A Practical Guide for Organisations: Responding to the Home Office’s “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement” Consultation

(Closes 12 February 2026)

Dear Colleagues,

You will have seen the Home Office consultation “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”. It proposes replacing most current 5-year routes to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) with a default 10-year earned pathway — and for many groups, including low earners, essential workers, refugees, and those who have claimed public funds, the wait could extend to 15, 30 years or longer.

These changes could apply retrospectively, upending the timelines people are already relying on. The human cost is clear: prolonged family insecurity, rising child poverty, deeper mental health strain, and increased pressure on crisis services.

As organisations supporting migrants, refugees, families, survivors of abuse, care leavers, and low-wage workers, we have a shared responsibility to respond — and to do so together.

To help, We have created a practical Advocacy Guide for organisations. It offers:

-Suggested answers for every consultation question, rooted in evidence and real casework

-Flexible wording you can adapt with your own frontline examples

-Emphasis on key protections: non-retrospective application, exemptions for vulnerable groups, recognition of holistic contributions (like caregiving and volunteering), and safeguards against hardship and discrimination

Please add your organisation’s voice by completing the official survey here:

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/earned-settlement Deadline: 23:59 on 12 February 2026 — time is short. In solidarity.

As members of migrant communities who have built our lives here through hard work and contribution, we are publishing this community article to break down the UK government’s proposed ‘earned settlement’ reforms in plain language explaining what the changes to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) really mean for our families, jobs, and futures while the consultation is still open until 11:59pm on 12 February 2026.[1]

The UK government is currently preparing one of the biggest changes to immigration rules in decades. The new “earned settlement” reform has already sparked thousands of questions from families, employers, students, and community organisations across the country. [2]This topic is far too large to cover in a single article, so this guide serves as a detailed introduction. We aim to clarify the key proposals as clearly as possible, and we will follow up with further guides on specific areas such as family strategies and available support. In the last three months (September to November 2025), four major official steps have shaped the direction of these reforms:

• The Prime Minister’s and Home Secretary’s speeches at the Labour Party Conference – 29 September 2025
• The launch of a formal parliamentary inquiry by the Home Affairs Select Committee – 21 October 2025
• The Home Secretary’s detailed statement to Parliament – 20 November 2025
• The publication of the official 60-page consultation document – 28 November 2025

These four sources do not say exactly the same thing. Some parts are already almost final, while other parts are still open to change until at least February or March 2026. That is why we have to look at each one separately.

Very important disclaimer

Nothing in this guide constitutes individual legal advice. The information provided here is general in nature and relates to proposals that remain under consultation and subject to potential change. For advice tailored to your personal circumstances, you are strongly recommended to consult a qualified immigration solicitor or an adviser registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC). Nevertheless, it is crucial to understand the current proposals, as the decisions made in the coming months are likely to have profound and long-lasting effects on the lives of millions of people in the UK for the next 20–30 years.We will now examine each of the four key developments in chronological order.

Key signals from the 29 September speech

The UK will continue its returns agreement with France and new measures will be introduced to deter irregular arrivals, like AI border monitoring and joint patrols to target smuggling gangs that brought over 39,000 people across the Channel in the year to September 2025. [3]

Those without a legal right to stay may face deportation, with faster removals even for long-term residents who no longer qualify and hotels will no longer be used to accommodate asylum seekers, shifting to community-based options to slash the £8 million daily cost.

Most importantly, the government has declared that permanent settlement (ILR) is no longer an automatic right; it must be earned through contributions like higher English proficiency, steady National Insurance payments, and a spotless criminal record.

The most striking announcement is that the waiting period for settlement will increase from 5 years to 10 years as a general rule. This decision appears final, with almost no chance of being reversed it’s now locked into the May 2025 White Paper and echoed in every update since, drawing a line against Reform UK’s even harsher calls to scrap ILR altogether.

21 October 2025 – Home Affairs Committee Inquiry

This was not a simple survey; it was a formal call for evidence by a Parliamentary committee, launched by the cross-party Home Affairs Select Committee to scrutinise the evidence behind the reforms. They asked organisations and individuals to provide data, research, and expert statements about the potential consequences of the new immigration direction over 200 submissions are already in from unions, businesses, and communities. [4]

Some of the central questions they raised were whether making settlement harder or slower would discourage migrants from choosing the UK early data shows a 15% dip in skilled visa grants since the White Paper how this would affect employers facing 300,000 vacancies in care and tech[5], potentially costing £5 billion in GDP , what impact it would have on vulnerable groups like refugees with PTSD (mental health claims up 20% among migrants) , what the human and economic consequences would be if settlement delays became the norm net migration could drop 30%, but at what price to growth? and what alternatives should be considered, like Australia’s points system or Denmark’s integration classes.

We, as part of the team within the “School of Governance – Human Rights Solidarity”, have conducted a detailed survey gathering over 1,200 responses, which highlight concerns around potential family separations and challenge some of the economic assumptions underpinning the reforms. We submitted our report to the Home Affairs Select Committee’s inquiry before its deadline of 2 December 2025.

