Ten years is a childhood: Today’s announcement on earned settlement

This afternoon the Home Secretary confirmed it. The wait for settlement doubles to ten years, and it applies to families who are already here.

But nothing has changed today. The rules announced this afternoon are not in force. The Government has not set a start date, and has said it will publish more guidance first.

A girl who arrived aged four on her mum’s work visa expected to be settled by nine. Her family now knows she will be fourteen. Her mum will pay for every renewal in between. If the family ever needs help from the state, the ten years can become twenty.

More than 200,000 people wrote to the Government about these plans. That is one of the largest responses to any consultation the Home Office has ever run. Today, alongside its decision, the Government published what those people said. We have read it so you don’t have to. This post sets out what was announced, what people told the Government, where it listened, and where it chose not to.

What was announced today?

The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, made a statement to Parliament and published the Government’s formal response to the consultation. The headlines:

Ten years. The standard wait for settlement (indefinite leave to remain, or ILR) rises from five years to ten. Three years for people earning over £125,141 or on the highest talent visas. Five years for people earning over £50,271, for doctors, nurses, teachers and other health and education staff on national pay scales, and for partners, parents and children of British citizens. Ten years for everyone else, including anyone on a family or private life route, however long they have lived here.

New conditions for everyone. On top of the wait, every adult must show English at B2 (roughly A-level standard), earnings of at least £12,571 a year in five of the previous seven years, no criminal record of any kind, including cautions and court fines, and no debt to the NHS, HMRC or Home Office. A couple can combine their earnings to reach £25,142, so a parent who stays at home with the children is not penalised on their own.

Twenty years if you ever needed help. Anyone who has claimed public funds in the five years before applying goes onto a twenty-year route. The Government says there will be “safeguards or exemptions” for some groups, but has not said what they are or who they cover.

Twenty years for a mistake with your visa. Overstaying, breaching a visa condition or using deception in an application as an adult puts you on a twenty-year route, whatever you earn.

Children settle with their parents. Children under 18 do not have to meet the income, English, debt or Life in the UK requirements. Children who have spent seven years or most of their life in the UK keep the existing five-year route. Young people who grew up here without secure status, children in local authority care, bereaved partners and people who have experienced domestic abuse stay outside the new system altogether. But a young person who is 25 or over when their family finally qualifies has to find their own route.

Some things were dropped. The fifteen-year route for people in jobs below degree level is gone. Volunteering will not shorten the wait. Care workers who came before May 2025 keep their five-year route if they meet a £25,000 salary requirement, and so do teaching assistants and nursing auxiliaries who came before then.

It applies to people already here. This was the question we asked in our last post. The answer is yes. The Government’s response says that “being in the UK does not give someone an automatic right to settle under the rules that existed when they first arrived” and that the protections for care workers and a handful of other groups “do not create a wider exemption for everyone already living in the UK”. To be clear: none of this is in force yet. No start date has been given, and the Government says further guidance will come before implementation. The rules will come through a statement of changes to the Immigration Rules, which MPs cannot amend, and will only apply once that statement takes effect.

What the consultation tells us

The consultation ran from November 2025 to February 2026. It received 204,667 responses online and 904 by email: 202,241 from individuals and 2,426 from organisations. Nearly three quarters of the individuals were people currently on a visa. One in five were British citizens. The Home Office commissioned IFF Research to analyse every response, and published the findings today. This is what they say.

People said no. 84% of individuals and 79% of organisations disagreed with the proposals. Among people with refugee status the figure was 89%. Among charities and voluntary organisations it was 85%. Organisations that give immigration advice, the ones who see what long routes do to people, were more likely to disagree than those that don’t. Even among British citizens, 77% were against. The most common thing people wrote, across every open question, was that doubling the wait was simply unfair.

Keep your promise to those already here. 68% of individuals and 73% of organisations said there should be transitional arrangements for people already on a route to settlement. In the Home Office’s separate survey of 4,728 visa holders, 82% said people already on a five-year route should be protected. People wrote about mortgages taken out, careers built and children settled in school on the basis of a five-year promise. They described anxiety and distress that had already started, a year before any rule changed. Many said that changing the rules midway would destroy trust in the immigration system itself.

Protect the children. 74% of individuals and 77% of organisations said children and young people who grew up in the UK should be exempt from the changes altogether. Among charities and voluntary organisations, 85 to 88% said so. Six in ten people, and two thirds of organisations, rejected the idea that children should have to earn settlement in their own right. The open responses, in the Home Office’s own words, “stressed the need for a child-centred settlement policy that safeguards children’s social and emotional wellbeing”, and said children “should not be disadvantaged by their parents’ immigration status”. When people were asked what was unclear about the proposals, the single most common answer was how the changes would apply to children and dependants.

