On 23 of June 2026, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee published a comprehensive 122-page report, concluding its inquiry into settlement, citizenship, and integration. University of Sheffield Migration Research Group (MRG) Members Dr Jonathan Collinson (School of Law) and Dr Aneta Piekut (School of Education) submitted evidence to the inquiry and reflect on the report.
Since the Brexit referendum - the ten-year anniversary of which is this week - the question of immigration has not really left public debate. Paradoxically, the committee heard that leaving the European Union undermined British state capacity to 'control immigration' in some aspects (see discussion in this oral evidence Q12), and many underlying issues remain.
The central question that we will reflect on is whether the report offers a step forward in rethinking migration policy in the UK. Is your settlement or citizenship something you earn? You earn money as a worker, you earn respect as a person of integrity, you earn interests from your investment.
The framing of 'earned settlement' employed in the government White Paper on immigration policy is redolent with the concept of deservingness; that as a migrant you are constantly judged if you are doing enough to be treated well. The committee's inquiry was launched as a direct response to the government's proposals and concludes that they are unfair and risks undermining integration.
Responding to the Inquiry
The committee's call for evidence received over 600 responses, exceeding a typical volume of evidence normally received for such calls. Publicly published evidence was received orally (11 pieces, transcripts are here) and in written form (101 pieces which can be read here) from people working in professional capacity with migrants.
Over 500 individuals with lived experience of migration and settlement responded, reflecting the perspectives of those whose lives the inquiry is about. The summary of the confidential evidence submitted by individual people (pages 99-111) shows their deep concerns about the introduction of 'earn settlement': more financial strain and impossibility to meet the financial thresholds, increased insecurity and vulnerability as workers, potentially leading to exploitation at work, inability to plan for the future of own family and children. People also note disparities across visa pathways, and the risks of evaluating skills levels using the SOC (Standard Occupation Codes).
No retrospective action, no future vision
The committee's report points to many limitations of the reform of immigration system. It also concludes that "Any retrospective change would be manifestly unfair". Aside from its unfairness on those already in the UK, the committee highlighted the likely negative impact on retaining highly skilled migration - a framing which reproduces the favoured narrative viewing migrants as commodified 'good labour'.
The report offers a broader take on the question of immigration and lives of people who moved to the UK, which was narrowly approached in the parallel inquiry of the Home Affairs Committee. It importantly identifies that questions of settlement cannot be considered in isolation from questions about entry, citizenship, and removal. It also correctly identifies how many of the problems of the UK's immigration system arise from it being a patchwork of different legal provisions, many of which are impenetrable and subject to frequent change.
However, the report's conclusions fall into the same pitfalls because the report fails to articulate a coherent vision of what it thinks that settlement is - or should be - for. Without such a vision, the report can only make incremental recommendations to ameliorate the harshest elements of the government's earned settlement proposals.
The structural causes
The report acknowledges 'repeated' academic evidence that integration is more than individual choice and cannot be reduced to migrants' efforts and cites Dr Piekut's evidence that integration is a bidirectional effort by both individuals and the state. The committee are correct to argue that integration involves the whole society and to look at underlying structural inequalities which inhibit integration. Yet racism is named only one time (page 100) in the section summarising confidential individual evidence.
The report overall concludes that the government should abandon its plans to make people wait longer for settlement, but withdraw access to welfare benefits from people who are settled but not British citizens. This would worsen existing impacts of 'no recourse to public funds' - usually reserved for those with temporary immigration statuses - and which is a key factor in creating child poverty and enabling domestic abuse and violence. It relies on unspoken assumptions about who the committee think of as deserving and undeserving. In contrast, Dr Collinson's evidence to the committee made the case that settlement as a status distinct from citizenship is important because settled status reflects the integration of the individual in Britain, and that support in case of ill health, disability, unemployment and other situations is one of the key reciprocal aspects of the social contract that the state owes to those it demands integrate.
The committee's secondary recommendations to soften the impacts of the government's earned settlement on women, children, and vulnerable migrants fail to acknowledge that the injustices embedded in the earned settlement proposals are structural and inherent to the foundational premise that the only value that migrants have, and the only contribution that they make, are economic and fiscal.
Because the report fails to reflect on the structural causes of the injustices that concern the committee it means that its recommendations for case-specific carve-outs and exceptions are destined to fail. Whilst on the one hand recommending progress on the Windrush review's recommendation to simplify the immigration rules, the committee's recommendations often resort to measures which would further complicate the proposed earned settlement rules. Furthermore, existing experience of fee waivers is that they are too complex and onerous on applicants, and poorly managed by the Home Office.
The widening gap
Migrants living in the UK have seen their 'earnt settlement' expectations increase over the years, while the capacity to meet them has shrunk due to structural constraints. The committee's report is yet more evidence that a major change of the system is needed which, due to its complexity, cannot function effectively and further marginalises people who are already part of society.