The Home Office consultation, “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”, proposes changes to the current settlement system. We already have good character requirements for visas and grounds to refuse applications; however, the consultation argues that settlement should be earned through a combination of contribution, integration, lawful residence, and good character, rather than being granted after just a fixed period of residence.

The consultation proposes increasing the standard qualifying period for settlement from five years to ten years. It also explores how different forms of contribution could potentially shorten or extend the route to settlement. Examples suggested in the consultation include accelerated settlement for individuals considered to make an exceptional contribution to the UK, such as highly skilled professionals, high taxpayers, senior public service workers, or people with significant records of volunteering and community participation.

Conversely, the consultation proposes delaying settlement for those considered to contribute less under the proposed criteria, including individuals who have accessed certain public funds or benefits, as well as those who entered the UK through irregular routes. The consultation also proposes a longer baseline qualifying period of 15 years for some lower-paid Health and Care visa holders. It raises the possibility of continuing NRPF conditions even after settlement is awarded.

These proposals represent a significant shift from the current system, where most migrants become eligible for settlement after five years, subject to meeting existing immigration, language, and residency requirements. The Government states that these proposals are intended to strengthen social cohesion, increase public confidence in the immigration system, and respond to projected increases in settlement applications over the coming years.

The intention may be to encourage participation and strengthen public confidence. However, our lived experience suggests that longer periods of uncertainty may create additional barriers to integration rather than strengthen it.

The debate is not only about whether five years should be extended to ten. It is also about what happens to people already part-way through a route to settlement. The consultation explicitly asks whether there should be no transitional arrangements for people already on existing pathways. Without that protection, people who have spent years working, paying fees, raising families and meeting existing requirements could find the terms changed before they settle.

Under the proposed system, time towards settlement would not carry the same value for everyone. Some routes, including Global Talent and Innovator Founder, could retain a three-year pathway, while high earnings or other recognised contributions could substantially reduce the proposed ten-year baseline. At the other end, public funds use or particular immigration histories could add many years.

This is particularly concerning where someone has lawfully had their No Recourse to Public Funds condition lifted because of destitution, child welfare concerns or exceptional circumstances. They may be permitted to access support because they need it, yet that same support could later extend their journey to settlement by five or ten years.

Recent analysis by The Unity Project adds another dimension. Change of Conditions applications fell to 727 in April–June 2026, around 25% lower than the same period the previous year. The organisation suggests that uncertainty about Earned Settlement and the proposed penalties for accessing public funds may be discouraging some people from applying for support, potentially leaving people in destitution rather than risking consequences for their future settlement.

This is where immigration administration becomes the politics of belonging. The question increasingly becomes less about the time someone has spent building a life here and more about:

• What kind of contribution have you made?
• How much have you earned?
• What support have you needed?
• How have you demonstrated integration?
• How did you enter or remain in the UK?
• How should each of these determine how long you must wait before your life here becomes secure?

The deeper question is therefore not simply how long does belonging take? but whose time, contribution and circumstances does the system value and whose does it penalise?

For many families, five years already involves repeated visa applications, significant fees, extensive evidence requirements, and constant uncertainty. Extending this period means extending insecurity.

The impact of prolonged temporary status is not only financial, although the financial burden can be enormous. Families often spend tens of thousands of pounds on visa fees and the Immigration Health Surcharge while also covering everyday living costs. Many exhaust savings, delay important life decisions, or take on debt simply to maintain lawful status.
The emotional cost can be equally significant. Parents struggle to plan for their children’s futures. People postpone education, career development, and business opportunities. Survivors of domestic abuse face additional barriers while trying to rebuild their lives.

While the consultation focuses heavily on economic contribution and measurable indicators of integration, our conversations suggest that uncertainty itself can become a barrier to participation, wellbeing, and long-term planning.

From our perspective, integration begins long before settlement is granted. People are working, volunteering, raising children, supporting neighbours, participating in faith communities, caring for relatives, and contributing to local life while still living with uncertainty about their future.

Through the partnership’s work and engagement with community groups in Aberdeen, we consistently hear about the impact of prolonged insecurity on individuals and families. Financial strain, declining mental wellbeing, safeguarding concerns, and barriers to long-term planning emerged repeatedly in these conversations. Local organisations working across housing, health, education, and community support also report that immigration insecurity often shifts practical and financial pressures onto families and already stretched local services.

Research supports this concern; local academic Le Bigre argues that integration is often framed as an individual’s responsibility while paying insufficient attention to the role institutions and policies play in creating barriers to participation.

This reflects what we see locally: people may be working, volunteering, raising children, and actively contributing to their communities, yet still find themselves living with uncertainty because of visa restrictions, changing immigration rules, or prolonged pathways to settlement.

People affected by NRPF and other forms of immigration insecurity frequently describe feeling invisible within systems that assume everyone has equal access to work, education, housing, and support. Many speak about anxiety, stalled ambitions, and the difficulty of building a future while living in a state of ongoing uncertainty.

If we measure contribution without recognising structural barriers, we risk rewarding privilege rather than resilience.

This matters because not everyone has the same opportunity to meet the measures the proposed system would use to judge contribution.

A single parent may contribute through unpaid care. A disabled person may not be able to sustain continuous employment. A survivor of domestic abuse may need to prioritise safety and recovery. Someone caring for a disabled child may have reduced earning capacity. A person seeking protection may have spent long periods unable to work because of immigration restrictions.

The contradiction is difficult to ignore: the system can limit people’s ability to participate economically and socially, while then using that participation as a measure of whether they have earned security. This risks rewarding those already best placed to meet measurable indicators of contribution, while extending insecurity for those facing the greatest barriers.

A fairer approach could recognise unpaid care, parenting and community participation as meaningful contribution, and ensure that disability, safeguarding needs or restrictions created by immigration status do not count against someone’s route to settlement.

The question is therefore not only what counts as a contribution. It is also who has actually been given a fair opportunity to contribute in the ways the system chooses to value?

The most important message from our submission is simple: We are already part of the community. Our children attend local schools. We work where permitted, care for relatives, support neighbours, volunteer, participate in faith groups, and contribute to civic life. Our lives are rooted in the places we call home.

We do not believe that longer periods of uncertainty create stronger communities. We believe that stability enables people to contribute, participate, and belong.

We are asking for settlement policies that:

• Recognise contribution in its broadest sense, including care, parenting, volunteering, resilience, and community participation.
• Protect vulnerable individuals and families.
• Avoid extending insecurity through unnecessarily long qualifying periods.
• Provide fair and transparent pathways to long-term stability.
• Recognise the realities faced by those experiencing immigration-related disadvantage.

If cohesion and integration are the stated goals of policy, then policy must create the conditions that make them possible.

This principle is reflected not only in the evidence gathered by the NRNE Lived Experience Group but also in broader recommendations for a more inclusive and sustainable migration system put forward by the Fair Way Scotland Commission.

The report calls for greater access to legal advice, homelessness support, ESOL provision, employment opportunities, and hardship assistance, alongside efforts to prevent destitution and exclusion. These recommendations closely mirror the priorities raised by participants in our engagement work, who repeatedly described stability, security, and the ability to contribute as key enablers of integration. When people can access housing, work, education, and support, they can better participate in community life, build relationships, and contribute to the places they call home.

Settlement should not be a reward for surviving years of uncertainty. A fair pathway to settlement should recognise that integration is already taking place in our schools, neighbourhoods, workplaces, community groups, and places of worship, without making these experiences and relationships compulsory and part of a ‘game’.

It should secure that reality rather than defer stability for another decade. It should be a foundation that allows people, families, and communities to thrive together.