APPGs warn immigration policies and proposals, including longer settlement routes, risk increasing hardship for migrants and refugees

A new report by the All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) on Migration and on Poverty and Inequality has warned that the Government's proposed immigration and asylum reforms risk increasing poverty while undermining wider ambitions to strengthen social cohesion.

The 44-page report, The Effects of Recent Changes to Immigration, Asylum and Refugee Policy on Poverty and Inequality, can be downloaded here.

It finds that government policies and plans, including reducing the length of refugee protection and introducing a new earned settlement framework, could deepen financial hardship for many migrants and refugees. It also questions the evidential basis for the Home Office's estimate that the reforms will generate £10 billion in fiscal savings, calling on the Government to publish the analysis underpinning the figure before the measures are implemented.

The inquiry builds on a 2024 report by the same APPGs, which found that migrants face disproportionately high levels of poverty and deprivation. Since then, the Government has announced significant changes to immigration and asylum policy alongside wider commitments to reduce child poverty, end homelessness and strengthen social cohesion. The APPGs latest inquiry examined whether the proposed reforms support or undermine those objectives.

Drawing on 41 written submissions from charities, researchers, legal practitioners, local authorities and service providers, together with oral evidence from organisations and people directly affected by the proposals, the inquiry concludes that many of the changes are likely to intensify existing pressures rather than address them.

The report notes that a central theme across the evidence received in the inquiry was that integration cannot be meaningfully pursued from a position of profound insecurity.

It identifies several proposals as particularly significant, including extending the standard route to settlement from five to ten years, expanding No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) conditions, reducing refugee protection from five years to 30 months under a new "Core Protection" model, increasing English language requirements, and maintaining high immigration and nationality fees.

Although the Government's proposed 'earned settlement' route is ten years, the report highlights that many migrants would in practice face pathways lasting 15 years or longer, with refugees on the Core Protection route potentially waiting around 20 years before becoming eligible for permanent settlement. The report recommends retaining the existing baseline of 5 years and says prolonged temporary status would extend financial insecurity by increasing visa costs and delaying access to settled status.

The APPGs note that their recommendations are reinforced by recent conclusions reached by the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee. A report by the Committee recommended retaining the current five-year route to Indefinite Leave to Remain, rather than extending qualifying periods to 10, 15 or 20 years, while separating settlement from access to public funds. The APPGs endorse this and also support the Lords committee's recommendation that any changes to settlement rules should not apply retrospectively to people already on a qualifying route. The APPGs adds that both the Lords committee and the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee independently called for greater scrutiny of the reforms, including assessments of their impact on child poverty and integration, which it says demonstrates "a broad measure of parliamentary concern" about the proposals.

The APPGs inquiry also raised concerns about the proposals to link settlement more closely to earnings, English language proficiency and other measures of contribution. According to the report, this risks disadvantaging lower-paid workers, women, unpaid carers, disabled people and survivors of trauma, while placing particular pressure on sectors such as social care and healthcare that already face recruitment challenges.

The report notes: "This inequality is further compounded by the accelerated settlement routes proposed for high earners. An individual earning £125,140 or more could qualify for settlement after just three years, while a care worker providing essential support to elderly or disabled people, or a healthcare assistant working night shifts in an NHS ward, would face a ten-year pathway, even though their contribution to the health, wellbeing, and functioning of communities is no less real or significant."

Witnesses expressed further concern that extending NRPF restrictions could discourage families from claiming benefits to which they are legally entitled. The report says some parents are already avoiding support because they fear it could delay future settlement.

In evidence presented by Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ) to the inquiry, one person is quoted as saying: "My child is being made to live in uncertainty for 20 years because our family needed help to survive. This policy is harming their education, mental health, and confidence. Children should not be punished for poverty or for decisions they did not make."

The APPGs also question whether the reforms will deliver the projected fiscal savings. Witnesses highlighted uncertainty over the assumptions behind the Government's estimate of £10 billion in savings and argued that any reductions in Home Office spending could simply shift costs elsewhere across the public sector.

In concluding, the report states: "As in 2024, the APPGs remain concerned that policies which increase poverty, destitution, homelessness or insecurity may ultimately generate wider social and economic costs while making it more difficult for people to integrate, contribute and participate fully in society. The evidence received by this inquiry suggests that immigration policy cannot be divorced from broader objectives relating to poverty reduction, public service delivery, economic participation, community cohesion and social inclusion."

Among its recommendations, the APPGs calls on ministers to remove the proposed retrospective application of earned settlement reforms to people already on an existing route to settlement, reconsider extending the standard pathway beyond five years, publish the evidence supporting the projected fiscal savings, reduce immigration fees for lower-income households, and ensure that NRPF conditions are strictly time-limited.

Stressing that the APPGs believe immigration policy is most effective when it operates to promote stability and integration, and is aligned with broader efforts to reduce poverty, the report calls on the Government to carefully consider the recommendations and the evidence presented in the inquiry.

Baroness Ruth Lister, Co-Chair of the APPG on Poverty and Officer of the APPG on Migration, said: "This report demonstrates the myriad ways in which the asylum and migration reforms in the process of being introduced will undermine the government's child poverty, homelessness and social integration strategies. We call on the government to pause these reforms to allow the new leadership time to consider their implications for these strategies which are crucial to building a fairer society."

Olivia Blake MP, Co-Chair of the APPG on Migration, commented: "This report is a timely reminder that immigration policy cannot be considered in isolation from its impact on poverty, homelessness and children's life chances. We all want an immigration system that works, but reforms must not leave families in deeper hardship or undermine the Government's wider ambitions to reduce child poverty and strengthen social cohesion. I hope ministers will carefully consider these evidence-based recommendations and ensure that compassion and fairness remain at the heart of our immigration system."