Experts warn Parliament that ‘earned’ settlement proposals are risky for all

Between November 2025 and February 2026, 12 oral evidence sessions were held in Parliament to scrutinise the government’s “earned” settlement proposals. Leading experts from academia, industry, the legal sector and civil society told the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee and the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee in plain terms: these proposals risk causing serious damage to UK society. 

If these plans are implemented, the committees heard, migrants face higher risks of poverty, exploitation, and falling into irregularity. Restricting access to labour could also cause British businesses and public services to struggle, while applying the new rules retrospectively could damage the UK’s international reputation for predictable policymaking and as a country with integrity.

The oral evidence presented by these experts is clear: the rewards of “earned” settlement are questionable, while the risks are serious. Ministers must reconsider the “earned” settlement policies in light of these warnings, and tread with great care if they insist on pursuing this dangerous agenda.

Migrants at risk of poverty and losing their immigration status

The proposals carry wide-ranging human consequences, but the standout concern was poverty. Most migrant households are already at risk of financial hardship because, under existing rules, they are excluded from accessing public funds and are forced to pay the Home Office burdensome fees which far exceed the department’s operational costs. Under the current rules, renewing their Skilled Worker visas for another three years can set a family of three back by as much as £11,000.

The risk of poverty was flagged by several experts, and often in relation to migrant children.

• Anna Skehan, a solicitor at Islington Law Centre, described how some parents face the devastating choice of which child to submit an immigration application for, because they cannot afford the fees for all of them. 

• Chrisann Jarrett, CEO of We Belong, underlined integration concerns of young people who feel “stuck” and unable to take advantage of educational and work opportunities.

• Solange Valdez-Symonds, CEO at PRCBC (Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens), described the proposals as “an insult to the 1981 [British Nationality] Act” for seeking to prolong children’s waits for UK citizenship.

• Professor Alan Manning, who chaired the Migration Advisory Committee in 2016-2020, was clear that children who have known “nothing other than the UK” should have a path to citizenship.

Penalising migrants unable to work

Though the proposals’ impact on poverty dominated much of the evidence sessions, experts were also concerned about the government’s plan to impose a new mandatory work requirement.

According to this new measure, everyone would have to demonstrate a track-record of working, before they can be eligible for settlement. But while the exact threshold for earnings was subjected to consultation, the requirement to work was not. 

For Dr Madeleine Sumption, Director of the Oxford Migration Observatory, this would have the widest impact. The government’s proposed work requirement, she explained, assumes everyone is employable, ignoring the existence of people such as full-time parents, unpaid carers and those with disabilities, who simply cannot work.

If the government presses on, it would mean that migrants who have good reason not to work, could end up “permanently in a temporary status”.

The risk of labour exploitation

Another significant risk flagged in the sessions referred to labour exploitation. For the past couple of years, numerous reports have found that the system of employer-sponsored visas which underpins work migration to the UK, is vulnerable to exploitation. Unscrupulous employers find it all too easy to abuse migrant workers, knowing that many will be too afraid of losing their visas to report abuse.

Extending the qualifying period for settlement, experts told Parliament, would only exacerbate this risk. Peter Wieltschnig, policy lead at the Trades Union Congress, described how prolonging the tie of sponsorship could result in a “race to the bottom for pay and conditions.” Dr Sumption ultimately saw “no reason to keep people with the same employer - that just increases exploitation.”

Impact on businesses, wages, and the labour market 

Beyond the human cost, experts warned the government’s settlement proposals may damage businesses, particularly those reliant on Skilled Worker visa holders.

Some Skilled Workers may emigrate, leaving behind hard-to-fill vacancies. Zoe Bantleman, legal director at the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA), pointed out that workers in medium-skilled roles subjected to the new 15-year route to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), may simply choose countries with more generous immigration rules, such as Canada or Australia.

Even if workers stay, bona fide businesses could face higher costs, and consequently reduce investment, according to Matthew Percival, a director at the Confederation of Business Industry.

The most dangerous unintended consequence of the government’s proposals however, would be their impact on migrants’ wages.

Dr Sumption explained that the sponsorship model enables businesses to suppress wage growth. Simply put, as long as an employer complies with the minimum salary set by the Home Office at the point of recruitment, it is under no obligation to offer incremental pay increases to Skilled Workers. On the contrary, the system disincentivises pay increases because, unlike British workers, migrants find it much harder to switch jobs and are thus more likely to be stuck with their sponsors long-term.

For Dr Sumption, restricting access to settlement limits migrant workers’ professional mobility, and in doing so it also reduces migrants’ tax contributions. Worryingly, Professor Manning noted, some employers could deliberately keep migrant workers’ wages below the £50,270 annual salary threshold - which, under the new rules, would entitle them to a shorter path to settlement. 

The effect on the care sector

Under the new “earned” settlement model, the government proposes that migrants in middle-skilled roles such as care workers, face a 15-year baseline qualifying period to ILR - triple what it is today. 

According to Professor Martin Green, CEO of Care England, a 15-year baseline would have a “huge effect” on the adult social care sector, at a time when vacancies are still very high. He stressed that the Home Secretary’s apparent assessment of care workers’ contribution is grossly flawed and understates their importance to the country.

Other experts noted that using migrants’ wages to determine contribution also failed to consider the interdependencies between medium and high-skilled workers. Matthew Percival gave an example of skilled laboratory technicians, who earn less than scientists, but are critical for scientific research. Penalising them with a longer route to settlement, Percival explained, is not only unfair, but risks undermining the industries they are employed in as a whole.

Retrospectivity ruins the UK’s reputation 

The final critical point flagged by experts was regarding the government’s proposals to apply the settlement changes retrospectively. This, they argued, is only likely to hamper the government’s stated aim of encouraging integration.

Professor Randall Hansen, Canada Research Chair in Global Migration at the University of Toronto, warned that even if they cannot settle, migrants are unlikely to return to their countries of origin after they have established strong connections with the UK, or raised children in the UK. 

By moving the goalposts, the policy proposals cast doubts on the UK’s reputation as a country where policy is proportionate and predictable. If the rules can be retrospectively overhauled once, who is to say this will not happen again?

Additionally, the government could get mired in litigation. As Zoe Bantleman put it, the proposals create “perversities” in the immigration system that may not stand up to legal scrutiny. She pointed out potential discrimination without “objective justification,” such as against those with disabilities and mothers. We add that expansive legal action would also drain taxpayer money and further brand this government’s policymaking as ill-conceived.

The Government must reconsider

Despite proposing the most radical changes to the immigration rules in a generation, the government did not publish an impact assessment of these measures. The Home Secretary started a consultation, and the public have been asked to respond, without any transparency on how these changes would affect communities, businesses, and British public services.  

Legislating without considering impact has gone wrong before. When the social care sector desperately needed staff after COVID-19, the government opened up the Health and Care Worker visa for care workers. What ensued was widespread abuse of the route and labour exploitation.

As the National Audit Office pointed out in a March 2025 report, the policy’s failure is attributable to the Home Office’s lack of understanding of how the sponsored visa worked in the sector and knee-jerk policy change.

The expert evidence is clear that the harms of getting "earned" settlement wrong are on a far larger scale. We and many others in Parliament and civil society urge the government to listen to the voices of experts and not rush towards another immigration fiasco.