January 2026
Introduction
The government are consulting on their planned changes to settlement in the UK, known as “earned settlement”. These are changes that will make it much harder for people to receive indefinite leave to remain in the UK, and we are very worried about the impact on people in our communities.
The government have made clear that they want to go ahead with their plans. But members of the public and organisations have the opportunity to have a say by filling out an online consultation.
You can respond to the consultation here. The closing date is the 12th February 2026.
You can download a Word document with all the consultation questions here.
Please note that while the form will ask for some details about you, it does not ask for your name, so you can fill it in without being identified.
This blog is for individuals and organisations to learn more about what is being asked, the likely impacts of the government’s proposals, and why it is important to respond. For an in-depth guide to the key questions, go to the last section of this blog.
We know people have a lot of questions about when these changes might come in and whether they will affect them. We have highlighted key questions below that address:
- proposals relating to No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), including plans to penalise people who have accessed benefits with longer routes to settlement. We know that the government is planning a review of NRPF in the next year.
- whether these proposals will apply to people who are already here or whether there will be “transitional arrangements” to protect them.
In this blog we use the word “settlement” which means the same thing as “indefinite leave to remain”.
Why this is important
The government is consulting on their plans to introduce “earned settlement”. They plan to increase the default length of time before someone can apply for settlement to 10 years. They also plan to introduce criteria to reduce this route – so people “earn” settlement sooner if they can prove certain “contributions” to the UK – and some penalties that will make it even longer for some people.
The government’s proposals are thought to impact over a million people in the UK. If they are applied retrospectively, their plans may impact the settlement routes of:
- people who are currently on work or family visas on a 5-year route to settlement
- people with refugee status or who are currently in the asylum system. The government have separately announced that refugees will have to wait 20 years to settle, with their status reconsidered every 2.5 years. They will have the option to move to a 10-year “work and study” route. On either route, refugees will additionally be subject to earned settlement requirements, which are the subject of this consultation
- people on a current 10-year route to settlement, who may find they have to wait even longer, up to 20 years, based on new penalties
Other groups who may be wondering if these changes apply to them:
- People on Hong Kong (BNO) visas and spouses and dependents of British citizens who meet core family requirements will keep a 5 year route to settlement, but will have to meet new mandatory requirements.
- People applying for settlement through the EU Settlement Scheme or Windrush Scheme are not included in the consultation and will keep their own separate rules. We think this means they will not be subject to new mandatory requirements for settlement.
You can find out more about the proposals in our explainer.
The result for the many people affected will be that they have to wait a much longer time before they can apply for settlement in the UK, and will have to jump through more hoops to get there. This will mean many years before feeling secure in the UK, and in the mean time being on short grants of leave, often paying exorbitant fees. We know from our work with people who are on long and expensive routes that they lead to financial hardship, housing and employment insecurity, and deeply impact people’s sense of belonging, mental health and family relationships.
It is therefore important that the government hear from those of us in the North West who oppose these plans. We hope this guide will help people with lived experience of the immigration or asylum system who would like to use that experience to respond to the consultation. We also hope organisations in the North West will respond, based on their experience working with people on routes to settlement and the likely impacts on them.
The consultation closing date of the 12th February will not be the end of our fight against these plans. This is only the first step, but it is crucial that the voices of our communities here in the North West, particularly people with lived experience, are heard.
We suggest that as well as filling in the online form, you can send your answers to your local MP (find them here). This way they will also get to hear your views as their constituent and may be able to continue the conversation and raise your concerns to ministers.
Guide to the questions
Things to know
- The format of this consultation is an online form. We think it will take around 30 minutes to fill out. The questions are in English and there is not a translation function.
- There are a lot of questions, some of which are worded in a confusing way. They all need to be answered to move forward through the form and submit your response at the end.
- Many of the questions are multiple choice and can be difficult to answer because they don’t give an opportunity to disagree with the premise of the question.
- We’ve picked out some of the key multiple-choice questions below. These are important because they allow you to say you disagree with the government’s plans.
- For other questions, remember that you can always say “don’t know/prefer not to say” if you’re not sure what to answer.