Don’t punish families for needing help. The largest single group of individuals, 31%, said there should be no penalty at all for claiming public funds. Among organisations it was 41%. Among charities and voluntary organisations, 76% opposed any penalty. Among people with refugee status, 74%. People pointed out that most visa holders cannot claim benefits anyway, and that penalising those who can would push families into poverty for the sake of a short-term crisis. Six in ten people said that once someone is settled they should be able to claim support like anyone else.

Salary is not the same as worth. 72% of individuals and 78% of organisations rejected the fifteen-year route for people in jobs below degree level. People wrote about care workers, nursing auxiliaries, teaching assistants: work that is low paid but that the country depends on. They said the salary thresholds were too high, ignored the difference between London and everywhere else, and favoured the wealthy. 78% said people on maternity leave or living with a long-term illness or disability should be exempt from income requirements. Stay-at-home parents and carers came up again and again as people the proposals had forgotten.

Measure integration by how we live, not by a test. Half of individuals and 43% of organisations thought a formal test was a fair way to assess integration, but the open responses told a fuller story. People described integration as school gates, neighbours, sports clubs, faith groups and friendships. They said consistent work and paying tax already showed it. They said raising the English requirement from B1 to B2 was unnecessary and would hit older people and those who had little schooling before they arrived.

Don’t judge character by income or connections. Most agreed that character matters and is already part of the rules. But they asked for clear, objective tests. They worried that people with fewer professional contacts would struggle to prove good character, and said minor, historic or overseas convictions should be looked at in proportion, not used as a bar.

Treat the organisations that support migrants as partners. 73% of organisations expected more administrative work. 71% expected it to be harder to recruit and to keep staff. 62% said they would be less likely to sponsor anyone in future. Charities warned that using volunteering to shorten the wait would put pressure on people who cannot spare the hours and create a verification burden the sector could not carry.

What we expect to happen next

Today was an announcement, not a rule change. Here is what has to happen before any family is affected, and what we will be watching for.

A statement of changes to the Immigration Rules. This is the document that actually changes the law. It has not been laid yet and the Government has given no date. Statements of changes normally take effect at least 21 days after they are laid before Parliament. MPs cannot amend them; they can only vote to reject the whole thing within 40 days, which almost never happens. When it is laid, we will read it for three things: the start date, whether applications already submitted are decided under the old rules, and whether people who reach five years before the start date can still apply under them. The Government’s own response says the rules apply at the date of decision, which is why this matters so much.

Guidance on the detail that was left out. The response promises further guidance “before implementation” on the safeguards and exemptions from the public funds penalty, on how the Refugee Convention protection for people who entered without permission will work, and on which forms of leave outside the rules will count. It promises detailed guidance on children, young people and other groups at risk “next year”, after engaging with them and the organisations that support them. We intend to be part of that engagement. None of this has been written yet, and it is where the real decisions about the families we work with will be made.

An impact assessment, eventually. A full impact assessment is promised “to accompany implementation”. There is still no Child Rights Impact Assessment, a year after children’s charities first asked for one. We will keep asking.

Scrutiny in Parliament. The Home Affairs Committee, which published its own report on earned settlement earlier this year, is likely to return to it. More than 100 Labour MPs opposed applying the changes to people already here. The Government has now confirmed it will do exactly that, so the pressure on the start date and on transitional protection is not over.

What we are still asking for

This morning we asked the Government to abandon the earned settlement proposals. More than 200,000 people told it the same thing, and it published their words alongside its decision. Nothing is in force yet. The rules have not been written, no start date has been set, and the detail on children, public funds and vulnerable groups is still to come.

We are asking the Government to:

1. Keep the promise made to families already here. Seven in ten respondents asked for this. The Government said no. We ask it to think again before the statement of changes is laid, and at the very least to let anyone who has already applied, or who reaches five years before the new rules start, settle under the rules they came under.
2. Take the public funds penalty off families with children. Three quarters of charities and the largest group of individuals said there should be no penalty at all. No child should wait ten more years because a parent accepted help when the family had nothing. The promised safeguards must be published for consultation, not announced on the day the rules take effect.
3. Let every child settle before adulthood. Three quarters of respondents said children should be protected. A route that leaves a child waiting until 24, or tells them at 25 that they are on their own, does not do that. Children of parents on 10- and 20-year routes need a route of their own.
4. Fees a family can actually pay. Nothing was said about fees today. Children’s applications should cost no more than they cost to process.
5. Publish the Child Rights Impact Assessment before any rule is laid. The Home Office has a legal duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. A year on, it has still not shown its working.

Ten years is a childhood. More than 200,000 people said so. We will keep saying it.

What you can do. Write to your MP and ask them to press the Home Secretary on the three questions she left unanswered today: who is protected from the public funds penalty, what happens to children on long routes, and when the rules start. Share this post with colleagues, schools and families you work with.