On Wednesday 4 February 2026, the Home Affairs Committee held a pivotal evidence session on the Government’s proposed immigration and settlement reforms.
Among many issues examined, one question stood out — and it’s the one causing the most anxiety for migrants, employers, and advisers:
Will settlement rule changes apply to people who are already in the UK?
During the session, the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, addressed concerns about retrospective changes directly. Her responses brought clarity — but not reassurance.
Here’s what the Government’s position now looks like, based on what was said on the record.
🔹 Retrospective impact has not been ruled out
The Home Secretary openly acknowledged that the proposed settlement reforms will affect at least some people who are already in the UK, stating that:
“It is inconceivable that literally nobody who’s currently here would be affected by any of these changes.”
This confirms that the Government accepts retrospective impact as a likely outcome, not merely a theoretical risk.
🔹 No guarantee for those on the five-year route
Committee members highlighted how migrants have planned their lives around the existing five-year route to settlement — selling property overseas, turning down jobs, delaying children.
The response was clear:
While those decisions were recognised, they do not create protection against rule changes. Immigration rules change regularly, and the Government argues that the scale of recent migration requires a response — even if this disrupts expectations formed under earlier rules.
🔹 Transitional protections: consulted on, not promised
The Government confirmed it is consulting on transitional arrangements, including possible exemptions or alternative approaches for groups such as:
- carers
- people with disabilities
- those affected by maternity leave
But this is crucial:
👉These are options under consideration, not commitments.
No blanket protection for people already in the system was offered.
🔹 Households with a stay-at-home parent: under consideration, not resolved
The Home Secretary was also questioned about how the proposed mandatory economic requirement would affect households where one parent is caring for children rather than working.
In response, she confirmed that this issue is explicitly part of the ongoing consultation. She acknowledged that representations have already been received raising concerns about parents with caring responsibilities and the potential unfairness of applying a strict individual earnings test in such cases.
Importantly, she accepted that it is not unusual in UK immigration policy to consider household income, rather than purely individual earnings, and suggested that this could be one possible approach — for example, by setting a minimum income requirement for one partner to reflect the contribution of the household as a whole.
However, she was careful to stress that this should not be taken as a settled plan. The current proposal remains based on individual contribution as the basis for earning settlement, and no decision has been made to move to household-based assessment. Any change in approach, she said, would depend on the totality of consultation responses.
In short, the Government has acknowledged the potential impact on families with caring parents, but no exemption or alternative assessment has been agreed at this stage.
🔹 ILR will be decided by the rules in force when you apply
One of the most consequential clarifications concerned Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR).
The Home Secretary reaffirmed the long-standing legal principle that:
- ILR applications are assessed under the Immigration Rules in force on the date of application
- not when someone entered the UK
- and not when they first became eligible
This position, she stated, has been upheld in case law since 2009.
🔹 If you can’t afford to apply, the rules don’t pause
A practical — and troubling — scenario was raised:
What if someone qualifies for ILR today but cannot afford to apply before the rules change?
The answer was unequivocal:
➡️ Their application will be assessed under the new rules, not the old ones — even if they would have qualified earlier.
Financial inability does not preserve earlier eligibility.
🔹 Retrospectivity framed as lawful — and necessary
When asked what advice was sought about applying changes retrospectively, the Home Secretary framed the issue not as a legal risk, but as a policy necessity.
With projections suggesting around 1.6 million people could become eligible for settlement or citizenship in the coming years, the Government argues the system must change how settlement is “earned” — potentially involving:
- longer qualifying periods
- contribution thresholds
- consequences for benefit reliance
Retrospective impact was presented as lawful, deliberate, and unavoidable.
The Government’s position is now clear:
- Settlement reforms may lawfully apply to people already living in the UK
- No blanket transitional protection is guaranteed
- ILR will continue to be decided by the rules in force at the time of application, even if this changes outcomes for people who planned their lives under earlier rules
Final thought
It’s important to keep this in perspective.
No final decisions have been made yet. The Government has been clear that these proposals are still under consultation, and the eventual shape of the settlement system will depend on the evidence and responses it receives. To date, around 130,000 responses have already been submitted — which underlines just how significant and widely felt these proposals are.
That makes this moment critical.
📢 Take part in the consultation (10–15 minutes):
📝 Consultation link: https://ukhomeoffice.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1yMmiaG7zqwPuM6
⏰Deadline: 23:59 on 12 February 2026
If you are currently on a visa or plan to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the coming years, the outcome of this consultation may directly affect your future.
If you employ migrant workers, this consultation could significantly impact your workforce planning and retention strategies.
If you support migrant communities, your feedback can help illuminate real-world consequences that data alone might miss.
Consultations only hold value when people participate in them. This is a crucial moment; remaining silent poses risks, and your participation truly matters.