Lords Committee rejects government’s plan to extend UK settlement to 10 years
Key Points
- Lords committee rejects extending ILR qualifying time to 10 years
- Also opposes 15 years for lower-skilled workers and 20 years for refugees
- Committee split: minority backed the plan, majority opposed
- Says 10-year route would make UK an international outlier
- Warns change risks higher poverty and a larger unauthorised population
- Recommends keeping 5-year baseline but separating ILR from public funds
A House of Lords committee has rejected the government’s plan to extend the standard route to settlement to ten years, warning that the change would undermine integration and risk pushing low-income migrants into poverty.
In its report published on Tuesday (23 June), the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee said it did not support proposals to extend the baseline qualifying time for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) from five to ten years, to 15 years for those on work visas below degree level, or to 20 years for refugees on the core protection route.
The committee was notably divided on the question. A minority of members supported the government’s approach, arguing it would retain appropriate incentives and disincentives for migrants and limit the fiscal impact of migration and asylum.
The majority disagreed, concluding that alternatives should be explored.
A baseline ten-year path to ILR for migrants on work and family visas would be more restrictive than equivalent routes in comparable high-income countries, the committee found, with paths exceeding ten years far less common internationally. It said the change would make the UK an outlier.
The report warned that extending the qualifying period risks undermining integration by reducing migrants’ security of status, limiting their ability to make long-term decisions on employment, family and housing.
It added that the high cost of immigration application fees and the Immigration Health Surcharge risks increasing poverty among low-income migrants.
In some cases, the committee said, those unable to afford to renew their status may fall out of legal status, increasing the size of the unauthorised migrant population if they do not leave the country.
On the proposed 20-year settlement route for refugees, which would involve reviews of refugee status every two and a half years, the committee said the plan risked compromising integration and undermining refugees’ ability to make long-term decisions about work and family life.
Rather than extending timelines, the committee recommended that the Government explore retaining the five-year baseline qualifying period while separating ILR from access to public funds.
Under its proposal, migrants granted ILR could remain subject to the No Recourse to Public Funds condition until they had lived in the UK for ten years or obtained British citizenship.
The committee stressed that it was not opposed to the principle of earned settlement, which it described as a sensible and internationally implemented approach, but said its concerns lay with the details of the government’s proposals.
