Lords committee opposes restrictive ‘earned settlement’ plans and questions Home Office capacity to deliver immigration and asylum reforms

The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee has today published a major new report on settlement, citizenship and integration. It calls for urgent improvements to migration data and warns against extending settlement routes for most migrants.

Yon can download the 122-page report here or read it online here.

A key finding of the report is that there are significant gaps in official migration data, making it difficult both for the Government to formulate immigration policy and for scrutiny bodies to assess the likely impact of government proposals. In an accompanying press release, the Committee says data is "woefully inadequate".

The report states: "The most disturbing revelation of this inquiry is that we do not know which or how many migrants are in the UK. For large numbers of visa entrants we have no data to assure us whether they did in fact leave when they were meant to. This is a historical problem of data collection and includes an absence of departure records for migrants who have arrived or been due to leave the UK between 2021 and 2026, and is ongoing. This is simply not good enough and this data failure should be addressed as a matter of urgency."

The Committee notes that Home Office migration statistics focus primarily on arrivals rather than outcomes after migrants have entered the country. It says evidence is significantly weaker on issues such as employment outcomes and the use of public services, creating major challenges for policymakers.

Significantly, the Committee also urges ministers not to proceed with its 'earned settlement' plans to extend the standard route to settlement from five years to 10 years, arguing that longer qualifying periods risk undermining integration, increasing poverty among lower-income migrants and expanding the unauthorised migrant population. The Committee also warned that applying the changes retrospectively to migrants already on a route to settlement would be "manifestly unfair" and could damage the UK's reputation.

While the Committee was divided on the earned settlement proposals, with a minority supporting the Government's plans, the majority opposed the changes.

The report states: "Extending the qualifying time to ILR risks undermining integration by reducing affected migrants' security of status—this would limit their ability to make long-term employment, family, and housing decisions. … We do not support the Government's proposals to extend the baseline qualifying time for Indefinite Leave to Remain to 10 years, to 15 years for those on work visas below RQF 6, and to 20 years for refugees on the core protection route. The Government should instead explore the option of retaining the 5 year baseline qualifying time for Indefinite Leave to Remain, while separating Indefinite Leave to Remain from access to public funds. Migrants with ILR could remain subject to the No Recourse to Public Funds condition until they have resided in the UK for 10 years and/or obtained British citizenship."

With regards to the Government's plans to apply the earned settlement policy to migrants already in the UK, the report continues: "Any retrospective change would be manifestly unfair—and may be unlawful—towards migrants, who have planned their lives around the current system and made significant long-term decisions, such as career, housing, and family life decisions with the expectation that they would be able to qualify for ILR under the current rules. This is egregious in the case of migrants on the Hong Kong BN(O) visa route, given that previous Government statements had assured BN(O)s that they would have a route to British citizenship without any such requirements. The UK's reputation would be adversely impacted by retrospective action, which will likely make the UK a less attractive destination for highly skilled migrants in the future."

In line with the majority opinion of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, the report concludes that any changes to ILR rules should not apply retrospectively.

The Committee also highlighted that repeated visa renewals and associated costs could worsen hardship for some migrants. It says high immigration application fees and Immigration Health Surcharge charges risk increasing poverty among lower-income migrants and could contribute to some individuals falling out of legal status if they are unable to afford renewal fees.

The report is particularly critical of the proposal for refugees on the core protection route. It states that a 20-year settlement route with reviews of refugee status every two and a half years "risks compromising integration and undermines opportunities for refugees to make long term decisions regarding work, family or other aspects of life".

In chapter 5 of the report, the Committee stresses that its concern is not with the concept of earning settlement, which it describes as a "sensible and internationally implemented approach", but rather with the details of the Government's proposals. It says eligibility for ILR should continue to depend on requirements such as English language proficiency, financial criteria and the absence of criminal convictions. However, it argues that the proposed system should place greater emphasis on positive contribution rather than simply income levels.

It recommends that income thresholds linked to accelerated settlement should be reviewed by the Migration Advisory Committee and based on fiscal contribution and labour market considerations rather than income tax bands.

Calling for greater flexibility in the system, the Committee also argues that migrants holding dependent visas should be able to qualify for settlement at the same time as the main applicant where household income is sufficiently high and the household represents a significant net positive contribution to public finances.

The report's final chapter raises concerns about the Home Office's capacity to manage existing responsibilities and implement further reforms. It notes that on top of other changes proposed to the immigration system, refugees will now face reviews of their status every 30 months. The Committee warns that the additional checks and extension applications created by the new settlement system could significantly increase workloads for a department that is already struggling with backlogs and staff shortages.

It states: "Due to policy decisions by successive governments, the Home Office is struggling to manage the immigration, settlement, and citizenship system as it currently stands. Increasing the volume and complexity of applications—notwithstanding potential modernisation and efficiency improvements—will only exacerbate this issue. … We are not convinced the Home Office will be able to deliver the proposed new system without additional staffing, and regret the lack of availability of a public staffing impact assessment."

The Committee recommends a national recruitment drive for immigration caseworkers, improvements to staff support and retention, and a larger proportion of caseworkers being employed at Higher Executive Officer grade or above.

Additionally, the wide-ranging report makes a series of recommendations aimed at supporting integration. It calls for the reintroduction of refugee employment programmes, improved support for migrant women entering work, and a national strategy to expand English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision, which it says is currently oversubscribed and unevenly available across the country. The Committee further recommends that children who arrive in the UK at a young age and grow up here should usually receive settled status by the age of 18. On citizenship, it argues that British citizenship should be the end goal for most settled migrants and calls for reform of the "unfit for purpose" Life in the UK test, including a greater focus on British values and practical knowledge of life in the UK.

More broadly, the report concludes that successive governments have approached migration policy too reactively, focusing on headlines and short-term pressures rather than long-term planning. It recommends the introduction of a triennial migration plan, jointly owned by the Home Office and Cabinet Office, setting out the principles and priorities that will guide migration, settlement and integration policy.

Lord Foster, Chair of the Committee, commented: "We need a settlement system that promotes integration, and which shows that integration is a two-way street. The Government needs to ensure migrants have the tools and opportunities they need to become part of British society, including opportunities to work and learn English. Migrants need to take those opportunities.

"We also need a government that plans ahead on migration, rather than just reacting to it. We are calling for the Government to develop and publish a migration plan every three years, setting out the principles and priorities guiding the Government's decisions on migration and settlement.

"Settlement, citizenship and integration policy presents complex issues, but they are not impossible. We can and must do better. We look forward to receiving the Government's response to our conclusions and recommendations in this report."