The UK Government has been urged not to extend the standard qualifying period for permanent settlement from five years to 10 years, following a major House of Lords report on migration, citizenship and integration.
Published on 23 June 2026, the report by the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee raises serious concerns about the Government’s proposed “earned settlement” system. It also criticises major gaps in official migration data, the complexity of immigration law and the Home Office’s ability to manage further reforms.
The Committee’s central argument is that settlement policy should promote long-term integration rather than leave migrants in an extended period of uncertainty.
Key Findings at a Glance
| Issue | Committee’s position |
| Standard settlement route | Retain the five-year baseline rather than extending it to 10 years |
| Retrospective rule changes | Changes should not affect migrants already on a settlement route |
| Refugee settlement | A proposed 20-year route could seriously damage integration |
| Migration data | Official data is inadequate, particularly on departures and migrant outcomes |
| Immigration fees | High renewal fees and health charges may increase poverty and irregular status |
| Public funds | ILR could remain available after five years, while access to public funds remains restricted for longer |
| Home Office capacity | More staff and better caseworker retention are needed |
| Citizenship | British citizenship should normally be the final goal for settled migrants |
| Integration | Greater investment is needed in English-language and employment support |
| Long-term policy | The Government should publish a national migration plan every three years |
Serious Gaps in UK Migration Data
One of the report’s strongest criticisms concerns the quality of official migration information.
The Committee says the UK does not have sufficiently reliable data showing how many visa holders remain in the country, how many have left and what happens to migrants after they arrive.
Home Office statistics are largely focused on visas, arrivals, asylum claims, settlement grants and citizenship applications. However, the evidence is much weaker when it comes to employment, earnings, use of public services and compliance with visa conditions.
Exit-check statistics, which linked visa expiry dates with departure records, have not been published since 2020. This has left a major gap in the Government’s understanding of whether people whose visas have expired have departed from the UK.
Although earlier data suggested that most visa holders left before their permission expired, the Home Office could not determine the location or immigration status of a significant minority.
The Committee described the lack of reliable departure information as one of the most concerning findings of its inquiry and called for exit-check statistics to be published urgently.
It warned that without accurate data, ministers cannot produce reliable impact assessments and parliamentary bodies cannot properly assess the likely consequences of immigration reforms.
Committee Opposes Extending the Standard ILR Route
Under the current system, many workers and family migrants can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain after five years in the UK.
ILR provides a more secure immigration status and normally removes the need for further visa renewals. It also allows access to benefits, removes the Immigration Health Surcharge and gives migrants greater freedom in employment and education.
The Government’s proposed earned settlement system would increase the standard qualifying period from five years to 10 years. Some migrants could face even longer routes, including:
- Up to 15 years for workers in jobs below RQF Level 6
- Up to 20 years for refugees on the core protection route
- Reduced qualifying periods for people who meet specified contribution requirements
The majority of the Committee opposed these proposals.
It argued that extending the settlement period could weaken integration by preventing migrants from making secure decisions about employment, housing and family life.
Longer routes would also require more visa renewals. This would expose migrants to additional application fees and Immigration Health Surcharge payments, potentially creating severe financial pressure for lower-income households.
The Committee warned that some people could lose their legal status simply because they were unable to afford repeated renewal costs.
Alternative Proposal: Separate ILR From Access to Benefits
Rather than doubling the standard settlement period, the Committee suggested that the Government should consider separating immigration security from access to public funds.
Under this approach, eligible migrants could still receive ILR after five years. However, the No Recourse to Public Funds condition could remain in place until they had lived in the UK for 10 years or obtained British citizenship.
This would give migrants greater security and remove the need for repeated visa renewals while allowing the Government to maintain restrictions on access to welfare support.
The Committee believes this option deserves further consideration as a compromise between encouraging integration and limiting public expenditure.
Retrospective Changes Described as Unfair
The report strongly opposes applying longer settlement routes to migrants who are already living in the UK under the current rules.
Many migrants have made major decisions about careers, housing and family life based on the expectation that they would qualify for ILR under the rules that applied when they entered their route.
Changing those conditions retrospectively would, according to the Committee, be unfair and potentially unlawful.
The report gives particular attention to people on the Hong Kong British National Overseas route. Previous government statements indicated that BN(O) visa holders would have a pathway to British citizenship. Introducing additional requirements after they had already moved to the UK could undermine trust in government commitments.
The Committee also warned that retrospective changes could damage the UK’s international reputation and make the country less attractive to highly skilled workers.
Its recommendation is clear: any future changes to ILR qualifying periods should apply only to new applicants and not to people who are already progressing towards settlement.
Concerns Over a 20-Year Route for Refugees
The Committee is especially critical of proposals affecting refugees on the core protection route.
Under the Government’s plans, some refugees could face a 20-year pathway to settlement, with their protection status reviewed every 30 months.
The report warns that this level of uncertainty could prevent refugees from making long-term decisions about work, education, housing and family life.
People granted refugee protection have often fled persecution or serious danger. The Committee argues that repeatedly reviewing their status over two decades could undermine their ability to rebuild their lives and integrate into British society.