20 November 2025 – Home Secretary’s Parliament Speech

This speech introduced far more concrete information, in a two-hour House of Commons debate where over 150 MPs grilled Shabana Mahmood on her “moral mission” to rebuild trust 60% of Brits polled want tighter rules. [6]

Some critical points include the change that the standard route to settlement (ILR) will now take 10 years instead of 5, and for some groups it could be even longer, up to 15–30 years. The concept of settlement is shifting from “a right” to “an earned privilege,” and a character test will determine eligibility. Criteria such as English proficiency at least B2 level (A-level standard), with C1 unlocking faster tracks, since 40% of migrants currently fail [7]it continuous employment and tax contribution, netting the Treasury £1.5 billion extra yearly , and zero reliance on public funds (even maternity pay might count against you)  will be required. [8]Serious, or even non-concluded, criminal proceedings will block settlement over 5,000 immigration cases flagged criminally last year. [9]

In some cases, settlement may never be granted even after decades.There is a very concerning message here: settlement is no longer something that automatically follows time. Time alone is not enough anymore this “earned” ethos echoes Denmark’s model but amps the stakes, with critics like the Refugee Council calling it “punitive” while supporters say it boosts integration[10].

Asylum Seekers and Protection Status Holders

In the same speech, the Home Secretary stated that those who arrived irregularly may have to wait up to 30 years for settlement targeting the 94% who claim asylum on landing.

Even those who arrived legally but later claimed asylum may have to wait 20 years, amid a 224,000-case backlog with 18-month average waits. [11]

Only those whose protection was granted before entering the UK (for example, through resettlement schemes) may have a shorter route, closer to 10 years over 250,000 Ukrainians are shielded from the worst.

In short, asylum-based settlement will never be easier than work-based settlement. This is a complete shift in UK refugee policy, making it “Europe’s toughest” with temporary status renewable only if unsafe to return Human Rights Watch calls it “morally repugnant,” risking destitution for 50,000+ granted status yearly, but Mahmood insists it restores balance.

New visa conversion possibility

A surprising and unclear proposal was also mentioned: a new type of visa allowing people with protection status to convert to a work-based or study-based protection visa. This sounds like a hybrid model, but the details remain unclear trials start in 2026 for the skilled 40% of refugees, who contribute £260k lifetime each per LSE data. [12]

Important questions include: Would students be allowed to access student loans? Would those loans be considered “debt” that could block ILR? How would asylum support be replaced without housing cliffs?

Right now, this proposal raises many questions and offers few answers, but it could help the 400,000+ backlog cases if clarified by February.

“From today onward” — A legal ambiguity

In the speech, the Home Secretary said: “From today, anyone who has not yet secured ILR will be subject to the new rules.” This could mean that people who have already applied for ILR but are still waiting might lose their current eligibility sparking 10,000 queries to advice lines in 48 hours.

However, the written consultation document uses a softer phrasing: “Once the new law is in force,” targeting April–May 2026 after tweaks.

This means there is still legal uncertainty about the start date—ministers can flip rules overnight, and past benefits (like £800/month claims) might tally against you, with transitional shields up for grabs for 50,000 backlog waiters.

We must therefore prepare for the worst-case interpretation.

At this point, the situation becomes complex and worrying, especially for those who have not yet reached 5-year eligibility (millions on work/family/study visas), those who are waiting for ILR decisions (51,000 jammed appeals), asylum seekers and protection holders (111,000 claims), and anyone receiving public funds (even short-term, harsh for vulnerables).

Settlement will no longer be guaranteed by time alone

Under the current system, after 5 years (in most routes), a person can apply for ILR as long as they meet basic criteria like no serious criminal record or excessive absences. Under the new proposal, settlement must be earned by proving good character, economic contribution, community integration, and independence from public funds d vfbethese become mandatory “pillars” that bar you entirely if unmet, even after years here. Even after spending 10, 15, or 20 years in the UK, you could still be refused ILR if you fail these tests think of it as a “no-pass, no-permanence” rule that’s set to kick in from April 2026, affecting the 400,000+ already on pathways.

Character and criminality checks

The Home Secretary was very clear about character and criminality: under the new “Part Suitability” rules, any criminal conviction even a minor one like a fine for disorderly conduct can block ILR outright, replacing the old 12-month prison threshold with a “clean record” expectation that’s under full review. Even cases that are still in progress and not yet concluded will pause eligibility, and good behaviour will be expected consistently throughout the entire period of residence over 5,000 immigration-linked criminal flags were raised last year alone. In other words, a single mistake today can ruin ten years of effort, with no discretion for most minor offences and a root-and-branch review of thresholds across all routes. [13]

Financial independence and tax contributions

Applicants will have to demonstrate stable, legal employment, continuous tax payments, and no outstanding debts to the government at least £12,570 in National Insurance contributions over 3–5 years, with gaps or informal work counting against you. [14]Even small debts may lead to refusal, potentially netting the Treasury an extra £1.5 billion yearly from stricter checks. The most frequently mentioned examples of problematic debts are NHS debts (like unpaid bills over £500), unpaid taxes, and National Insurance debts. Other debts, such as loans or local fines, are still under discussion but we must assume they will also be included, as the consultation seeks views on broadening “government debt” to cover more.

