Far from settled: The government’s ‘earned settlement’ consultation

While the measures have received surprisingly little attention compared to some of the government’s other eye-catching asylum reforms, their impacts will be felt across the immigration system, affecting many hundreds of thousands of people.

The government’s earned settlement policy

The proposals under consultation are fiendishly complex, but the central idea is that the qualifying period for settlement will double from the current five years to a default of 10. People on Skilled Worker visas who have been sponsored for jobs which are designated as below graduate level – including large numbers of care workers – will have to wait for a default of 15 years.

Principles for earned settlement

The idea of a settlement policy which recognises contribution and incentivises integration is a defensible one. But the design of the outline proposals – with their long waits for settlement, tough penalties, and wide-ranging coverage – risks proving counterproductive.

For the new rules to be a success, there are some core principles which the government should follow:

1. The earned settlement reforms should deliver stronger integration and economic self-sufficiency. This could mean, for instance, supporting people on routes to settlement to find well-paid work and improve their language skills.
2. They should recognise contribution and commitment to community. This would entail a wider understanding of contribution beyond a fiscal one – for example, providing a shorter route to settlement for those who volunteer in their local community.
3. They should support the government’s ambitions to reduce child poverty. That is, the Home Office should align its approach with the government’s child poverty strategy, which committed to getting vulnerable children the support they need regardless of immigration status.
4. They should promote economic growth and higher living standards. Crucially, this means designing an internationally competitive system which attracts talented workers.
5. The government should lay out clear and comprehensible rules. In order to secure public confidence, the system should be reasonably easy to understand. Moreover, it should be possible for migrants on routes to settlement to navigate the system and maintain their status without the need for specialist advice.
6. The Home Office should treat migrants already here fairly and consistently. This means developing a system which follows the rule of law and safeguards those who are already on routes to settlement in the UK.

Who is most likely to be affected?

This final principle has particular significance for the cohort of people currently on routes to settlement. Based on the latest information from the earned settlement consultation, we estimate that around 1.35 million people already on routes to settlement could be faced with a default longer qualifying period. 

As table 1 shows, this is primarily made up of people on work routes – both main applicants and dependants – as well as refugees. But it is worth noting that the figures do not take into account all aspects of the policy. For instance, BN(O) migrants will remain on a default five-year route and so are not included in our estimate, but they will still face a mandatory requirement to earn more than £12,570 in order to qualify for settlement. Moreover, people on the existing 10-year family route – some of whom have the right to receive public funds – risk facing even longer waits to settlement due to claiming benefits.

Within this, the most common countries of nationality are India, Nigeria, and Pakistan (see figure 1). Twenty-three per cent of the cohort – or 309,000 – are children, most of whom are dependants on work routes. It is not clear how children will be treated within the earned settlement policy, but the indication is that they will secure settlement at the same time as their parents or will be assessed in their own right. Either way, under the current proposals, hundreds of thousands of children face a new baseline wait of 10 or 15 years to securing settlement. This creates deep uncertainty for families and poses significant barriers to entering higher education.

The case for a legacy clause

Our analysis suggests that there are at least 1.35 million people currently on routes to settlement in the UK who will be subject to a longer default qualifying period. Based on the principles outlined above, there is a strong case that this group should be protected from the new rules through a legacy clause (also known as ‘grandfathering’).

First, it is not fair to apply the rules retrospectively. Migrants arriving before the rules are introduced have come with the expectation that they would be able to claim settlement after five years. Indeed, the government still advertises this clearly for most routes. A delay to settlement means additional immigration fees, greater uncertainty, and – for those on a Skilled Worker visa – less job flexibility. Changing the rules midway along someone’s journey to settlement appears inconsistent and unfair.