It also questions whether the Home Office has sufficient staff and resources to conduct the additional reviews.
Support for the Principle of Earned Settlement
Despite its opposition to the proposed qualifying periods, the Committee does not reject the principle of earned settlement.
It describes the idea of linking settlement to integration and contribution as a reasonable approach that is already used internationally.
The report supports continuing requirements relating to:
- English-language ability
- Financial independence
- Compliance with immigration rules
- Absence of serious criminal convictions
- Demonstrable contribution to the UK
However, it argues that the system should recognise positive contribution more broadly instead of relying heavily on salary or income-tax thresholds.
A migrant’s contribution may include work in an important but lower-paid occupation, caring responsibilities, community participation or other forms of social and economic value.
The Committee recommends that the Migration Advisory Committee review any income thresholds used for accelerated settlement. These thresholds should reflect labour-market needs and overall fiscal contribution rather than being based mainly on income-tax bands.
Dependent Visa Holders Should Not Be Left Behind
The report also raises concerns about how earned settlement rules could affect dependants.
Under some proposals, the main visa holder might qualify for settlement before their partner or other adult dependants.
The Committee argues that dependants should be allowed to settle at the same time as the main applicant when the household has a sufficiently high income and makes a significant net contribution to public finances.
This would prevent families from being separated into different immigration categories and would recognise the household’s contribution as a whole.
Immigration Rules Are Too Complex
Another major criticism is the growing complexity of the UK immigration system.
The Committee says the combination of immigration legislation, policy guidance and detailed Immigration Rules has become difficult even for experienced legal professionals to navigate.
This complexity can lead to:
- Delayed decisions
- Higher legal and administrative costs
- Inconsistent casework
- Incorrect refusals
- Increased appeals
- Potential miscarriages of justice
The report calls on the Government to urgently simplify immigration law and fully implement recommendations from the Windrush Lessons Learned Review.
It also supports expanding the Law Commission’s work on simplifying the Immigration Rules.
The Committee warns that introducing a complicated earned settlement system could add further layers to a structure that is already difficult to administer.
Doubts About Home Office Capacity
The Home Office is already managing application backlogs, staff shortages and several major immigration reforms.
The Committee fears that longer settlement routes, more frequent refugee reviews and additional contribution assessments would significantly increase the department’s workload.
It is not convinced that the new system could be delivered effectively without more employees.
The report recommends:
- A national recruitment campaign for immigration caseworkers
- Better support and career development for existing employees
- Improved staff retention
- More caseworkers employed at Higher Executive Officer level or above
- Publication of a detailed staffing impact assessment
The Committee was also disappointed by what it described as limited Home Office engagement with its inquiry. Despite repeated requests, the department did not provide full written evidence, and the Home Secretary did not appear before the Committee.
More Support Needed for Integration
The report argues that integration is a shared responsibility.
Migrants should be expected to learn English, work where possible, follow the law and participate in British society. In return, the Government should ensure that people have realistic access to the tools needed to integrate successfully.
The Committee recommends:
- Reintroducing refugee employment programmes
- Improving employment support for migrant women
- Expanding English for Speakers of Other Languages courses
- Creating a national ESOL strategy
- Improving access to language classes across the country
- Supporting children who grow up in the UK to receive settled status by adulthood
Current English-language provision is described as oversubscribed and inconsistent, with access varying significantly between different parts of the country.
Citizenship Should Be the Final Goal
The Committee believes British citizenship should normally be the end goal for migrants who settle permanently in the UK.
Citizenship provides important rights that ILR does not always guarantee, including the unrestricted right to remain outside the UK, access to a British passport and the ability to vote in all national elections.
However, the report argues that the current Life in the UK test is not fit for purpose.
It recommends replacing or reforming the test so that it focuses more closely on practical knowledge, civic responsibilities and the values associated with life in modern Britain.
A Three-Year National Migration Plan
The report concludes that successive governments have treated migration policy too reactively.
Decisions have often been driven by short-term political pressure, changing headlines and individual crises rather than a consistent long-term strategy.
To address this, the Committee recommends a migration plan published every three years and jointly managed by the Home Office and Cabinet Office.
The plan would set out the Government’s principles and priorities for:
- Immigration
- Settlement
- Citizenship
- Integration
- Workforce planning
- Public-service capacity
- Local community cohesion
This approach, the Committee argues, would improve coordination across government and give Parliament, employers, migrants and the public a clearer understanding of future policy.
What Happens Next?
The report does not automatically change the UK Immigration Rules. This means that its recommendations will now require a formal response from the Government, which will decide whether to accept, reject or modify them.
The debate over earned settlement is therefore likely to continue, particularly around the proposed 10-year baseline, the treatment of existing visa holders and the future settlement route for refugees.
The Committee’s message is that settlement should not be viewed only as an immigration control mechanism. It is also a central part of integration, economic participation and social stability.
Any successful reform will need to balance border control and public confidence with fairness, administrative capacity and the need to help long-term residents become secure members of British society.