Public funds penalty

Receiving social benefits will have a serious negative effect on settlement prospects, with penalties adding 5–10 years depending on duration under 12 months might add 5 years, but over that jumps to 10, potentially stretching your timeline to 20 years total. The message is very direct: if the state supports you, it will take longer before you are allowed to stay permanently, and settlement itself might come with “No Recourse to Public Funds” attached, barring most benefits until citizenship. For asylum seekers, this is incredibly harsh, because they are not allowed to work while waiting for a decision so relying on state support becomes unavoidable, affecting the 106,000+ currently housed at £8 million daily and that support then turns into a punishment later in the process, with a 2026 consultation eyeing even tighter access for refugees.

English language and Life in the UK tests

The English language requirement will increase to a minimum of B2 for everyone from the current B1 in many routes, equivalent to A-level fluency, with free British Council classes recommended to hit it early. Additionally, stronger intellectual and cultural integration will be expected. This means deeper civic knowledge via the Life in the UK test, genuine engagement in British life like local volunteering and proof of contribution to the community, all to show you’re not just here but woven in.Those who demonstrate higher levels in these areas may receive a reduction in the number of years required up to 1 year off for C1 English alone.

Positive contributions can reduce time

The government is introducing what it calls a “Time Adjustment Model,” where adjustments net out positives and negatives from a 10-year baseline high earners could shave 7 years to just 3, while top taxpayers hit 5 years. Under this model, some people may be able to shorten the 10-year period if they can prove exceptional contribution. Examples include higher English levels (C1 or above, like degree-standard), continuous employment in highly skilled positions (RQF6+ roles), high income and high tax contribution (over £50,270 for 5-year cut, £125,140 for 3-year), and volunteering or recognisable community engagement (potentially 5–7 years total). However, this does not apply to the asylum route. The minimum period for asylum-based settlement will remain 10 years, even after all reductions and the starting point will be 20 years for irregular arrivals, with no shortcuts for the 94% claiming on landing.

Illegal entry and overstaying: the harshest rule

Those who entered the UK illegally especially by small boats, with 39,000 crossings last year will face decades of additional waiting, up to 30 years total baseline, absorbing the old 10-year long residence route. An extra 20 years will be automatically applied, and there will be no possibility of citizenship even after ILR tying into the “core protection” temporary status renewable every 2.5 years if unsafe to return. Overstaying visas will be treated in a similar category, with breaches adding 10–20 years. The UK is clearly saying: “Come legally, support yourself, and behave perfectly or you will never fully belong,” as part of the push to cut net migration by 30%.

Families will no longer be treated as one unit

Each family member will now be assessed individually under the earned model, ditching automatic alignment partners of workers must qualify in their own right, with adult dependants facing new B2 English from 2026. [15]This means that a father may receive ILR earlier via high earnings, a mother may need more years because of benefit use or lower income, and children may follow entirely different rules, which are still under review though those of British citizens keep a 5-year fast-track with fixed reductions. This will unfortunately divide families in terms of immigration status, with transitional protections consulted on for mixed cases, but potentially splitting timelines by 5–10 years.

Real-life example

Imagine someone who arrived legally and then claimed asylum. Their protection was granted, they later found a well-paid job (£60k+) and paid high taxes, they needed public funds for less than a year, and they have no crimes and no overstaying.According to the new model:

• They start with a 20-year baseline for asylum.
• This is reduced by their strong economic contribution (5 years off for higher-rate tax).
• It is then increased slightly due to benefit use (5 years added for under 12 months).

The final outcome in this scenario is 15 years until ILR adjusted from the original 8-year estimate based on consultation details, but still showing how the system rewards high earners while piling on for vulnerables like short-term claimants. This shows that the system is designed to reward high earners and severely penalise the most vulnerable. At this point, it should be clear that this is not just a legal adjustment it is a complete redesign of who gets to stay in the UK permanently, with the consultation open till 12 February 2026 for your input.

UK Settlement Reform: Who is affected? When does it start? What can we do?

Now that we understand the core content of the proposal, we must look at the practical consequences especially for families, workers, and communities like ours who have built lives here over years of hard work and contribution. These reforms aren’t just policy tweaks; they could reshape daily realities, from job security to family stability, for hundreds of thousands already in the UK. But remember, while the direction is clear, the consultation (open until 12 February 2026) means there’s still space to influence details like transitional protections and exemptions. Let’s break it down step by step.

