Guide to completing the earned settlement consultation survey questions

The government launched the consultation on earned settlement on 20 November 2025. The deadline to respond to the survey questions is 12 February 2026.
 

We strongly encourage all individuals and employers to complete the survey. This guide should help you to answer the questions and share your views.

Please note that the suggested answers on this page are for general information only and must not be used as a substitute for legal advice. You should always take legal advice which is tailored to your specific circumstances. Contact a member of the immigration team for more information.

BACKGROUND TO THE SURVEY

Under the current rules, most people can apply for settlement (also known as indefinite leave to remain (ILR)) after a 5-year qualifying period. The November 2025 earned settlement proposals include doubling the standard qualifying period from 5 years to 10 years.

There will also be new mandatory requirements as well as criteria which can reduce or increase the standard qualifying period. This will be a huge change for migrants and their families, and for employers.

The Government has created a survey for individuals and employers to share their views. The deadline to complete the survey is 11.59pm on Thursday 12 February 2026.

As well as answering the survey questions you can write to your MP.

 

HOW TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

Before starting the survey you can familiarise yourself with the earned settlement proposals by reviewing our FAQs.

At the outset of the survey you are asked whether you are completing it as an individual or organisation. Whichever option you choose you are presented with very similar questions. This guide highlights any minor differences.

You then answer specific questions. There are a range of closed questions which give you options such as “strongly agree” through to “strongly disagree”. There are only a few opportunities to provide written answers – which each have a limit of 200 words.  The Home Office says the survey should take approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete.

The questions are split into different sections. After the initial general questions about the proposals there are sections for each of the 4 key ‘pillars’ of the earned settlement proposals: character, integration, contribution and residence – as set out in this guide.

Follow this guide to help you as you go through the questions. Where relevant we refer you to sections of our FAQs for information to aid your understanding of the questions.

We provide a “KN suggested answer” for each question where possible. It goes without saying this is only a suggested answer. Of course you should answer the questions based on your own views and circumstances.

You can only submit one response. The Home Office confirms the survey is anonymous and that any personal information you provide will be handled in strict accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. More information on that is given at the start of the survey.

You should use the navigation arrows at the bottom of each page to move through the survey. Do not use your browser’s back or forward buttons, as this may cause you to exit the survey. You should not rely on the answers being saved and should aim to complete the survey in one sitting if possible to avoid your answers being lost.

Once you are ready to start, you can access the survey here. The deadline to complete it is 11.59pm on Thursday 12 February 2026

We will now go through the different questions in the survey.

 

GENERAL
 

Are you responding to this survey as an individual or as a representative of an organisation?

As a preliminary question, the survey asks whether you are completing the survey as an individual or organisation. It then goes on to ask for various details depending on which option you choose. If you do not wish to give this information you do not need to. You can skip most of the questions or answer “Prefer not to say”.

• Individual. If you indicate you are responding as an individual you will be asked to confirm your UK immigration status; age bracket; sex and gender; ethnicity; region you live in; and occupation.
• Organisation. If you indicate you are responding as an organisation you will be asked to confirm the following things about your organisation/business: whether it is based in the UK; the type of organisation; whether it provides immigration support/advice services; whether it has sponsored employees; whether it intends to sponsor employees in the future; how many people work for it; the sector it operates in; and the region it operates in.

 

Overall, how clear do you find the proposed changes to the settlement framework?

KN suggested answer: “Very unclear”

The Government’s earned settlement consultation document provides some detailed information but lots of questions remain about how it will all work in practice for specific groups of people.

If you answer “somewhat unclear” or “very unclear” you will then be asked to indicate which aspects of the proposals are unclear. If you wish you can select all the aspects. You can also tick “Other” and then in the text box enter a short explanation of what you find unclear.

Our FAQs have examples of unanswered questions. In the text box you could enter something along the lines of “The rationale behind the earned settlement proposals is unclear. It is unclear why making migrants have a longer qualifying period to settlement would lead to better integration or any particular benefit to the UK. In particular, the lack of clarity on whether transitional arrangements will apply and if so in what way means the proposals are very unclear.”

 

Overall, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the settlement framework?

KN suggested answer: “Strongly disagree”

The earned settlement proposals represent hugely negative changes for migrants and businesses in the UK. If the proposals become law it will lead to uncertainty, higher costs and be damaging to individuals, families and employers alike.

 

CHARACTER
 

Do you have any comments on how ‘Character’ should be considered in relation to settlement?

