Support Our Work

Home / Record / Local & Devolved Government

A5 · A collection in the Settlement Reform Record

Local & Devolved Government

This collection gathers the local and devolved government response to Earned Settlement: English city-region and borough authorities alongside the combined Scottish Government and COSLA submission, for readers tracking how settlement reform lands on councils, care systems and devolved administrations rather than on Whitehall alone.

Introduction

The Local & Devolved Government collection brings together every response to the Earned Settlement proposals submitted by, or on behalf of, sub-national government: a city-region combined authority, English borough and district councils, a multi-agency local migration board, and the devolved Scottish Government together with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA). It sits inside the Settlement Reform Record as the territorial layer of evidence, distinct from the migrant-rights, legal-sector and employer clusters covered elsewhere in the Record.

The organising principle is institutional standing rather than subject overlap alone: every document here was authored or co-authored by a body with statutory local-government or devolved-government functions, responding in that capacity to a UK Government consultation. That shared standing is what lets the collection speak with one voice about a single underlying concern, namely that changes to the settlement (Indefinite Leave to Remain) framework do not stay contained within national immigration policy. They pass through to councils and devolved administrations as new-burdens funding pressure, unfunded statutory duties and integration-policy conflicts, because it is local and devolved government, not the Home Office, that has to house, safeguard and support the same residents once a person already living in a council area is placed under prolonged or uncertain settlement conditions.

Current Status

As of 7 July 2026, no UK Government response to any of the six local and devolved government submissions in this collection has been published, and the Immigration Rules changes trailed for autumn 2026 have not yet been laid before Parliament, leaving councils and the Scottish Government without confirmation of whether their concerns about cost-shunting, NRPF exposure and unfunded new burdens will be reflected in the final settlement reform framework. All six responses, submitted between February and May 2026, remain live evidence of sub-national government's position and are being tracked by SWJA for any Government reply or amended Immigration Rules text.

Sources in this collection

SWJACOR04 Correspondence

Greater Manchester Response on the Earned Settlement Proposal

Greater Manchester's response records regional concern about applying the Earned Settlement framework to people already living and working locally. It frames existing Skilled Worker residents as part of local communities, public services and employer planning, rather than as an abstract future migration category. The response is especially relevant to local integration and workforce resilience because it treats settlement certainty as a condition for retaining people who have already built employment, family and community ties in the region.

Why it matters

This source gives the page an English regional-authority perspective distinct from Scotland. Its value is not in technical legal analysis, but in showing how a city-region authority understood the proposal as a local stability issue: retention, integration and employer confidence can be affected when people already progressing under existing routes are placed under a materially longer or less predictable framework.

View record

SWJAMC071 External Sources & Commentary

Rushmoor Borough Council: Fairer Pathway to Settlement Survey Response

Rushmoor Borough Council's response assesses the consultation from the practical position of a local authority employer and service provider. It identifies the proposed move from five to ten years, possible restrictions on benefits, homelessness duties, administrative complexity, safeguarding responsibilities, English-language access, exemptions for vulnerable groups and negative effects on local workforce planning. It treats settlement reform as an operational question for councils, not only a national immigration-control question.

Why it matters

Rushmoor is the strongest compact local-authority operational source in this layer. It shows how councils would experience Earned Settlement as frontline service and workforce duties, making it a useful bridge between national policy design and the practical duties that fall on local government when residents face prolonged insecurity.

View record

SWJAMC052 External Sources & Commentary

Scottish Government: Response on East Dunbartonshire and Immigration Proposals

The Scottish Government and Scottish local-government materials form a single high-weight devolved response set. Across the correspondence and committee-published written evidence, they argue that the White Paper and Earned Settlement proposals do not sufficiently reflect Scotland's population needs, labour-market conditions, rural and regional public-service pressures, social care dependence and New Scots integration policy. The sources oppose extending ILR from five to ten or more years where this affects people already established in Scotland, and warn that prolonged NRPF, higher requirements and uncertain transition could create hardship for families, care leavers, survivors of abuse and people with health or care needs.

Why it matters

This card gives the record its strongest devolved-government anchor. It shows that concern about retrospective or mid-route change was not only a migrant-rights or employer argument, but also a constitutional and public-service issue: a UK-wide settlement model may affect devolved population strategy, integration duties, local authority support, care-sector resilience and the treatment of people who made long-term plans under existing routes.

Folded sources SWJAMC013 · COSLA: Written Evidence RTS5782, SWJACOR03 · Scottish Government Response on the Earned Settlement Proposal, SWJAMC017 · Scottish Government: Written Evidence RTS4398 are preserved in this record and retained as part of this entry's evidence base.

View record

SWJAMC069 External Sources & Commentary

ADCS and NRPF Network: Earned Settlement Impacts on Councils

Joint local-government and children's services analysis on NRPF, child poverty, homelessness, equality and council cost-shunts.

Why it matters

This is the record's most quantified local-government cost evidence, recording at least £94 million spent by councils in 2024-25 supporting people affected by NRPF-related destitution and homelessness. It matters because it shows the transitional-protection question is not only an individual-fairness issue but a measurable cost-shift onto councils and children's services.

View record

SWJAMC070 External Sources & Commentary

Wandsworth Migration Board: Response to the Earned Settlement Consultation

Multi-agency borough response on transitional protection, refugees, lower-paid essential workers and public-funds penalties.

Why it matters

This is a joint statutory and community-sector letter, giving the record a borough-level voice that combines local government with the organisations that support affected residents directly. It matters because it opposes the full range of proposed route lengths — ten, fifteen or twenty years — from an operational, service-delivery perspective rather than a purely legal or policy one.

View record

SWJAMC072 External Sources & Commentary

Southwark Council: Concerns over Asylum and Earned Settlement Proposals

Child poverty, homelessness, ESOL provision, transitional arrangements and new-burdens funding.

Why it matters

This adds a second London borough perspective alongside Wandsworth, specifically connecting Earned Settlement to child poverty, homelessness and new-burdens funding for councils. It matters because it shows local-authority concern is not limited to one borough or one framing, and because it explicitly asks for no retrospective changes and full funding for any new duties councils would face.

View record

Timeline

  1. ADCS and NRPF Network: Earned Settlement Impacts on Councils
  2. Wandsworth Migration Board: Response to the Earned Settlement Consultation
  3. Greater Manchester Response on the Earned Settlement Proposal
  4. Rushmoor Borough Council: Fairer Pathway to Settlement Survey Response
  5. Southwark Council: Concerns over Asylum and Earned Settlement Proposals
  6. Scottish Government: Response on East Dunbartonshire and Immigration Proposals

Suggested Citation

Skilled Worker Justice Alliance (SWJA) (2026). Local & Devolved Government. Settlement Reform Record. London: Skilled Worker Justice Alliance. Available at: https://swja.uk/settlement-reform-record/local-and-devolved-government/ (Accessed: [insert date accessed]).

Back to the Settlement Reform Record Read the Core Position Contact / Submit Evidence