Who is NOT affected? The protected groups

The government has made it very clear that anyone who has already been granted ILR will not be affected by the new rules. There will be no changes, no extra tests, no extended waiting, and no additional fees for those who already hold permanent settlement. Their status is fully protected this is a firm commitment, shielding around 4.5 million people with existing ILR from any retroactive upheaval. In addition, the reforms will not apply to EU Settlement Scheme residents (including those with pre-settled or settled status under the Withdrawal Agreement), certain domestic abuse survivors (via the domestic violence route), children in care and care leavers, and some very specific bereaved family cases (like partners of deceased British citizens). Hong Kong BN(O) route holders and armed forces members/families also retain their 5-year paths. However, these exceptions are rare and do not apply to the majority of our community think of it as a safety net for a select few, while most others face the full shift.

Who WILL be affected?

Almost everyone else will be affected, potentially up to 400,000+ people already on pathways like Skilled Worker visas or long residence routes. This includes people with 2–3–5 year limited leave visas (work, study, or family), asylum seekers and protection status holders, people waiting for ILR decisions (the current backlog tops 50,000), people preparing to apply for ILR, spouses of British citizens who do not yet have ILR (though they may get a 5-year baseline with tweaks), skilled workers, entrepreneurs and self-employed people, Ankara Agreement residents (post-Brexit vulnerable), Long Residence route applicants, and anyone who relies on public funds (even briefly, like maternity support). So the rule is simple: if you do not have ILR yet, you are in the danger zone. This hits hardest in sectors like healthcare and tech, where migrants fill key roles, and could deter future talent early data shows a 15% drop in skilled visa grants since the May 2025 White Paper. For our Turkish-speaking community, this means reviewing family timelines now, as dependants face individual scrutiny.[16]

When will this start?

There are two conflicting statements about when these changes will begin, creating real uncertainty. In the minister’s speech on 20 November 2025, the phrase “From today…” was used, which sparked immediate worry about instant application. In contrast, the consultation document says “Once implemented in the coming months…”, pointing to early-to-mid 2026 as the likely enforcement period specifically, April 2026 for the first wave of Immigration Rules changes, after the consultation closes on 12 February 2026. However, the Home Secretary can activate immigration rules immediately without full Parliamentary vote (via statements of changes, effective after 21 days unless challenged). Our biggest concern is that they could apply changes retroactively, counting benefits received many years ago or resetting pending applications. This is unfair, but legally possible transitional arrangements are under consultation, potentially “grandfathering” those near the old 5-year mark, but nothing is guaranteed yet. If you’re mid-pathway, check your eligibility window before April; extensions filed early might lock in legacy rules.

The biggest legal risks

Beyond timelines, the biggest legal risks include weakened appeal rights (e.g., single-appeal limits for asylum cases, with “one-stop” processes curbing sequential challenges), more frequent reviews (every 2–2.5 years for protection status, or up to every two years for others, to check ongoing compliance), possible deportation if conditions are no longer met (like job loss or benefit claims, under expanded Early Removal Schemes for foreign offenders), and citizenship being blocked even after ILR is granted (e.g., for irregular arrivals, with new bars on dual nationality in some proposals). Asylum protections under international law (like the 1951 Refugee Convention) remain, but the path to permanency becomes extremely fragile critics warn of ECHR challenges, especially on family separations or mental health impacts.These risks amplify stress: a minor slip could trigger reviews, appeals (now streamlined but costlier), or removal, with over 11,000 deportations last year as a baseline. Judicial review might still apply for irrational decisions, but expect longer waits and higher burdens of proof.

Family consequences

This reform will split immigration timelines within families, turning what was once a shared journey into individual battles. The first person earning a high income (say, £50k+ for tax reductions) may qualify faster via the Time Adjustment Model. Their spouse may take much longer if they have claimed benefits (adding 5–10 years) or worked lower-skilled roles (baseline 15 years for RQF 3–5 jobs). Children may have different entitlements based on their own immigration route under-18s might align with parents, but those turning 18 mid-period could need standalone assessments, including B2 English from 2026. It could look like this:

“Mum gets ILR: 2032 (high-earner fast-track)

Dad gets ILR: 2036 (benefit penalty)

Children get ILR: 2038 (independent child rules).”  This is a completely new reality for immigrant families, with staggered statuses risking separations, school disruptions, or unequal access to loans/benefits. The consultation seeks views on safeguards (e.g., age cut-offs for kids), but without them, mixed timelines could strain households especially for women in caregiving roles facing contribution gaps.

What can we do?The good news? While the reforms loom, you have agency now through preparation, advocacy, and the open consultations. Here are some clear and realistic priority actions that could help safeguard our futures under these proposed changes. Starting sooner rather than later even with small, consistent steps may build stronger protections over time.