See question 8 of our FAQs for information on the proposed mandatory requirement for applicants to need to meet the ‘Character’ criteria. 

There is a 200-word limit. In the text box you could enter something along the lines of:

“The current rules already include strict mandatory requirements relating to criminal convictions and compliance with immigration laws. The criminality thresholds were reviewed in December 2020 and made it much tougher for anyone with a criminal conviction to apply for a visa. The new Part Suitability of the Immigration Rules has also been made applicable to family members applying under Appendix FM – making it harder for anyone with a criminal conviction to apply. The current thresholds are already imposing harsh consequences on applicants who have a prison sentence of over 12 months as they are subject to a mandatory ban without time limit. Any new rules which lead to refusal for anyone who has any kind of criminal record would be too harsh. It is important that the UK recognises people can make mistakes. Often mistakes are made when someone is younger and many years have passed since the conviction. The consultation also refers to applicants needing to have no government related debt. There are already strict rules for some types of debt in Part Suitability and there is no need to go further.”

 

INTEGRATION

 

What do you think about a 1-year reduction for applicants who can demonstrate advanced English language ability (at C1 standard)?

KN suggested answer: The reduction doesn’t go far enough (it should be longer than 1 year)

See questions 8 (under “Integration”) and 9 (under “Reductions” in the “Integration” section) of our FAQs for information on the background to this question.

The current rules require applicants to pass an English language test in speaking and listening at level B1 (intermediate) of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, unless they meet the requirement in another way. The proposals include that for all applicants the minimum level will increase to B2 (upper intermediate).

The proposals also include that there should be a 1-year reduction on the qualifying period where the applicant can meet level C1 standard. It is an option to answer “Don’t know/prefer not to say” on the basis you do not wish to reinforce the idea that there should be this criterion at all. On balance though, it is likely the government will proceed with this criterion and so we would suggest answering that the reduction should be longer than 1-year so that anyone with stronger English ability would be better off.

 

How do you think integration should be assessed?

KN suggested answer: “In another way (please specify)”

By selecting this option you have the opportunity to say something along the lines of “The English language requirement (which will increase to level B2) and the Life in the UK test are sufficient. Adding more stringent requirements will not aid integration. If anything, requiring migrants to take more difficult tests and meet more requirements send a message that the UK is less welcoming.”

 

Do you have any further comments on how ‘integration’ should be considered in relation to settlement?

KN suggested answer: “As above, the English language requirement and Life in the UK test are sufficient. Adding more stringent requirements will not aid integration. If anything, requiring migrants to take more difficult tests and meet more requirements send a message that the UK is less welcoming.”

 

CONTRIBUTION

 

Do you think the following groups should be exempt from the requirement to have earned above £12,570 for at least 3 to 5 years?

Those on maternity leave or long-term illness/disability

KN suggested answer: “Yes”

Those in certain occupations with different pay arrangements (e.g. Ministers of Religion)

KN suggested answer: “Yes”

See our FAQ 8 for further information on this proposed mandatory requirement. The proposal is for a requirement to have earned at least £12,570 to apply to all applicants. By answering “Yes” to this question you can then list up to 5 other groups of people who you feel should be exempt from the requirement to have earned above £12,570 for 3-5 years.

You can add the groups of people as you see fit. But it could for example include “Partners of settled people” (see question 12 of our FAQs); “Global Talent visa holders”; “Non-working parents”; “Part time workers”; and “Young people”.

 

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?

KN suggested answer: “Strongly disagree”

See question 14 of our FAQs. This question is about people on Skilled Worker visas. As stated in our FAQ, employers could not have conceived that an occupation code below level 6 would lead to a longer qualifying time. 15 years as a baseline for these people is far too long and completely unfair.

 

To what extent do you agree or disagree that applicants who earn a taxable income above £50,270 should be eligible for a reduction in their time to settlement?

KN suggested answer: “Agree”

See under “Reductions” (in the “Contributions” section) in question 9 of our FAQs for information. This is a difficult question to answer and your view is likely to be determined by your/your business’s own circumstances. On one view you may feel there should not be a criterion at all on how much you earn affecting how long you need to wait for settlement and so could answer “Strongly disagree”. On the other hand you may feel it is better to have this criterion than not have it at all and so answer “Agree”.

 

Do you think those employed in a public service occupation (i.e. health and education occupations where going rates are based on national pay scales) should be eligible for a reduction in their qualifying period to settlement?

