On 2 February 2026, a Westminster Hall debate brought an unusually focused spotlight onto a part of the immigration system that is often discussed in technical terms but rarely examined in such public and political detail: Indefinite Leave to Remain. Triggered by two e-petitions that each surpassed the 100,000-signature threshold, the debate forced MPs to confront not only the mechanics of settlement policy, but the human expectations, assumptions and life plans built around it.
At issue was the Government’s proposal to replace the familiar, time-based route to ILR with a redesigned model known as “earned settlement”, currently under consultation. The discussion on 2 February did not change the law, but it crystallised the competing narratives now shaping the future of settlement in the UK: fairness to those already here, public confidence in immigration control, and the question of what it should mean to “earn” permanence in Britain.
Why this debate happened
The debate arose from two petitions that, although different in tone, converged on the same central concern: the future of the five-year route to settlement.
One petition urged the Government not to implement a proposal that would extend the standard ILR qualifying period to ten years. Its signatories argued that migrants who came lawfully under existing rules (including many working in health, social care and other essential sectors) had structured their lives around the expectation of settlement after five years. Extending that pathway, particularly if applied to those already in the UK, was seen as moving the goalposts.
The second petition took a different approach. It supported retaining the five-year route to ILR but suggested that restrictions on access to benefits for new ILR holders would better address public concerns about the costs of migration. Rather than lengthening the route to permanence, this petition focused on limiting entitlements after settlement.
Together, the petitions illustrated that public unease about immigration policy is not simply about numbers. It is also about the terms on which people are allowed to stay, and what settlement should confer.
During the debate, MPs voiced deep concerns about changes that could affect people already in the UK who have planned their lives around existing settlement pathways. Many contributions focused less on abstract policy details and more on the expectations created by current rules, and what happens when those expectations are unsettled by reform proposals.
On 2 February 2026, a Westminster Hall debate brought an unusually focused spotlight onto a part of the immigration system that is often discussed in technical terms but rarely examined in such public and political detail: Indefinite Leave to Remain.
The earned settlement consultation
Behind the debate sits the Government’s consultation on earned settlement, as analysed in detail by legal commentators such as Collyer Bristow and summarised in the House of Commons Library briefing prepared for MPs ahead of the debate.
The consultation proposes a fundamental shift away from the principle that time spent lawfully in the UK, combined with basic integration requirements, is sufficient to qualify for ILR. Instead, settlement would depend on meeting a set of mandatory standards across four areas: suitability (good character), integration (including a higher level of English), contribution (linked to sustained income or economic value), and residence.
The headline proposal is that the baseline qualifying period for ILR would increase from five years to ten. However, this period would not be fixed. It could be shortened for those deemed to make a high economic or social contribution, or lengthened for others. Adult dependants would be expected to qualify in their own right. Crucially, the proposals indicate that the new rules could apply to people already in the UK who have not yet obtained ILR.
This last point was central to the tone of the debate on 2 February. Although Westminster Hall debates are not legislative events, they often reveal how MPs are reading the mood of their constituents. On this occasion, many contributions returned to a similar theme: the relationship between expectation and fairness.
MPs recounted cases of constituents who had arrived in the UK under the skilled worker system, paid significant visa fees, contributed to the economy, and planned family and career decisions on the assumption that they would be eligible for settlement after five years. Care workers and NHS staff featured prominently in these examples. The concern expressed was not only about the length of time to settlement, but about retrospective change. If the rules in place at the point of entry no longer applied, what did that mean for trust in the system?
Other contributions approached the issue from a different angle. Some MPs argued that public confidence in immigration depends on a system that is seen to be controlled, selective and linked to contribution. In that context, earned settlement was framed as a logical extension of a points-based immigration system: if entry is conditional on skills and value, why should settlement not be?
The debate therefore exposed a tension between two principles. One is the idea that the UK should honour the implicit bargain made with those who came under existing rules. The other is the idea that settlement should be more explicitly tied to demonstrable contribution and integration over time.
Beyond procedure: a question of belonging
What made the debate notable was the way it moved beyond technical discussion of visa categories and qualifying periods. Settlement was discussed as a marker of belonging, security and psychological stability. Several MPs emphasised that ILR is not simply an administrative status. It is what allows people to feel able to buy a home, change jobs, start businesses, and settle their families without the anxiety of repeated visa applications and rising fees.
At the same time, the debate acknowledged that ILR carries significant rights, including access to public funds and a pathway to British citizenship. For some MPs, this justified a more demanding route to obtaining it.
The Commons Library briefing helped frame these arguments by setting out the current system and the scale of the proposed changes. The Collyer Bristow analysis, drawing from the consultation document itself, underscored how far-reaching the earned settlement model could be if implemented in full.
What 2 February really showed
The Westminster Hall debate did not produce a vote or immediate policy shift. Its significance lies elsewhere. It brought into the open a fundamental policy question that is often hidden in guidance documents and consultation papers: whether settlement in the UK should remain primarily time-based, or become conditional on a broader assessment of worth and integration.
It also revealed how sensitive the issue becomes when changes affect people already living under one set of expectations. The language used by MPs repeatedly returned to ideas of promises, fairness and trust.
As the earned settlement consultation runs its course, the debate on 2 February stands as a record of how Parliament is beginning to grapple with the consequences of this proposed shift. The question is no longer only how many people come to the UK, but under what terms they are allowed to stay, and what those terms say about how the country defines belonging.
If you have any queries or are seeking further information on the above article, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our Immigration Team.