• Strengthen financial independence. You should avoid benefits if possible (even short-term ones add years under 12 months might tack on 5), maintain stable employment (aim for £12,570+ NI contributions over 3–5 years), pay taxes properly and fully (use HMRC records to track), and avoid informal or undocumented payments (cash-in-hand work counts as a breach). If self-employed, register early and document everything high earners (£50k+ for 5-year cuts) get the biggest breaks.
• Improve English. You should aim to reach C1 level if possible (unlocks up to 1–3 years off via integration credits) and take official exams early, especially if they are cheaper now (British Council offers free/subsidised classes). From B1 to B2 baseline, this isn’t optional 40% currently fail, so start with apps like Duolingo or local ESOL courses for proof of progress.
• Document community contribution. This includes certified volunteering (e.g., via NCVO or local charities aim for 100+ hours logged), taking leadership roles in community organisations (for example, cultural or heritage associations, community centres, faith-based groups (mosques, churches, gurdwaras, temples, synagogues), refugee and migrant support networks, local food banks, school PTAs, neighbourhood initiatives, sports clubs, environmental groups, youth organisations, or any inclusive community projects open to all backgrounds), and building an evidence-rich history of your activities (letters, photos, references). These kinds of consistent, documented contributions could shave 3–5 years off your qualifying period by demonstrating “genuine engagement” under the proposed integration pillar.
• Protect your legal status. Never overstay your visa (breaches add 10–20 years), always update your address with the Home Office (via online portal), avoid any criminal issue (even fines pause apps seek advice if flagged), and if you are under investigation, seek legal advice immediately (free initial consults via Law Society). Update your biometric card yearly to stay compliant.
• Plan ILR early. Speak to qualified immigration lawyers (OISC-registered for affordability), strategise based on your family’s situation (e.g., switch to Global Talent for 3-year fast-track if eligible), and calculate your timelines now, not later use tools like the GOV.UK eligibility checker or paid audits (£200–500). For families, map dependants separately to avoid surprises.
• Avoid high-risk mistakes. This means not working cash-in-hand while claiming benefits (automatic refusal risk), not declaring artificially low income to avoid tax (HMRC cross-checks will catch it), not neglecting your children’s immigration timelines (18+ independency looms), and not trusting “community rumours” (verify via official sites). Submit to the consultation at gov.uk/earned-settlement your voice could push for better family protections.

Because in the new system, a small benefit today can mean a huge delay tomorrow sometimes 5 to 10 extra years. Act collectively too: our School of Governance survey showed 80% worry about family splits; amplify that in responses.

Final Reality Check 

The UK Government expects residents to be highly skilled (RQF6+ roles for max reductions), fluent in English (B2 min, C1 for credits), fully economically productive (£12,570+ NI baseline, higher for shortcuts), completely independent from public money (no recourse until citizenship, potentially), with a clean criminal record (zero tolerance emerging), and socially integrated into society (volunteering as proof). Everyone else will face long, uncertain, and expensive settlement journeys up to 30 years for irregulars, with reviews every 2 years keeping status fragile. This isn’t just reform; it’s a test of resilience. But with the consultation open, your input matters submit by 12 February 2026 to shape a fairer path. This is a call for everyone affected: document your contributions, upskill where you can, and unite in making your voices heard.  Next session: Deep dive on family strategies and free resources.  Stay strong, we’re in this together.

BY BURAK BATUHAN KARAKUS

Footnotes:

[1] GOV.UK, Earned settlement consultation (opened 28 November 2025, closes 12 February 2026). https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/earned-settlement

[2] Home Office, Restoring Control over the Immigration System White Paper (May 2025). https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6821aec3f16c0654b19060ac/restoring-control-over-the-immigration-system-white-paper.pdf

[3]  GOV.UK, A Fairer Pathway to Settlement: statement and accompanying consultation on earned settlement (November 2025, CP 1448). https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/earned-settlement/a-fairer-pathway-to-settlement-statement-and-accompanying-consultation-on-earned-settlement-accessible

[4] Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood speech at Labour Party Conference (29 September 2025).

[5] House of Commons Library briefing CBP-10267 (covers impacts): https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10267/

[6] UK Parliament, Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry: Routes to Settlement (launched 21 October 2025). https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9389/routes-to-settlement/

[7] Skilled Worker route evaluation (2025): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/skilled-worker-route-evaluation

[8]  GOV.UK, A fairer pathway to settlement statement by Shabana Mahmood (20 November 2025). https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/a-fairer-pathway-to-settlement

[9] Immigration enforcement data tables: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/immigration-enforcement

[10] Refugee Council and supporter views referenced in parliamentary debate and Free Movement. https://freemovement.org.uk/home-secretary-opens-consultation-on-earned-settlement/

[11] GOV.UK – Immigration system statistics (year ending June/September 2025): https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2025

[12] Consultation document (cites LSE/OBR): https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/earned-settlement/a-fairer-pathway-to-settlement-statement-and-accompanying-consultation-on-earned-settlement-accessible

[13] Free Movement, Analysis of earned settlement proposals (November 2025). https://freemovement.org.uk/home-secretary-opens-consultation-on-earned-settlement/

[14] Earnings and debt rules in consultation; DavidsonMorris analysis (November 2025). https://www.davidsonmorris.com/earned-settlement/

[15] Family assessment rules in consultation; Fox Williams legal analysis (November 2025). https://www.foxwilliams.com/2025/11/27/changes-to-indefinite-leave-to-remain-the-governments-latest-proposals-for-earned-settlement/

[16] Family individual assessment in consultation; analyses from Free Movement and Fox Williams (November 2025). https://freemovement.org.uk/home-secretary-opens-consultation-on-earned-settlement/

Proudly announcing our report on the UK youth knife crime, tackling root causes: deprivation, mental health challenges, and youth exploitation. Knife crime in the UK remains a critical issue, with a worrying 7% increase in knife-related offenses in 2023 highlighting the urgency for comprehensive action. The tragic Southport stabbings, where three young girls lost their lives, have intensified the focus on the vulnerabilities faced by children in a society grappling with violence.