KN suggested answer: “Yes”

See under “Reductions” in question 9 of our FAQs for information. Whilst you may feel there should not be longer qualifying periods for anyone, it could be that you feel it would be better to indicate some public service workers (likely to include doctors, nurses and teachers) should be eligible for a reduction.

 

What do you think about the proposed penalties for applicants claiming public funds?

A 5-year penalty for applicants who claim public funds for less than 12 months during their route to settlement

KN suggested answer: “There should be no penalty for these applicants”

A 10-year penalty for applicants who claim public funds for more than 12 months during their route to settlement

KN suggested answer: “There should be no penalty for these applicants”

See under “Penalties” in question 9, and question 19 in our FAQs for information. Most people on visas in the UK are already subject to a “no recourse to public funds” condition. You may feel it should not be the case that if someone claims public funds they should not be punished with an extra 5 or 10 years – a very long time. Some people may have only claimed public funds for a short period of time and may well have done so without knowing it was something which could affect their immigration position. The proposals also include that even where the Home Office has given someone permission to claim public funds they could still be penalised with a longer qualifying period.

 

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)?

KN suggested answer: “Agree”

Under the current rules, before people can apply for settlement they need to have met the conditions attached to their visa and paid expensive visa fees and the Immigration Health Surcharge. You may feel that once they obtain settlement it should be possible to claim public funds.

 

To what extent do you agree or disagree that giving back to local communities (e.g. by volunteering) should be considered as a contribution that can reduce the length of time required to qualify for settlement?

KN suggested answer: “Agree”

See under “Reductions” in question 9 of our FAQs for information. This is another difficult question to answer and your view is likely to be determined by your/your business’s own circumstances. On one view you may feel there should not be a criterion at all on whether volunteering affects how long you need to wait for settlement and so could answer “Strongly disagree”. On the other hand you may feel it is better to have this criterion than not have it all and so answer “Agree”.

If you are answering the survey as an organisation/business you will also be asked “Does your organisation currently accept or manage volunteers?” This is a yes/no question or you can instead answer “Don’t know/prefer not to say”.

 

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?

There is a 200-word limit. You could consider saying something along the lines of:

“There should not be a minimum income requirement of £12,570 or any other amount. There are people in the UK, especially dependent family members, who will not have any income and should not be penalised with longer qualifying periods. Partners of British citizens and settled people may be meeting the conditions of their current visas on the basis of the income of their partner or large amounts of cash savings. It is unfair for them to need to earn a prescribed amount themselves. This is particularly unfair for those who may for example be looking after children as opposed to working. Those on an existing track to settlement after 5 years should remain so, regardless of whether they earn over a certain taxable income threshold. For example, Skilled Workers must already be paid the minimum specified amount for their role. Equally, just because someone is sponsored in a role below RQF level 6 it should not mean they are on a longer track. Employers could not have conceived that an occupation code below level 6 would lead to a longer qualifying time. 15 years as a baseline far too long.”

 

RESIDENCE
 

Which of the following penalties do you think should be applied to each of the following applicants?

Applicants who arrived in the UK illegally

KN suggested answer: “There should be no penalty for these applicants”

Applicants who initially entered the UK on a temporary visit visa (typically this visa permits stays of up to 6 months for tourism, visiting family or friend  or short-term business activities)?

KN suggested answer: “There should be no penalty for these applicants”

Applicants who have overstayed their original visa by 6 months or more
KN suggested answer: “There should be no penalty for these applicants”

See questions 9 (under “Penalties”) and 21 for information.

 

Do you have any further comments on how 'Residence' should be considered in relation to settlement? (200 words)

There is a 200-word limit. You could consider saying something along the lines of:

“The proposal on those who initially entered the UK on a temporary visit visa is very unclear and concerning. It is unclear whether the proposal is that anyone who initially entered as a visitor and then switched to a different visa should be punished with a longer qualifying period. Quite often some people will have had exceptional or compelling circumstances which meant they could not leave the UK and had to apply whilst in the UK as a visitor. The Home Office may have accepted the circumstances and granted the visa. It should also be specifically accounted for that there was a specific COVID-19 related concession which allowed visitors in the UK to switch to a different visa during the pandemic. In relation to people who overstayed their original visa by 6 months or more, under the current rules they will not normally be able to rely on that period of overstaying towards their qualifying period for settlement. They will need to have regularised their stay and satisfy the current rules for settlement. There is no need to punish them with a longer qualifying period.”

 

Where the standard qualifying period is proposed to increase from 5 to 10 years, which of the following options do you think should apply to each of the following visa holder groups?

