Campaigners say the Home Office should have published detailed impact assessments when it consulted the public on plans to extend the standard route to settlement.
The UK Government is facing renewed scrutiny over its proposed overhaul of Indefinite Leave to Remain after campaigners accused the Home Office of failing to follow a key lesson from the Windrush scandal as inews reports.
At the centre of the dispute is the timing of official impact assessments. The Work Rights Centre says the public was asked to comment on major settlement reforms without being shown a detailed assessment of how the proposals could affect migrants, families, employers and different racial groups.
The criticism does not mean that people covered by the Windrush Scheme are set to lose their status. The Government’s consultation states that Windrush Scheme settlement grants, people who already hold settled status and the EU Settlement Scheme are outside the planned reforms.
Instead, the argument is about whether the Home Office is applying the safeguards promised after the Windrush scandal exposed serious failures in immigration decision-making.
Standard Settlement Period Could Double
The proposed earned-settlement system would increase the standard qualifying period for settlement from five years to ten years for most migrants. Some people could qualify sooner because of their work, earnings or contribution to public services, while others may face a longer route.
The Government has presented settlement as a status that should be earned rather than obtained almost automatically after a fixed period. It has also proposed conditions relating to work, tax contributions, criminal records and English-language ability.
The consultation has now closed after receiving more than 200,000 responses. Ministers are reviewing that feedback before publishing their final policy.
One of the most sensitive questions is whether the new system should apply to migrants who are already legally living in the UK and working towards settlement under the existing rules. Critics argue that retrospective changes could disrupt financial plans, careers and family decisions made in good faith.
No final decision has yet been announced, and the proposed increase from five to ten years has not been implemented as a general settlement rule.
Windrush Recommendation at the Heart of the Dispute
The Windrush Lessons Learned Review recommended that immigration and nationality policies should undergo rigorous impact assessments. It also said officials should examine whether a proposal could adversely affect racial groups who are lawfully present in the country.
Those recommendations followed the treatment of Commonwealth citizens, many from the Caribbean, whose legal right to live in Britain was not properly recognised. Some people lost access to work and services, while others faced detention or removal.
The Work Rights Centre argues that an impact assessment should have accompanied the earned-settlement consultation. In its view, publishing one only after ministers have considered the responses would be too late to help the public evaluate the proposals properly.
The organisation described the absence of an assessment during the consultation as a serious transparency problem. It said the proposed reforms could affect around two million people who entered the UK legally and have built their lives under the current system.
A previous House of Lords committee report also noted that government guidance generally expects an impact assessment to accompany consultation on measures likely to have a significant effect on businesses, followed by an updated assessment when the final policy is ready.
Labour MPs Prepare to Hear From Affected Groups
The issue is also creating tension within Labour. MPs concerned about the reforms are expected to attend a parliamentary event where they will hear from Windrush survivors and health and care workers.
Campaigners want ministers to consider how a longer settlement route could affect workers who filled essential vacancies, paid visa fees and the immigration health surcharge, and made long-term plans based on the rules in place when they arrived.
Health and care workers are likely to be an important part of the debate. Although the Government has indicated that some frontline public-service workers, including doctors and nurses, could retain a five-year route, the final treatment of other occupations and existing visa holders remains uncertain.
The dispute therefore reaches beyond the length of the qualifying period. It concerns whether the system will provide reasonable notice, protect legitimate expectations and treat people in comparable circumstances consistently.
Home Office Promises Full Assessment
The Home Office says a full impact assessment will be published alongside the reforms. It has also promised to release a summary of the consultation responses together with economic and equality assessments.
Officials say the large volume of feedback must be considered before the final model is confirmed. The department maintains that the reforms will provide a shorter route for people judged to have made the strongest contribution to the UK.
That assurance has not ended the argument. Campaigners say an assessment published with the final policy may explain the Government’s decision, but it cannot give respondents evidence they did not have when completing the consultation.
The next announcement will be closely watched by migrants, employers and Labour MPs. Until the Government publishes its response and changes the Immigration Rules, the ten-year standard remains a proposal rather than a confirmed rule.