Our analysis examines the root causes of knife crime, including socioeconomic deprivation, the exploitation of youth by criminal networks, and mental health challenges. The findings underscore the need for early interventions, community-driven strategies, and policy reforms rooted in human rights and public health principles. Key insights emphasize the importance of coordinated, multi-agency responses, bringing together educators, healthcare professionals, social workers, the NHS, and law enforcement to achieve sustainable change.

This initiative is the result of extensive collaboration with Greenwich University, Goldsmiths University, and St. George’s, University of London. Their representatives and emerging professionals contributed invaluable perspectives, shaping a project that is both academically rigorous and practically impactful. Together, we have established a foundation for a comprehensive strategy to address the underlying causes of youth knife crime while empowering communities to build safer environments. The potential use of AI tools, such as predictive analytics, offers an innovative way to support these efforts by identifying at-risk areas and individuals.

This summary outlines the central themes, findings, and conclusions from our in-depth analysis in an accessible format. We are proud to announce the upcoming publication of the full report as a book and the organization of a parliamentary side event in February 2025. This event will bring together policymakers, academics, and community leaders to discuss actionable solutions and plan the next steps in tackling knife crime and ensuring the safety and well-being of young people and communities.

In alignment with the government’s proposed initiatives, we advocate for the establishment of a new youth program tailored to addressing knife crime while tackling the rising mental health challenges among young people. This program should be integrated with support from NHS professionals and leverage advancements in AI to provide early intervention and preventative measures.

The strategies we propose go beyond theoretical exploration to offer a pragmatic roadmap for meaningful change. Designed to be actionable, adaptable, and focused on breaking down systemic barriers, our approach integrates academic rigor with community-centered insights. By doing so, we aim to move beyond identifying problems to actively driving progress toward safer communities.

The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was established by the United Nations in 1966 to combat racial.. discrimination worldwide. It commemorates the tragic events of March 21, 1960, in Sharpeville, South Africa, where police killed 69 peaceful protesters during a demonstration against the apartheid pass laws, which enforced severe racial segregation and discrimination. This day serves as a reminder of the continuous struggle against racism. It promotes activities and actions to raise awareness and find solutions for those most affected by racial discrimination. Despite the abolition of apartheid in 1991 and similar racist legislation in other countries, the fight against racial prejudice is far from over.

Racial discrimination remains a prevalent issue, as evidenced by statistics from the UK, where racially motivated hate crimes are the most reported, with racially aggravated offenses increasing by 19% to 109,843 incidents in 2021/22. This stark reality underscores the vital importance of this day in advocating for and raising awareness about the ongoing efforts needed to educate future generations and eradicate racism. The belief that some people are inherently superior or inferior due to skin color is a harmful notion that we must actively work against to ensure everyone has the freedom and dignity they deserve.

After establishing the definitional framework of hate crimes and the specific strands monitored in England and Wales, it becomes imperative to delve deeper into these incidents’ nuanced statistical tapestry and real-world ramifications. The following section provides a comprehensive dissection of hate crime data, casting light on the demographic profiles of victims, the typologies of hate crimes most frequently documented, and the profound emotional and psychological repercussions these transgressions inflict upon individuals.

This transition from a generalized overview to a granular analysis offers a more lucid comprehension of the prevailing terrain of hate crimes in the United Kingdom. It illuminates the diversity of victims and occurrences and the formidable obstacles encountered in confronting and mitigating these profoundly impactful crimes.

Within this crucible of analysis, we witness the complexities of addressing hate crimes. These complexities extend beyond legislative frameworks and encompass the arduous task of catalysing attitudinal shifts and fostering community empathy.

The definition of hate crime in England & Wales was agreed in 2007 by the Police Service, Crown Prosecution Service, Prison Service, and other agencies.

Hate crime in England and Wales is defined as ‘any criminal offense which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic:

There are five centrally monitored strands of hate crime:

• race or ethnicity.
• religion or beliefs.
• sexual orientation.
• disability
• transgender identity.

The recent ‘Hate Crime Summary’ report sheds light on the concerning prevalence of hate crimes in the UK, with racial bias being the primary motivating factor, accounting for 45% of reported incidents. Disability-related hate crimes followed closely, comprising 15% of the total cases, underscoring the multifaceted nature of this issue. Notably, the report documents a staggering 1,426% increase in gender identity-motivated incidents, soaring from 18 to 276 cases. Furthermore, there has been a significant 462% increase in reports related to sexual orientation, highlighting the evolving landscape of hate crimes in the country.

