The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee report regarding Settlement, Citizenship and Integration
Written by Imogen Simpson
Citizenship and Integration
The report, published on 23 June 2026, followed an inquiry into the governments proposed reforms to the UK’s immigration and settlement system (covered in our previous blog post here). The report delivers critique of the governments ‘Earned Settlement’ proposals, most notably its plan to extend the standard qualifying period of Settlement (also known as Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) or Permanent Residence) from 5 to 10 years, which was included on the Government’s May 2025 White Paper.
Migration Data and Home Office Efficiency
The committee found that we do not have an accurate picture of who is in the UK and how they move through the immigration system due to a lack of data. The official statistics focus primarily on entries to the UK, with little data on employment status, use of public services, and no exit check data in the last six years. The report sets several recommendations for the government to improve, including publishing yearly exit statistics and improving information sharing between the Home Office and other departments/agencies to obtain more accurate data.
The committee has also offered recommendations to improve the efficiency and operations of the Home Office in general, including offering more support to caseworkers and a national recruitment drive to ensure the Home Office are equipped to deal with demand.
Extending the Route to Settlement
The report is not in favour of the government’s proposals to extend the baseline qualifying period for Settlement. It points out that a 10-year path (or even 15-20 years for certain visa routes) to Settlement for would not be as inclusive as similar routes in comparable high-income countries. The report also points out that extending the route to Settlement could even risk increasing poverty and the scope for individuals losing status if they cannot afford to extend their visa – this may actually in turn undermine the government’s goal of integration.
As such, the report suggests the Government keep the 5-year qualifying time for Settlement whilst extending the time it takes to obtain access to public funds in the UK.
Retrospective Application of New Rules
The committee is strongly against applying the proposed changes to Settlement rules to people already on a qualifying route to Settlement. They consider this to be grossly unfair and perhaps may be unlawful towards current migrants, who have moved their lives to the UK based on the current rules.
The report also points out that the UK’s reputation may be severely affected by any decision to apply the proposed changes retrospectively and can make it a less desirable destination for highly skilled migrants to come to the UK in the future.
Earning Settlement and Citizenship
While the committee agrees that settlement and citizenship should still be dependent on meeting minimum requirements such as no criminal convictions, English language proficiency, etc., they have pushed back on the government’s ‘Earned Settlement’ proposal and made several recommendations. In particular, they have suggested that if there will be income thresholds that may reduce the qualifying period to Settlement, that these should be set on the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), and to also take into account household income in the case of those on Dependant visas (amongst other suggestions to make any financial thresholds more flexible).
The committee agrees that whilst work can be a crucial part of integration, the proposed Earned Settlement model risks excluding more vulnerable groups such as migrant women and refugees. The government should explore how to improve employment support for migrant women and refugees, specifically through reintroducing employment schemes.
Learning English is another central pillar of integration; the committee supports the emphasis put on English language skills in the Government’s White Paper and Social Cohesion Strategy particularly the raising of language thresholds. However, they flag that the government must increase English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) course provision for supply to meet demand as the courses are often oversubscribed.
Other recommendations the committee raises of particular interest concern Skilled Worker sponsorship: that sponsorship should be tied to sector instead of employers to reduce risk of the exploitation of workers; and that migrant workers should pay any sponsorship fees back to their original sponsor if they change jobs, prorated over the year.
Settlement and Citizenship
The committee calls for the government to simplify the immigration rules and legislation, particularly when it comes to visa extension applications. The report also makes several suggestions to improve the infamous Life in the UK test (required for many Settlement and British citizenship applications), such as offering official preparation courses and including open-ended questions rather than just multiple choice.
The committee also recommends that profits from above-cost immigration fees be reinvested in the system, and that fees be capped at 150% of cost, with the goal to keep fees for migrants reasonable and remain competitive for attracting highly skilled workers and global talent.
Conclusion
The committee is clearly against the Earned Settlement proposals as set out in the May 2025 White Paper, and also points out an array of issues in the effectiveness of the government when it comes to migration. The government have two months to respond to the report, though we will need to wait and see what happens and how the report may impact the proposals, which still very much remain subject to change.
Please do also contact our experienced team if you have any concerns on how the proposals may impact you and how you may plan ahead.