Applicants who currently require 3 years continuous residence under the Global Talent Route

KN suggested answer: “Reduction (of 5 or 7 years from the Standard qualifying period of 10 years)”

Applicants who currently require 5 continuous years residence under the Global Talent Route

KN suggested answer: “Reduction (of 5 or 7 years from the Standard qualifying period of 10 years)”

Applicants who currently require 3 continuous years residence under the Innovator Founder route

KN suggested answer: “Reduction (of 5 or 7 years from the Standard qualifying period of 10 years)”

Applicants on humanitarian visa routes (e.g. Syrian, Afghan)

KN suggested answer: “Reduction (of 5 or 7 years from the Standard qualifying period of 10 years)”

See question 9 of our FAQs under “Reductions” for more details. The suggested answers above indicate the current rules should be retained. For example, some Global Talent visa holders (including those endorsed on the basis of exceptional talent), and Innovator Founder visa holders already have a 3-year qualifying route to settlement.

 

To what extent do you agree or disagree that dependants of migrants who hold Global Talent or Innovator Founder visa status should retain their current 5-year path to settlement?

KN suggested answer: “Strongly agree”

See question 13 of our FAQs. Under the current rules, whilst some Global Talent visa holders (including those endorsed on the basis of exceptional talent), and Innovator Founder visa holders have a 3-year qualifying route to settlement, their dependent family members need to wait 5 years. If dependent family members need to wait 10 years before they can apply it will be more disruptive for families.

 

To what extent do you agree or disagree that there should not be transitional arrangements for those already on a pathway to settlement?

KN suggested answer: “Strongly disagree”

See questions 3 and 10 of our FAQs for more details. For people already in the UK with a visa, this is likely to be the most important question to answer. The question is confusingly written. If you believe it is important to have transitional provisions to protect existing visa holders you need to answer “Strongly disagree” to this question.

 

Do you think the following vulnerable groups should retain their current arrangements and be exempt from the proposed settlement changes?

KN suggested answer: “Yes” (for all the vulnerable groups – victims of domestic violence and abuse; bereaved partners; children and young adults who grew up in the UK without immigration status; and adults with long-term care needs)

 

Are there any other vulnerable groups that you think should be considered as part of this consultation?

You can list up to 5 other groups of vulnerable people as you see fit. For example, you may wish to add groups such as “Non-working parents”; “Part time workers”; and “Young people”.

 

Do you think the following Armed Forces groups should retain their current time period to settlement or should further reductions be available to this group?

Members of HM Armed Forces

KN suggested answer: “Further reductions should be applied”

Immediate family members of HM Armed Forces

KN suggested answer: “Further reductions should be applied”

 

To what extent do you agree or disagree that dependent partners of migrants should earn settlement in their own right?

KN suggested answer: “Strongly disagree”

See questions 3 and 13 of our FAQs for information. This is another key question - about dependent partners of migrants.

As the Home Office survey says (with our additional comments in square brackets): “Currently, most dependent partners of migrants can settle at the same time as the main applicant without meeting any additional conditions. Dependent partners of economic migrants who benefit from accelerated settlement [such as Global Talent and Innovator Founder visa holders who can currently settle after 3 years] do not themselves benefit from a reduced settlement period. Under the proposed reforms, dependent partners will have their own qualifying period based on their individual circumstances [and so they may need to wait 10 years or longer].”

If you believe that dependent partners should not be forced to wait years longer than main applicants – and potentially forever – to qualify for settlement you should answer “Strongly disagree” to this question.

 

To what extent do you agree or disagree that dependent children of migrants should earn settlement in their own right? (with employment-related requirements waived if they were admitted as a dependant under 18)

KN suggested answer: “Strongly disagree”

See question 13 of our FAQs for information. As the Home Office survey says: “For children, it is recognised that they cannot meet certain requirements under the earned settlement proposals, such as National Insurance Contributions (NICs). The Home Office intends to keep a window for those admitted as dependants under 18 to settle at the same time as their parents, while considering an age cut-off after which they would need to follow their own route to qualify for settlement.”

If the partner does not qualify for settlement and the couple have children, the children will also not qualify for settlement because children only qualify for settlement if both parents do. If you believe that children should not be forced to wait years longer than their parents – and potentially forever – to qualify for settlement you should answer “Strongly disagree” to this question.

 

To what extent do you agree or disagree that resettled refugees should have a 10-year route to settlement?