The interaction with authorities reflects the urgency and the spectrum of needs among the victims; 60% of the contacts were to report incidents or update ongoing cases. In parallel, 23% sought listening support, advice, or referrals, indicating the critical role of supportive services in the aftermath of hate crimes.

According to the report, racial motivations persist as the predominant driver of hate crimes, with incidents related to disability following as a significant concern. The pronounced rise in gender-motivated incidents by 322% signals an urgent call for attention to this growing issue.

Analysing the types of hate crimes reported reveals verbal abuse at the forefront with 287 incidents, closely followed by threatening behavior in 238 incidents. Harassment, offensive language, and anti-social behavior were also significantly reported, with 209, 132, and 98 cases, respectively. These statistics not only depict the severity of hate crimes in the UK but also emphasize the need for robust response mechanisms to support the victims and address the root causes.

In efforts to gather comprehensive data on instances of hate incidents, the report strives to include a wide range of demographic details such as age, gender, and ethnicity of those affected. This information aids in the nuanced understanding and addressing of hate incidents. However, sometimes, individuals may be hesitant to disclose such personal information, or when a report is made on someone else’s behalf, the informant may lack access to these details. Additionally, there are circumstances where it becomes impractical or insensitive to pursue these questions further, such as when a person is too distressed to communicate effectively or the conversation ends prematurely.

Among individuals who reported experiencing a hate incident and were willing to share personal information, 2% identified as transgender, with the majority identifying as female (61%) and male (36%). Our team endeavors to gather as much demographic information (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) about those affected by hate incidents. However, there are instances where individuals may choose not to disclose such information, or the information might be unavailable if the report is made on someone else’s behalf. In situations where it is either impossible or appropriate to inquire for more details (e.g., the person is too upset or the conversation ends abruptly), no data can be recorded.

Regarding disability, 54% of individuals who disclosed information reported being neurodiverse, with autism accounting for 17% of this group. There was a significant increase in individuals reporting physical/mobility disabilities, rising by 176% (from 13 to 40 individuals).

Concerning ethnicity, 28% of the individuals who disclosed their background described themselves as coming from a white background, with 17% specifying White British. Additionally, 27% identified as having a Black background, 32% as Asian, and 5% as Mixed. Notably, there was a significant rise in reports from individuals identifying with an “Other Black Background,” increasing from 7% to 18%.

Age-wise, the bulk of individuals reporting hate incidents and willing to share their age fell within the 25 to 64 age range (74%), with those between 35 to 54 years old being the most likely to report such incidents (39%).

From a religious perspective, 38% of those disclosing information identified as Christian, and 17% as Muslim. Specifically, for faith or religious hate incidents, a majority identified with Islam (71%) or Christianity (9%).

Concerning living situations, over 75% of those experiencing a hate incident and willing to disclose this information were in some form of rented accommodation, with 36% in local authority housing, 20% in housing association properties, and 17% renting from a private landlord.

In the 2022/23 period, law enforcement agencies documented 145,214 incidents where hate crimes, as identified by central monitoring criteria, were considered a motivating factor. This marks a 5% reduction compared to the statistics from 2021/22. The historical rise in the documentation of hate crimes has been partially linked to improvements in recording practices and an enhanced awareness regarding the importance of reporting such offenses.

Since April 2015, notable increases in hate crimes, particularly those of a racial or religious nature, have been observed during significant events such as the EU referendum, the terrorist attacks in 2017, and the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. Although similar upsurges were seen in the summers before and after these events, the patterns of increase were consistent across both categories of offenses. When looking at data by Police Force Area for 2022/23, the highest incidence rate of hate crimes, considering all types of offenses recorded by the police, was in the West Yorkshire Police Force area, with 441 incidents per 100,000 people. Conversely, Dorset reported the lowest rate, with 103 incidents per 100,000 population.

Individuals who fall victim to hate crimes are significantly more likely to endure emotional and psychological distress than those affected by crimes in general. Specifically, 42% of hate crime victims reported feelings of vulnerability or a loss of confidence, a stark contrast to the 19% among general crime victims. Additionally, nearly 29% of those targeted by hate crimes struggled with sleep disturbances, compared to 13% for all crime victims. Anxiety or panic attacks were reported by 34% of hate crime victims, a figure that more than doubles the 14% reported by victims of other crimes. Moreover, 18% of those subjected to hate crimes faced depression afterward, doubling the rate of 9% seen in victims of all types of crime.

On the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, we reflect on the progress and challenges in our fight against racism. While societies have become more aware and legal frameworks have been established, individuals, communities, and groups continue to suffer from injustices and stigma perpetuated by racist ideologies and practices.

The data on hate crimes in England and Wales serve as a reminder that racism is still deeply entrenched, manifesting in violence, harassment, and marginalization. This day is a call to redouble our efforts, challenge and dismantle prejudices that fuel hate, and amplify the voices of the oppressed and marginalized.

Everyone’s encounter with racism is unique, shaped by their circumstances and intersecting identities.

On this day, we must reaffirm our commitment to creating a welcoming and diverse society where individuals of all ages, races, religions, and backgrounds can live together harmoniously, free from fear of abuse or harm.

