TUC Congress Demands Full Withdrawal of the "Earned Settlement" Proposals: What Migrant Workers Need to Know

At its annual congress in Brighton on 14 September 2026, the Trades Union Congress unanimously backed a motion calling on the Government to withdraw its proposed "earned settlement" reforms to the Immigration Rules. The motion, moved by UNISON and seconded by the Society of Radiographers, warned that the proposals target migrant workers in health and social care and punish them for performing low-paid but essential work.

The congress called for no retrospective application of any changes to the indefinite leave to remain (ILR) rules, the retention of the existing five-year route to settlement for workers, a sector-wide visa scheme for social care workers, and a fair, rights-based visa system for migrant workers generally.

Who are the TUC, and why does their position matter?

The Trades Union Congress is the national federation of trade unions in England and Wales. Founded in 1868, it brings together 48 affiliated unions representing around 5.5 million working people across virtually every sector of the economy — from nurses, radiographers and care workers to teachers, transport staff and construction workers. The TUC does not itself negotiate pay or conditions; rather, it coordinates the union movement, campaigns on issues affecting workers collectively, and acts as the movement's voice to Government, employers and international bodies.

Its annual congress is the union movement's supreme policy-making forum. Motions passed there set the campaigning agenda for the TUC and its affiliated unions for the year ahead. A congress resolution has no legal force — it does not bind the Government — but a unanimous vote of this kind signals coordinated, movement-wide opposition, and historically the TUC's voice has carried real weight with Labour administrations. With the Home Office still reviewing more than 200,000 consultation responses, this intervention lands at precisely the moment the Government is deciding how far to press ahead.

What is "earned settlement"?

The policy direction was set out in the Government's May 2025 Immigration White Paper. The detailed proposals were then published for public consultation on 20 November 2025 in A Fairer Pathway to Settlement: a statement and accompanying consultation on earned settlement, accompanied by a statement from the Home Secretary in the House of Commons; the consultation closed at 11.59pm on 12 February 2026. Its central features are:

• A ten-year baseline qualifying period for settlement for most migrants, doubling the current five-year standard route.
• A fifteen-year qualifying period for Skilled Workers sponsored in roles below RQF Level 6 (broadly, below degree level) — a category that captures many care workers and other essential staff.
• Adjustments up or down based on earnings, tax contributions, integration and conduct, with high earners potentially settling in as little as three years and penalties extending the wait for others.
• Abolition of the separate ten-year long residence route, which would be superseded by the adjustable baseline.
• A proposed No Recourse to Public Funds condition attached to settlement itself.

Most strikingly, the consultation proposed applying the new framework to everyone in the UK who has not yet been granted ILR — not merely to new arrivals. A care worker who entered the UK on a Health and Care Worker visa, on the clear understanding of a five-year path to settlement, could therefore find that path stretched to fifteen years midway through their residence.

Why the unions object

The TUC motion captured the anomaly at the heart of the contribution-based model: a highly paid City trader could secure permanent status many years faster than an NHS radiographer or a care worker, because "contribution" is measured principally in earnings and tax rather than in social value. UNISON and the Society of Radiographers reported that their members are frightened and confused by the proposals, and that the surrounding rhetoric is contributing to a rise in racist abuse directed at NHS and care staff.

Whatever one's view of immigration policy, the proposed application of the reforms to migrants already progressing towards settlement raises potentially significant public-law issues, including fairness, legitimate expectation and the adequacy of any transitional arrangements. Whether any particular challenge would succeed would depend upon the final Rules, the transitional provisions adopted and the circumstances of the affected group. If the reforms are implemented without meaningful transitional protection, they are likely to attract close legal scrutiny and may give rise to judicial review challenges.

What effect could the motion have?

Although the resolution does not bind the Government, its practical effects could be significant:

• Political pressure at a critical moment. The Government has yet to publish its formal response to the consultation. A unanimous congress vote — added to the reported private letter from over 100 Labour MPs urging the Prime Minister to reconsider — increases the political cost of proceeding unamended, particularly on the most contested elements.
• Softening of the proposals. In my view, a more politically plausible outcome may be modification rather than complete withdrawal: transitional protection for those already on a five-year route, a carve-out or shorter pathway for health and social care workers, or adjustment of the fifteen-year period for sub-RQF 6 roles. Union pressure is aimed squarely at these pressure points.
• A coordinated national campaign. The motion commits the TUC and its 48 affiliated unions to campaign actively — including for a sector-wide visa scheme for social care workers and against any retrospective application of the changes. Expect sustained public campaigning, parliamentary lobbying and workplace organising through the autumn.
• Groundwork for legal challenge. Evidence gathered by unions about workers' reliance on the existing settlement framework could potentially become relevant in any future public-law challenge, particularly arguments concerning fairness and transitional protection.
• Timing. Sustained parliamentary, sectoral and union pressure could also affect the implementation timetable, although no delay has presently been announced. Any slippage beyond autumn 2026 would itself widen the window for eligible applicants to settle under the current rules.

Where do the proposals stand now?

It is important to stress that nothing has changed yet. The consultation closed on 12 February 2026 and attracted over 200,000 responses, which the Home Office is still reviewing. No Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules has been laid before Parliament, and the current five-year and ten-year ILR routes remain fully in force. Ministers have indicated that the main changes are likely to be introduced in autumn 2026, but the Government's formal consultation response, the final rules and any transitional provisions are all still awaited.

What should migrant workers do now?

1. If you are already eligible for ILR, consider applying promptly. Anyone who has completed, or will shortly complete, their qualifying period under the current rules should take advice on applying before any new rules take effect — subject always to their individual position on absences, continuous residence, sponsorship and suitability.
2. If you are part-way through a five-year route, keep meticulous records of your residence, absences, earnings and tax history. These may prove decisive under any contribution-based assessment.
3. Do not act on rumour. The proposals are complex and widely misreported. Decisions about switching routes, changing employment or leaving the UK should only be taken on proper legal advice.
4. Employers and sponsors in health, social care, construction and hospitality should begin modelling their workforce position under both the current rules and the proposed framework.

How we can help

Morgan Hill Solicitors' accredited immigration team advises individuals, families and sponsoring employers on settlement, Skilled Worker and Health and Care Worker visas, and long residence applications from our offices in Ilford, Central London, Romford and Manchester. If you are concerned about how the earned settlement proposals may affect your route to settlement, contact us for a confidential consultation.

Rao Manzoor-ul-Haque Khan, LL.M. (Glasgow) — Principal Solicitor & Managing Director, Morgan Hill Solicitors. Solicitor of England & Wales; Advocate, High Court (Pakistan); Member of Lincoln's Inn; more than 24 years of multi-jurisdictional post-qualification experience.