House of Lords Committee Opposes ‘Earned Settlement’ Plans and Questions Home Office Capacity
The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee has today published a wide-ranging and significant report on settlement, citizenship and integration, and its findings present a direct challenge to several of the Government’s current immigration reform proposals. The 122-page report calls for urgent improvements to migration data and warns against extending settlement routes for most migrants.
A Fundamental Data Crisis
Perhaps the most alarming finding of the report is not about policy at all, it is about the basic information the Government holds on migration. The Committee found that the UK does not know which, or how many, migrants are currently in the country.
Departure records are missing for large numbers of visa holders who arrived or were due to leave the UK between 2021 and 2026. The Committee describes this as a historical problem of data collection that remains ongoing. Official migration statistics, it notes, focus primarily on arrivals rather than outcomes — leaving significant gaps in evidence on employment, public service use, and integration.
The Committee’s accompanying press release describes the data as “woefully inadequate” and calls for this to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Without reliable data, it argues, neither the Government nor scrutiny bodies can properly assess the impact of immigration policy proposals.
Opposition to ‘Earned Settlement’ Proposals
The Government has proposed extending the standard qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) from five years to ten years, with even longer routes for certain categories: up to 15 years for workers below RQF level 6, and 20 years for refugees on the core protection route. The majority of the Committee has formally opposed these plans.
The report warns that longer qualifying periods risk:
- Undermining integration by reducing migrants’ security of status and limiting their ability to make long-term decisions about employment, housing, and family life.
- Increasing poverty among lower-income migrants, particularly through the compounding effect of repeated visa renewal costs and Immigration Health Surcharge charges.
- Expanding the unauthorised migrant population, as some individuals may fall out of legal status if unable to afford renewal fees.
The report is particularly critical of the proposed 20-year settlement route for refugees, combined with refugee status reviews every two and a half years. The Committee says this approach risks compromising integration and undermines refugees’ ability to make long-term decisions about their lives.
Retrospective Application: ‘Manifestly Unfair’
A central concern raised by the Committee is the Government’s intention to apply the new earned settlement rules retrospectively, that is, to migrants who are already partway through the current five-year route. The report describes this as manifestly unfair and potentially unlawful.
The Committee notes that these migrants have planned significant life decisions, careers, housing, family arrangements, on the basis of the existing rules. Changing the goalposts now would cause serious disruption to people who have acted in good faith.
The report highlights this concern particularly acutely for those on the Hong Kong BN(O) visa route, who were given express assurances by previous governments that they would have a route to British citizenship without such requirements. The Committee warns that retrospective action would damage the UK’s reputation and make it a less attractive destination for highly skilled migrants.
What the Committee Recommends Instead
The Committee is not opposed to the concept of earned settlement; it describes this as a sensible and internationally recognised approach. Its concern is with the specific details of the Government’s proposals. Its key recommendations include:
- Retain the 5-year baseline qualifying period for ILR, while separating ILR from access to public funds. Migrants with ILR could remain subject to the No Recourse to Public Funds condition for up to 10 years or until they obtain British citizenship.
- No retrospective changes, any reforms to ILR rules should apply only to those who enter the system after the new rules take effect.
- Reform eligibility criteria to reward positive contribution rather than focusing solely on income levels. The Migration Advisory Committee should review income thresholds based on fiscal contribution and labour market considerations.
- Allow dependants to qualify for ILR alongside the main applicant where household income and net contribution to public finances meet the threshold.
- Actively support integration: reintroduce refugee employment programmes, expand English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision, currently described as oversubscribed and unevenly distributed, and improve support for migrant women entering work.
- Ensure children who grow up in the UK receive settled status by the age of 18.
- Reform the Life in the UK test, which the Committee describes as unfit for purpose, with greater focus on British values and practical knowledge of life in the UK.
- Introduce a triennial migration plan, jointly owned by the Home Office and Cabinet Office, to move away from reactive, headline-driven policymaking.
Concerns About Home Office Capacity
The report’s final chapter raises serious questions about whether the Home Office is in a position to deliver any of this. The Committee notes that the department is already struggling with backlogs and staff shortages, and warns that the additional checks and extension applications created by the proposed new settlement system would significantly increase workloads.
The Committee calls for a national recruitment drive for immigration caseworkers, improvements to staff support and retention, and a larger proportion of caseworkers employed at Higher Executive Officer grade or above. It also expresses regret that no public staffing impact assessment has been made available.
What This Means in Practice
For those on existing settlement routes, the Committee’s opposition to retrospective changes will be welcome, though it remains to be seen whether the Government will heed this advice. For practitioners, the report is a useful resource: it sets out clearly the potential legal and human consequences of the proposed reforms, and provides detailed evidence that can be drawn upon in representations and submissions.
We will continue to monitor developments and update clients as the Government’s response becomes known.
