Rose Carey\u2019s articles from Lewis Silkin are most popular:<\/p>\n
\n within Immigration topic(s)
\n in United Kingdom
<\/p>\n
Lewis Silkin are most popular: <\/p>\n
\n within Cannabis & Hemp, Law Practice Management and Criminal Law topic(s)
\n with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
<\/p>\n
The Government proposes to introduce a new ‘earned
\nsettlement’ model without any transitional arrangements. In
\nthis article we outline the potential impacts on businesses and
\nindividuals. We also comment on the legal context for transitional
\narrangements and provide some guidance on how to express views in
\nthe consultation and more broadly.<\/p>\n
The Home Office is currently consulting on proposals to
For general information on the proposals and the main public
What are some of the potential effects on businesses if there
The effects will be different for each business, but some
What are some of the potential effects of having no
The specific effects will vary widely depending on the personal
Does the law require transitional arrangements to be applied
This is not straightforward, because the protections against the
The presumption against retrospectivity<\/p>\n Under UK common law, there is a presumption that when a law is
Legitimate expectation<\/p>\n In some cases, a person may be able to argue that they have a
What does the public consultation document on earned settlement
The government’s preferred approach is for there to be no
“…we propose to apply these changes to everyone in
\nintroduce an ‘earned settlement’ model. The consultation<\/a> period is due to end at 23:59 GMT
\non 12 February 2026 and new Immigration Rules implementing earned
\ncitizenship could be introduced as early as April 2026.<\/p>\n
\nconsultation, see our separate article here<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nare no transitional arrangements?<\/p>\n
\ngeneral and non-exhaustive potential effects are:<\/p>\n
\nAdditional visa extension costs (approximately \u00a314,000
\nfor a five year extension for a single applicant sponsored by a
\nmedium\/large sponsor, or approximately \u00a310,000 for a person
\nsponsored by a small\/charitable sponsor), or potential termination
\nof employment for any sponsored workers who are not eligible to
\nsettle after five years under the earned settlement proposals;
\n
\nLoss of any staff member who decides to leave the UK, or who
\nchanges jobs in the hope of qualifying for settlement earlier;
\n
\nLoss of any staff member who is ineligible to meet settlement
\nor extension requirements due to revised character requirements
\n(e.g. the requirement to have a clean criminal record for
\nsettlement, and potentially also for extension);
\n
\nRecruitment and training costs in relation to any staff members
\nlost;
\n
\nA need to analyse the remuneration of sponsored workers (and
\npotentially other staff with limited immigration permission), with
\na view to understanding their aspirations and how their
\nremuneration might be structured to meet the new (and more complex
\nto calculate) taxable earnings requirements;
\n
\nA need to consider requests from existing staff for time off to
\n‘give back to the local community’; and
\n
\nAdditional difficulties in recruiting suitable candidates for
\nopen roles, especially if international talent is concerned the
\nRules for settlement may be changed further after they arrive in
\nthe UK, with no transitional arrangements.
<\/p>\n
\ntransitional arrangements on individuals?<\/p>\n
\ncircumstances of each individual, however some potential effects
\ninclude:<\/p>\n
\nThat some individuals will not become aware of the changed
\nrequirements until they come to apply for settlement and realise
\nthey are no longer eligible;
\n
\nBeing subject to significant unplanned costs for visa
\nextensions \u2013 the magnitude of which may be greater for:
\n
\nThose who are Skilled Workers in roles skilled below degree
\nlevel (if this group is subject to a 15-year baseline qualifying
\nperiod)
\n
\nThose with dependants; and
\n
\nThose who are subject to an increase to the baseline qualifying
\nperiod for settlement;
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nBeing subject to the immigration conditions of limited
\nimmigration permission for a longer period than originally planned
\nfor, which may limit work and entrepreneurial opportunities;
\n
\nMain applicants and dependants needing to consider
\nsubstantially rearranging their work and other personal
\ncircumstances, including:
\n
\n
\nWhether to take supplementary employment;
\n
\nWhether to change to more highly skilled and\/or highly-paid
\njob;
\n
\nWhether to restructure remuneration to reduce or eliminate use
\nof salary sacrifice schemes (including pension);
\n
\nWhether to work in addition to carrying out caring or other
\npersonal responsibilities;
\n
\nWhether and how to carry out community activities;
\n
\nMaking arrangements to meet English language requirements at
\nupper intermediate level (level B2 on the Common European Framework
\nof Reference for Languages), or potentially advanced level (level
\nC1) if no other baseline qualifying period reduction factor is
\nrelevant;
\n
\nWhether and where to undertake tertiary education due to
\npotential additional cost to do this in the UK before settling;
\nand
\n
\nWhether to relocate to an alternative country;
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\nPotential for retired individuals, those with caring
\nresponsibilities, those with disabilities and young adults in
\neducation to be ineligible for settlement (either temporarily or
\npermanently);
\n
\nPotential for those with historic criminal convictions that are
\nbelow the current thresholds for refusal to be refused extensions
\nand\/or settlement in the future; and
\n
\nPotentially being issued with settlement that includes a
\nprohibition on accessing public funds.
<\/p>\n
\nfor people who are already on a path to settlement?<\/p>\n
\nretrospective application of new laws are not absolute.<\/p>\n
\nchanged, it will not have retrospective effect, i.e. a new law
\nwon’t change the legal rights of those who have acted in
\naccordance with the law as it stood before the change. However,
\nthis presumption can be displaced by a clear statement from the
\nlawmaker that the law is intended to apply retrospectively.<\/p>\n
\nlegitimate expectation not to be affected by a retrospective
\nchange. The law in this area is still evolving, however in the
\ncontext of the proposed earned settlement changes, the following
\nissues are likely to be at play:<\/p>\n
\nProcedural legitimate expectations can be met by providing
\npeople who may be affected by the change the opportunity to be
\nconsulted and make representations before the change is made
\n\u2013 this is what the Government aims to do through the earned
\nsettlement consultation, however, there are concerns about whether
\nthe scope of the consultation and format for responses are
\nsufficient to enable representations to be effectively made;
\n
\nThe Home Office has made retrospective changes to settlement
\ncriteria in the past, e.g. on 3 April 2006 when the qualifying
\nperiod for settlement in many routes was revised from 4 years to 5
\n\u2013 only participants in the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme
\nwere successful in using a legitimate expectation
\nargument<\/a> to challenge this, due to that scheme containing clear
\nstatements that once a person had joined it, they would enjoy the
\nfull benefits of the scheme as it stood at that date (including
\nbeing able to settle after 4 years);
\n
\nSince the HSMP Forum judgment, the Government has taken greater
\ncare not to represent routes to settlement as being a
\n‘scheme’ that includes an entitlement to settle after a
\ncertain period; and
\n
\nEven if a legitimate expectation can be demonstrated, this can
\nbe overridden by public interest considerations.
<\/p>\n
\nsay about transitional arrangements?<\/p>\n
\ntransitional arrangements applied when earned settlement is
\nimplemented. The consultation document<\/a> states on page 4
\nthat:<\/p>\n
\nthe country today who has not already received indefinite leave to
\nremain. This would mean that those who are due to reach settlement
\nin the coming months and years would be subject to the new
\nrequirements for earned settlement, as soon as our immigration
\nrules have changed.”<\/p>\n