KN suggested answer: “Strongly disagree”

This question refers to refugees who have been granted protection by the Home Office and moved to the UK via one of the UK’s resettlement schemes, such as the Afghanistan Resettlement Programme. Under the current programmes, on approval refugees may have been granted settlement from the outset and so you may feel that changing the qualifying period to 10 years is unfair.

 

FURTHER QUESTIONS
 

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.

There is a 200-word limit. You could consider saying something along the lines of:

“The proposals will be off-putting for nearly all migrants. Longer qualifying periods will mean more uncertainty and higher visa costs to submit extension applications. Longer qualifying periods for dependent family members and children, compared to the main applicant, will be hugely disruptive and not in keeping with the UK’s legal obligations to act in the best interests of children. In particular,  differentiating between partners of British citizens and those with ILR is totally unfair. Some people with ILR may only not be British because they are prevented from becoming British by their country of origin. The mandatory income amount of £12,570 for all applicants, especially partners of British citizens/those with ILR, will be hugely problematic, discriminatory and mean some groups of people will not qualify, such as parents who look after children instead of working in a paid job. Those nearing 10 years for a Long Residence ILR application could be precluded from applying. The proposals will also negatively affect highly skilled people in the UK and mean they are less likely to move here in the first place or will seek to leave. On a human level, the proposals will lead to unnecessary stress and hardship for families.”

If you are completing the survey as an individual this will be your last question to answer.

 

To what extent, if at all, do you think the proposed reforms will impact your organisation in the following ways?

[This question is only applicable if you are answering the survey as an organisation/business]

Ability to attract suitable candidates

KN suggested answer: “Very negative impact”

Ability to retain existing migrant workers

KN suggested answer: “Very negative impact”

Workforce planning

KN suggested answer: “Very negative impact”

Administrative burden

KN suggested answer: “Very negative impact”

 

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

[This question is only applicable if you are answering the survey as an organisation/business]

There is a 200-word limit. You could consider saying something along the lines of the following (if you have specific examples of where the UK’s existing Immigration Rules have meant that you have been unable to recruit and/or staff have left the UK it would be good to include them here):

“A crucial part of our recruitment of international staff is the time to settlement. A longer route to settlement will mean fewer talented workers will come to the UK. While some highly paid migrants may benefit from some of the proposals fast-tracking their route to settlement based on salary, those with partners and children whose routes appear to be much longer will be disincentivised. If the UK adopts a standard 10-year route to settlement it will be markedly at odds with the global competition for talent. 10 years is a very long time and against the 5-year norm. A longer standard route to settlement will inevitably increase our costs and put us and the UK at risk of being priced out of recruiting top talent. If workers are unable to settle after the usual current 5 years, we will have to extend visas and incur additional cost. Again, that is hugely off-putting for both the recruitment and retention of international staff. There must not be longer qualifying periods for those sponsored in roles below RQF level 6 and there must be transitional arrangements put in place for our existing staff. Otherwise they are likely to leave the UK.”

 

Do you have any final comments on the potential impacts on your organisation in relation to the proposed changes to settlement?

[This question is only relevant if you are answering the survey as an organisation/business]

There is a 200 words limit. You could consider saying something along the lines of:

“There must be transitional arrangements for existing visa holders. Otherwise there will be a fundamental breakdown in trust which will mean the UK’s reputation is damaged and highly skilled people will not want to come to the UK and people already here may leave. There are likely to be instances where we chose a below level 6 occupation code on the basis it appeared to be the best match to the role – in accordance with the Home Office’s own guidance – but we might have considered a different, equally appropriate code at RQF level 6 if we had known the consequences. It is also possible a person in a below level 6 role could be paid more than £50,270 - which would qualify those in RQF6 occupations after 5 years. We and our staff should not be penalised for a choice of occupation code made in good faith and when we could not have known it might affect the length of time to settlement. The £50,270 threshold over the last 3 years for a 5-year settlement qualifying period is too high. After the White Paper, the Skilled Worker rules were already changed in July 2025, including raising the salary thresholds.”

 

FURTHER INFORMATION

Here are links to some useful resources:

Immigration white paper – 12 May 2025

Home Office press release - 20 November 2025

Home Office consultation on earned settlement – 20 November 2025

Home Office consultation – link to survey questions

Joint Guide for Completing the Earned Settlement Consultation endorsed by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association

We will be releasing further information and blogs over the coming months. If you would like to receive these and you are not already on our immigration mailing list sign up here.

 

If you have any questions please contact a member of the immigration team.