- The main opportunity to give your feedback in your own words is in several free-text questions which each have a 200-word limit. This is your chance to say what you think and bring your own experience and expertise. We recommend writing your answers to these in a document beforehand and copy and pasting them into the boxes. You can use this document to do this.
The questions
The first section is a Background section. It will ask you about either yourself if you are answering as an individual or your organisation if you are writing on behalf of an organisation.
Section 2: Earned Settlement
Key multiple-choice question:
3. Overall, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the settlement framework?
GMIAU will be answering “strongly disagree”.
Section 3: Character
Free text question: Do you have any comments on how ‘Character’ should be considered in relation to settlement? (200 words)
There are already “character” requirements for people applying for settlement. However, the government is proposing to make these tougher, for example barring someone from settlement if they have ever had a criminal conviction or broken immigration rules. This question is about denying settlement to some people permanently based on:
- Having any criminal record
- Having not complied with immigration requirements
- Having any debt to the government (eg NHS or litigation debt)
You may want to think about yourself or people you know or work with, and why they might struggle to meet these criteria. GMIAU’s answer will mention:
- The negative impacts of locking people out of settlement permanently, including the likelihood of losing status altogether
- The fact that denying people settlement will not mean they leave the country, it will just mean they are living in insecurity
- That this will punish people for circumstances beyond their control, including sickness and financial hardship
Section 4: Integration
Free text question: Do you have any further comments on how ‘Integration’ should be considered in relation to settlement? (200 words)
This question is about introducing new criteria for people to settle, which may not be used to bar them from settling altogether, but make their route to settlement longer if they cannot meet these criteria. Their proposals include:
- People being able to settle sooner if they can demonstrate “advanced” English language ability at C1.
- “Assessing integration” through: formal testing (like the existing Life in the UK test); gathering evidence of activities like English language learning, volunteering or employment; a cultural orientation course; character references; and testimonies from organisations/groups.
You may want to think about yourself or people you know or work with, and why they might struggle to meet these criteria. GMIAU’s answer will mention:
- That the best way to promote integration and cohesion is for people to be allowed to settle, while denying this right will create more insecurity.
- Evidence shows that long routes like the 10-year route to settlement undermine cohesion, stopping people feeling at home or settle in the UK. This is in the context of growing racist hatred suggesting that people of colour do not “belong” in the UK.
- That “integration” is something that cannot be tested, formally or informally, and that attempting to do so will always leave people behind while creating unnecessary bureaucracy.
Section 5: Contribution
Key multiple choice questions:
3. To what extent do you agree or disagree that migrants who have worked in an occupation below RQF level 6 should have their standard qualifying period for settlement set at 15 years?
RQF level 6 job are jobs which require a degree. This proposal particularly targets people on health and care worker visas in the UK, suggesting they should have a route to settlement 3 times longer than they currently face.
GMIAU will be answering “strongly disagree”.
7. What do you think about the proposed penalties for applicants claiming public funds?*
This question is about penalising people who have accessed benefits they are entitled to and need, while on a route to settlement in the UK. If implemented these changes will add up to 10 years to a 10-year route to settlement.
GMIAU will be answering “there should be no penalty for these applicants” for both options.
8. To what extent do you agree or disagree that once someone has been granted settlement in the UK they should be eligible to claim public funds (e.g. benefits and housing assistance)?
This question is suggesting the government may try to remove the right to public funds from people with indefinite leave to remain.
GMIAU will be answering “strongly agree”.
Free text question: Are there any other groups that you think should be exempt from the requirement to have earned above £12,750 for at least 3 to 5 years?
You may want to think about yourself or people you know or work with, why they might not be working, why this should not bar them from settlement. GMIAU will also be highlighting particular groups that may struggle with this requirement: for example elderly people, parents and other people with caring responsibilities, and people with disabilities.
