New analysis finds upwards of 2 million people to be affected by 'earned' settlement: Andy Burnham must choose a new path

The resignation of Keir Starmer as Prime Minister has brought British politics to a major crossroads. For millions of migrant people living in the UK whose lives hang on the direction of immigration policy, the stakes couldn’t be higher. 

The 18 June Makerfield by-election ended with a landslide victory for Andy Burnham, who is now mounting a campaign to become the next Prime Minister. As the Labour Party prepares to choose its new leader, a critical question remains at the fore: what will happen with the "earned" settlement proposals that have alarmed migrant communities, charities and legal experts across the country?  

Andy Burnham is understood to be broadly “supportive of the home secretary’s attempts to limit legal and illegal migration”. Going ahead with these changes would be disastrous for those who made this country their home – among other things, experts predict increases in child poverty and prolonged exploitation of sponsored workers. 

Despite the magnitude of these proposals, the Home Office is yet to publish an Impact Assessment. In its absence, Work Rights Centre analysis of Home Office data finds that upwards of two million people could be negatively impacted by “earned” settlement, including half a million children.

The damaging impact of ‘earned’ settlement

In November 2025 Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood described the process of obtaining ILR as “near automatic”, arguing that the bar for settlement was too easily reachable. This incorrect assertion set the stage for the announcement of a framework designed to make the process more difficult for all but the highest earners. 

Among other restrictions, the government aims to make the default pathway to settlement 10 years (double the current five), introduce a minimum income requirement for most applicants, and tie some migrants to a precarious immigration status for as long as 30 years.

In practice, the policy would have a damaging impact on people’s livelihoods, as detailed in a report from the Home Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons. The report notably dedicates a whole chapter to children, who cannot normally settle until their parents do. “Earned” settlement would cause “many children [to] spend most of their childhood with temporary status”, jeopardising integration and sense of belonging, and “lead[ing] to more child poverty.”

It would also cause an increase in labour exploitation among sponsored workers, whose tracks to settlement will in most cases be extended from five years, to either 10 years (baseline) or 15 years (for those in occupations below degree level). Already at risk by being tied to their visa sponsors, this cohort would now be trapped in their jobs for longer, with limited career progression and increased vulnerability to exploitation. In relation to care workers, the Home Affairs Select Committee’s report put the outcome clearly: 

As many as two million people could be affected

Using the Home Office’s latest Migrant Journey dataset, we find that as of 31 December 2025, between 2.06 million (lower estimate) and 2.47 million (upper estimate) people held an immigration status that directly leads to settlement. Of those, 890,000 held a Skilled Worker visa; 350,000 held a Health and Care Worker (HCW) visa; 312,000 were family members of UK citizens, settled or otherwise eligible residents; and 513,000 held a different form of permission to remain (Figure 1).

The variation in our estimate arises from a further 402,000 people being “dependants joining or accompanying” a main applicant, but it’s unclear how many of them are on a direct track to settlement.

Under the proposals, very high earners and those on the Global Talent visa route would enjoy a shorter route to settlement, rewarding their high income with permanent residence. But the overwhelming majority of people would be penalised by the “earned” settlement system.

Among the two million people who may be affected by “earned” settlement are between 426,000 and 593,000 children (Figure 2). The upper bound estimate reflects 167,000 who appear as “dependants joining or accompanying” a main applicant on an unspecified immigration route. In any event, the potential of the policy to cause an exacerbation in child poverty cannot be overlooked.

The impact also extends beyond migrant people themselves. The British children of a mother on a family visa risk being forced to relocate to a country they’ve never known to stay together.The high-earning Skilled Worker who is on a shorter track to ILR but whose dependant partner cannot settle due to a spell of unemployment, risk being parted. And the care home resident risks their favourite support worker choosing to leave the UK because they cannot keep paying visa fees for a decade more. These are just some examples of the expansive repercussions “earned” settlement could have on those around us.

A single mother locked out of settlement by the minimum income requirement 

For Cat, a single mother of four young children, the minimum income requirement puts the stability that drew her to seek refuge in the UK a decade ago, impossibly out of reach. Cat left a coercive marriage where her family tried to force her to adopt the religion of her husband. She could not accept this encroachment on her own freedoms, and fled to the UK where she believed she could live her life on her own terms. 

Since then, she has forged a new life for herself in the UK, working towards the promise of stability for herself, her twins and their two siblings. But while Cat is coming up to qualifying for settlement under the ten-year-route, “earned” settlement has pulled the rug from under her.  

The proposed income requirements that would require her to earn at least £12,570 a year for a minimum of three to five years, pose an insurmountable barrier as a single mother of four. “I am still working, but because of the kids, my work hours are limited, I cannot give more because I have to take care of my children - and you know how expensive childcare is.” This makes it “extremely difficult to increase earnings, even when someone is working hard,” she explains. 

Cat’s immigration status excludes her from Universal Credit, and caps the number of free childcare hours she can receive to just 15 hours a week. This means that as a single parent of preschool children, earning the National Living Wage for adults, the most she can earn a year is around £10,000. 

“Many sectors that migrants commonly work in, including care work, support work, hospitality, cleaning, and other essential services do not offer salaries that easily meet increasing income thresholds,” Cat further explains. “So, these jobs are valuable to society and often face staffing shortages, yet the people doing them can be penalised by settlement rules that focus heavily on earnings.” 

Cat believes that decisions around settlement should take a “broader view of a person's circumstances rather than relying heavily on income alone”. But until those decisions are made, Cat must continue to live in “limbo”. Her anxiety that the rules could change at any moment is overwhelming.

“It is difficult to make lengthy plans when you do not know what requirement you may have to meet in the coming years, because I can't plan anything anymore,” she says. “I don't even watch television, I don't want to listen to anything… I live with fear, I live with anxiety. I'm depressed now.”

In Cat’s view, settlement should recognise factors such as “length of residence, contribution to society, family ties, community involvement” rather than prioritising income. Without settlement, Cat and her four small children will be at constant risk of poverty. Her children have only ever known the UK. Cat should not have to “earn” the right to live in safety with them. 

Remove ‘earned’ settlement from the policy agenda

The Home Office must immediately address the concerns about “earned” settlement raised by the Home Affairs Select Committee. Its report was published on 13 March 2026, with a response due two months later. No such response has been published to date, pushing hundreds of thousands of people into limbo, uncertain of how or when the proposals might be implemented.

And in the longer term, if he becomes Prime Minister, Andy Burnham should drop “earned” settlement altogether to avoid worsening the lives of millions of UK residents and their loved ones. Cat’s story is one of many, perhaps two million other stories of fear and desperation in anticipation of a policy that could so cruelly ruin their livelihoods and shatter their dreams.