Earned Settlement policy flies in the face of what the public and experts say

The government published its response to the Earned Settlement consultation, and in summary: it's bad. Save for a few hard-earned concessions, for most migrants this is dispiriting news. Once the rules officially change, settlement will get significantly slower, and harder.

Is this what the public wanted? Our analysis suggests that on the fundamental points of retrospectivity, penalties for benefits claimants, and carve outs, the vast majority of consultation respondents disagreed.

The government has also failed to incorporate parliamentary committees’ calls for transitional arrangements for people already in the UK on a route to settlement, and for sponsorship reform.

With ministers preparing to force these rules through secondary legislation next year, parliamentarians must use every mechanism at their disposal to challenge this policy and halt retrospective changes before they take effect. This is, no doubt, an uphill battle. But there is too much at stake to look the other way.

The public rejected Earned Settlement

More than 200,000 people responded to the government’s consultation, and the vast majority opposed the Earned Settlement plans. This includes 84% of individual submissions and 79% of organisations’ submissions. While disagreement with the Home Secretary was highest among those with refugee or humanitarian protection status (89%) or on a visa (86%), 77% of British respondents also disapproved of the Earned Settlement proposals. What were the key points of contention?

The government’s ultimate response rejected the public’s views in several important ways.

• Retrospectivity is the big ticket item. The majority of individuals (68%) and organisations (73%) believed that transitional arrangements should be in place for those already on a path to settlement. Open-ended responses highlighted the potential “disruption and psychological distress” for visa holders and “the risk of undermining trust in the UK immigration system”. Other respondents also noted the likely financial impact on households and negative impact on the integration of children, who would wait longer to settle. The government completely ignored those views and made the changes retrospective.

• Penalties for claiming public funds. The Home Secretary had initially proposed a 5-year extension to the route to settlement when people claimed public funds for less than 12 months, and a 10-year extension for those who claimed for more than 12 months. The majority of respondents (52%) believed that even a 5-year penalty for claiming public funds would go too far, or that there should be no penalty at all. Yet the government went on to punish people who claim public funds with a draconian 20-year wait. 

• English language. Roughly half of individuals (50%) and organisations (48%) believed that meeting the C1 English standard should lead to a greater reduction in a path to settlement than the proposed 1-year discount, but no such reduction was included in the final version of Earned Settlement.

• Volunteering. Almost half of respondents, 49%, agreed volunteering should reduce the length of time required to qualify for settlement, but the government offered no such reduction.

• Dependants. Far more individual respondents (57%) disagreed with the notion that dependants of visa holders should need to qualify for settlement in their own right, compared with those who agreed (29%). The highest proportion of those who disagreed were British citizens (66%). Respondents also flagged that imposing separate requirements for members of the same household risks splitting families and negatively impacting children. The government partly addressed this by promising that dependants remain on the same route to settlement as the main visa holder, but maintained the requirement for dependants to independently pass other mandatory English, income, criminal record and debt requirements.

• Salary-based requirements for all adults to settle were deemed unfair by a majority of individuals (78%) and organisations (73%) alike. It was made clear that requiring a minimum income to be met for 3-5 years would disadvantage those less able to work, including carers, mothers and those with long-term disabilities or medical conditions. The government responded by allowing migrant households to combine their incomes to meet a household minimum income requirement of over £25,142 per year, but for single-parent and carer households the individual income requirement of at least £12,571 per year will still be highly burdensome.

Key Parliamentary Committees’ calls ignored

The government’s ultimate approach to Earned Settlement did not just disagree on fundamental points with members of the public. Ministers also ignored some of the key recommendations made by the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee (JHAC) and House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) - though formal responses from the Home Office to the committees are still outstanding.

In many ways, these misalignments reflect the areas where the public disagreed too. This includes:

• Retrospectivity. Both Committees strongly objected to retrospective application, yet the government ignored that advice.

• Impact Assessments. Both Committees criticised the government’s failure to publish impact assessments (including on child poverty, the labour market and the health and care sector). The JHAC notably stated “the Government should publish an impact assessment when the decision on the earned settlement policy is made but before implementation” (paragraph 76).