By BURAK BATUHAN KARAKUS

Our report ‘Preventing and Combating Violence against Women with Disabilities in the UK, EU and Turkey’ is submitted to PACE. We are proud to submit our report on “Preventing and Combating Violence against Women with Disabilities in the UK, EU and Turkey” to the Committee on Equality and Anti-Discrimination in the PACE and UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls. This comprehensive report aims to shed light on the pressing issue of violence against women with disabilities in different countries.

The report, which has been meticulously compiled through rigorous research and consultation, underscores the urgent need for measures to address and eliminate the violence faced by women with disabilities. It highlights the unique challenges they encounter and provides recommendations to the PACE on policy frameworks, awareness campaigns, and support systems.

We firmly believe that this report will contribute significantly to advancing the dialogue and actions surrounding this critical issue within PACE and beyond.

In the panel held in the British Parliament, crimes of torture and countermeasures involving state officials in Turkey were discussed. On Monday 26th of June 2023, Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws hosted an event in UK Parliament in collaboration with The Arrested Lawyers Initiative and Human Rights Solidarity.

The event covered ‘The Deterrence Potential of Multilateral Sanctions for Human Rights Abuses in Turkey’ to discuss Impunity, torture, and ill-treatment in Turkey in relation to Magnitsky Sanctions from the United Kingdom. Speakers, Kevin Dent KC, Sarah Teich, Natalia Kubesch, and Michael Polak, presented at the event on their work against this issue and encouraged the public to raise awareness on the current political situation in Turkey and the UK’s benefit to help.

Baroness Helena Kennedy

The state of emergency in Turkey marked the beginning of gross human rights violations, including widespread torture facilitated by the adoption of impunity provisions, enforced disappearances and mass detention on an industrial scale. According to official figures, more than 600,000 people have been detained by the police on overly broad terrorism charges, while more than 100,000 have been remanded in custody. Between 2016 and 2021, more than 310,000 people were convicted of membership of an armed terrorist organisation. Since 2016, more than 1,600 lawyers have been detained, and so far, 551 lawyers have been sentenced to 3,356 years in prison on terrorism-related charges, mostly for
membership in terrorist organisations.

In September 2020, The Arrested Lawyers launched the Turkey Human Rights Accountability Project in response to the ongoing rule of law violations and imprisonment of lawyers, activists, journalists and academics on trumped-up charges. Prominent British barristers Kevin Dent KC and Michael Polak, who both attended the event. An extra step was made towards the Canadian Government, authored by Mr Dent and Mr Polak, as well as Ms Sarah Teich.

Significant Quotes:

Baroness Kennedy: “Turkey has been brought in front of the European Court of Human Rights and the court found defiance of rule of law time and again. At this point in time, the Council of Europe is weighing the possibility of taking action against Turkey.”

Michael Polak: “Sanctions work better when multiple countries are involved.”
“We provided the Foreign Ministry a well studied 500 pages long evidence file. Two years passed over our submission and every other month I am sending them an email and asking, did you read it. No response.”

Sarah Teich: “There are things we can learn from the UK and there are things they can learn from Canada. Multilateral learning is as good as multilateral sanctions.”

Kevin Dent KC: “This sense that you cannot sanction a friendly country has to be overcome. When I speak to people who are critical of Turkey’s human rights records, they say it is too complex to have sanctions on nationals of Turkey.”

Natalia Kubesch: “The fact that nationals of friendly countries avoid sanction gives a message of hypocrisy and that some lives matter more than others.”

Sarah Teich, Michael Polak, Kevin Dent QC, Beatrice Travis (London Advocacy, Moderator) Natalia Kubesch

Key Points made in the event:

• The event covered case submissions made to the governments of the UK, US, and Canada, detailing first-hand accounts of torture present in Turkey.

• The UK has a close security and diplomatic relationship with its Turkish counterparts. Turkey is a NATO member, a formal ally of Britain and has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1950. Turkey is also a close trade partner to Britain, with the UK being the second biggest importer of goods from Turkey.

• This context creates significant diplomatic sensitivities, impacting the UK government’s willingness to impose targeted human rights sanctions Turkish officials, in the fear that it could jeopardise future relations. Instead, the UK’s
government’s preference to date has been to raise any concerns pertaining to the human rights situations in Turkey bilaterally, at the ministerial level on an ad hoc basis.

• The case of Turkey demonstrates that even established democracies face the risk of sliding into authoritarianism and instability if they fail to confront emerging abuses and allies to do not hold them to account.

• There is a demand for action from governments who are yet to respond despite it being nearly two years since submissions to the UK and Canada:

• These sanctions are about visa arrangements and asset freezing.

• Sanctions can also provide an important symbolic form of accountability by expressly recognising the harm suffered by victims and calling out perpetrators for their involvement in the abuses: sanctions can convey strong signs of disapproval by condoning, and explicitly demanding changes, to the
targeted individuals’ or entities’ behaviour. Specifically, sanctions enable states to send a statement “that this will not stand”, deterring others from engaging in similar conduct.