 during the relevant period.
The Government also consulted on reductions for specified public service occupations and community work.
These remain proposals rather than final Immigration Rules. The consultation closed on 12 February 2026, and the Government is considering the responses received.
Why has the TUC opposed the proposals?
The TUC composite motion raises concerns about how an earned settlement system could affect migrant workers.
In particular, it objects to a system where different workers could reach settlement at different times according to their economic contribution.
The motion argues that this could disadvantage lower-paid migrant workers performing essential roles in health, social care and other public services.
It uses the comparison of a highly paid City worker and an NHS radiographer to illustrate its concerns about linking faster settlement to taxable income.
The motion also raises concerns about workers who entered the UK expecting to follow an existing five-year route towards settlement.
UNISON’s original motion specifically argued that some health and care workers could face a 15-year route under the proposed framework.
At Congress, UNISON senior vice president Debbie Rowden argued that the proposals undervalue public service workers. UNISON has also warned that extending settlement periods could increase insecurity among internationally recruited workers.
What does the TUC want instead?
The composite motion calls for several measures affecting migrant workers and settlement. These include retaining a five-year route to settlement for workers and preventing retrospective application of new ILR rules.
The TUC also called for a sector-wide visa scheme for social care workers. It argues that this would allow workers to leave poor employers without facing the threat of losing their immigration status.
The motion further seeks stronger access to trade union facility time for migrant workers and a rights-based visa system.
It also calls for support for campaigns highlighting migrant workers’ contribution to public services.
Ultimately, the motion asks the TUC to condemn the current earned settlement proposals and demand their withdrawal in full.
What has the Government said about earned settlement?
The Government’s position differs significantly from that taken by the unions.
Its consultation describes settlement as something that should reflect sustained contribution, integration and compliance rather than residence alone.
The Government argues that the new framework would provide opportunities for people to reduce the standard ten-year period through their contribution to the UK.
Speaking recently before the Home Affairs Committee, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood also stressed that earned settlement is intended as a broader reform rather than a measure directed at only one group of migrants.
She described the approach as a new settlement model based on contribution and additional tests before permanent residence is granted.
What could happen to migrants already on a route to settlement?
One of the most important outstanding issues is how any new system would affect people already living and working in the UK.
During the Home Affairs Committee discussion, Mahmood acknowledged the position of people who arrived in the UK in 2022 and could, without further reforms, begin reaching settlement eligibility from February 2027.
She emphasised that immigration applications are normally decided under the rules in force when an application is made, rather than those in place when the person first arrived.
This could be particularly important for migrants approaching the end of an existing qualifying period. However, the Government has not yet finalised how the new settlement system will operate or what transitional protection may apply.
Mahmood told the Committee that the Government expects to set out its new settlement policy later this year. She said this would take account of consultation responses and any transitional arrangements the Government decides to introduce.
Why do transitional arrangements matter?
The question of transitional protection has become central to the settlement debate. Many migrants currently in the UK entered under routes providing a five-year pathway to ILR. Changing the qualifying requirements before they reach settlement could significantly alter their immigration plans.
This is one reason the TUC motion specifically calls for no retrospective application of changes to ILR rules. However, the Government has not yet confirmed the final position.
The eventual policy will need to establish which applicants fall under the new system and whether existing migrants receive transitional protection.
Until those details are published, the effect on individuals already progressing towards settlement remains uncertain.
What happens next?
The TUC’s decision adds to pressure from trade unions opposing the Government’s settlement proposals. However, the Congress motion does not itself change UK immigration law.
The Government’s earned settlement consultation has closed, but the final framework has not yet been implemented through the Immigration Rules. The consultation document confirms that responses will inform the development of the new system.
The next significant development will be the Government’s publication of its final settlement policy. That announcement should provide greater clarity on qualifying periods, contribution requirements and transitional arrangements for people already living in the UK.
For migrants approaching settlement eligibility, the distinction between the proposals and the Immigration Rules currently in force remains particularly important. Follow Morgan Smith Immigration for updates on UK immigration law, policy and official guidance affecting migrants, employers and families.
With more than 20 years of experience, Morgan Smith Immigration remains committed to providing professional immigration advice and maintaining high professional standards.
If you are concerned about how proposed settlement reforms could affect your route to Indefinite Leave to Remain, call us on 0203 959 3335 or email [email protected].