• Sponsorship reform. Both Committees stressed the need for employer sponsorship reform: that single employer tied visas should be removed and a more flexible system should be implemented, particularly for workers placed on longer routes to settlement. 

• Tax thresholds. Both Committees critiqued the Home Office’s proposal to use income tax earnings thresholds to assess who will be eligible for a shortened route to settlement. The basis for using these thresholds and desired outcomes were unclear, given that migrants who earn below the £50,270 threshold are still significantly fiscally positive over their lifetimes (see HASC report, page 58; and JHAC, paragraph 39) The government has failed to implement these recommendations, setting the income thresholds in place without any further review or input from the MAC.

• Regional income variation. Furthermore, the government did not recognise JHAC’s concerns around the regional variation of median earnings, and instead imposed income thresholds without considering how migrants outside of London in particular may struggle to meet the £50,270 and £125,140 income thresholds. The Committee noted “stark disparities” in average salaries across regions, particularly for the devolved nations. The median salaries in Northern Ireland and Wales are £31,232 and £30,732 respectively. Additionally, the higher rate tax threshold in Scotland is £43,663, lower than the £50,270 minimum income threshold for a reduced route to settlement proposed by the government.

Where the government listened

The government did seem to accept the recommendation from the JHAC regarding exemptions for vulnerable groups, with children, individuals over 65 and migrants with long term disabilities / conditions now exempt from meeting the mandatory income requirement of £12,571 (paragraph 200).

The government additionally accepted the recommendation around calculating minimum earnings as a household rather than solely through individual earnings, where the HASC had added that calculations based on household income could avoid “perverse outcomes" (paragraph 30-31).

In rare cases, the government also heeded critique expressed by respondents to the consultation. The most notable concessions are for:

• Sponsored health and care workers and certain educational professionals, who in some cases can now access a five-year route;

• Couples who can combine incomes to meet the minimum earnings threshold; 

• Low and middle skilled workers, who face a ten-year route to settlement,  no longer face a 15-year route originally proposed to settlement.

In most other cases however, the government recognised concerns flagged by consultation respondents, but took little action in the final proposed policy, or even hardened its original stance. For instance, the reductions originally proposed for proficient English speakers and volunteers were scrapped entirely, and the penalty for claiming public funds was double the original proposal.

A critical few months ahead

The Home Secretary has stated these changes will be coming through the Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules in December 2026 and will be implemented throughout 2027.

Unlike a new Act of Parliament, a Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules is a piece of secondary legislation which does not require a vote to pass. The changes automatically become law unless either the House of Commons of the House of Lords successfully passes a ‘motion to express disapproval’.

Admittedly, challenging changes to the Immigration Rules is difficult. The only successful motions to disapprove of the Immigration Rules of which we are aware were passed in the House of Commons in November 1972 by a vote of 275 (for) to 240 (against), and in December 1982 by a vote of 290 (for) to 272 (against). A motion previously tabled on 15 July 2025 against the Statement of Changes laid on 1 July (with 25 supporters) was not granted time for a debate or a vote in the Commons.  

But the changes are not yet in force, and there is too much at stake to be complacent. The Earned Settlement proposals are already shaping migrants’ behaviours, with some making contingency plans.

While 87% of Home Office survey respondents stated an intention to apply for settlement under the current rules, 56% of those were already preparing alternative ways to remain in the UK, and 22% were considering international relocation.

In addition, roughly half (49%) said they would or might change their settlement intentions, with the share highest for those on the Health and Care Worker visa (69%), Skilled Worker visa (62%) and Global Talent visa (58%).

We call on parliamentarians to demand the proposals be stopped.

At a minimum, we are calling for: 

1. Transitional arrangements which apply to everyone already on a route to settlement, eliminating retrospective application of the rules
2. The proposals to be delayed until impact assessments are scrutinised
3. The sponsorship system to be reformed to remove the single employer tie and to accommodate the extended 10-year route.

What is at stake is not just justice for the people who came to the UK in good faith, and now see their routes to settlement restricted. It is also the UK’s ability to deliver strategic business objectives without them.