Free text question: Do you have any further comments on how ‘Contributions’ should be considered in relation to settlement, including any potential benefits or challenges of recognising giving back to the community as a contribution towards settlement? (200 words)
This question is about whether the length of someone’s route to settlement should be based on their “contributions”, both economic and to their local community. They are asking about rewarding some “contributions” with shorter routes while penalising others with much longer routes. The government is suggesting:
- A mandatory minimum income for settlement applications of £12,570 for 3-5 years
- That people with very high salaries should have shorter routes to settlement
- That people who have worked in occupations which do not require a degree should have a longer route, of 15 years
- That people who have received public funds (benefits) should be penalised, with an addition of either 5 or 10 years to their route to settlement
- That evidence of volunteering in the local community should be a way to reduce someone’s route to settlement
- They are also considering removing the right to access public funds from people once they have been granted settlement.
You may want to think about yourself or people you know or work with, and why they might struggle to meet the criteria for shorter routes or fall into the groups penalised with longer routes. GMIAU’s answer will mention:
- That the right to settle should not rely on so-called contributions, economic or otherwise, and that the proposals will discriminate against women, people with disabilities or mental and physical health conditions, and those with caring responsibilities.
- That volunteering must remain voluntary, and is simply not realistic for many people’s lives, especially if they are working long hours to pay for visa fees.
- That people must not be penalised for having accessed benefits essential to them and their (often British) children.
- That shorter, affordable routes to settlement would promote “contribution” more than these punitive measures.
Section 6: Residence
Key multiple choice question:
1. Which of the following penalties do you think should be applied to each of the following applicants?
GMIAU will be answering “there should be no penalty for these applicants” for all three groups.
Free text question: Do you have any further comments on how ‘Residence’ should be considered in relation to settlement? (200 words)
This question is about further proposals to add time onto people’s routes to settlement. Specifically the government is proposing that people should have time added if they:
- arrived via “dangerous” means (for example on a small boat)
- originally entered the UK on a visitor visa
- have ever overstayed a visa for more than 6 months
You may want to think about whether yourself or people you know or work with fall into these categories, and why it would be unfair to deny people settlement on this basis. GMIAU’s answer will mention:
- That people often fall out of status unintentionally, due to innocent mistakes, Home Office error, or not being able to afford fees.
- That the way to reduce dangerous journeys to the UK is to introduce safe routes to claim asylum
- That these proposals would punish people for circumstances beyond their control.
Section 7: Eligibility and equalities
Key multiple choice questions:
*3. To what extent do you agree or disagree that there should not be transitional arrangements for those already on a pathway to settlement?
This question is worded in a confusing way but it is very important. It is about whether the proposals will apply to people who are already here or whether “transitional arrangements” will protect them. GMIAU will be answering “strongly disagree”.
7. To what extent do you agree or disagree that dependant partners of migrants should earn settlement in their own right?
GMIAU will be answering “strongly disagree”.
8. To what extent do you agree or disagree that dependant children of migrants should earn settlement in their own right? (with employment-related requirements waived if they were admitted as a dependant under 18)
GMIAU will be answering “strongly disagree”.
Free text question: Do you have any further comments on how specific groups should be considered in relation to settlement? We particularly welcome views on how the proposed changes could affect children in the UK. (200 words)
This question is about:
- Whether certain groups who might be particularly impacted should be exempt from the changes, and retain their current arrangements. They ask about victims of domestic abuse, bereaved partners, children and young adults who grew up in the UK without immigration status, and adults with long-term care needs
- Whether they should change the rules around people who are dependents on someone else’s visa. Currently they would receive settlement in line with the main applicant but the government is proposing they should have to “earn” settlement in their own right.
In GMIAU’s answer we will say:
- The proposed changes must not apply to people who are already in the UK – transitional arrangements must protect them.
- That the proposed changes will increase child poverty, with research showing immigration policy is already a major driver of child poverty and destitution.
Section 8: Impact on organisations
You will only get these questions if you are answering as an organisation. Your answers to the questions will depend if you are an organisation which sponsors visas. Either way, the two questions below are a further opportunity to write about how you and the people your organisation supports may be impacted.
[If organisation] Please provide any evidence you may have on whether the proposed changes might influence visa applicants’ or visa holders’ decisions to come to or remain in the UK. (200 words)
[If organisation] Do you have any further comments on the potential impacts on your organisation in relation to the proposed changes to settlement? (200 words)
We hope this guide is helpful for people responding to the consultation. If you have any questions about it please email rivka@gmiau.org.