House of Lords Committee Urges Govt Not to Extend ILR Waiting Period: Separate ILR from public funds

LONDON June 23: A House of Lords committee has delivered a significant challenge to the Government’s proposed reforms to Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), warning that extending the qualifying period for settlement could have damaging social and economic consequences.

The report, published today by the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee, examines the Government’s proposed “Earned Citizenship” framework and sets out a series of recommendations aimed at balancing integration, fairness and economic contribution within the immigration system.

Among its most notable conclusions, the committee argues that the current five-year pathway to ILR should remain in place. Proposals to increase the qualifying period to 10, 15 or even 20 years could leave migrants in prolonged uncertainty, undermine integration, increase poverty and raise the risk of individuals falling into irregular immigration status, the report warns.

Instead of delaying settlement, peers suggest the Government explore separating ILR from access to public funds. Under this model, migrants could obtain settled status after five years while remaining subject to No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) restrictions until they have completed 10 years’ residence or acquired British citizenship.

The committee also strongly opposes any retrospective application of new settlement rules. Applying revised requirements to migrants already in the UK on established routes to settlement would be “manifestly unfair”, the report states, and could damage Britain’s international reputation while discouraging skilled workers from choosing the UK.

On income thresholds, the committee calls for a reassessment of proposals linking faster settlement to earnings levels. It recommends that any such measures be developed with advice from the Migration Advisory Committee rather than being tied directly to tax thresholds. Factors such as fiscal contribution, public finances, regional wage differences and other forms of social contribution should also be considered.

Peers further recommend that dependants be allowed to qualify for settlement at the same time as the principal applicant where household income is sufficient to avoid reliance on state support. Exemptions from minimum income requirements should also be available for vulnerable groups, including those on maternity leave, unpaid carers, and people with long-term illnesses or disabilities.

The report places particular emphasis on children, arguing that those who spend most of their childhood in the UK should normally be granted settled status by the age of 18. It also calls for clearer settlement pathways for children who arrive later in life.

To support integration, the committee recommends expanding English language provision through a national strategy designed to improve access to English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) courses for migrants on the route to settlement.

In a move likely to be welcomed by campaigners, the committee also proposes that immigration application fees should be capped at no more than 150 per cent of the administrative cost of processing applications.

The report highlights what it describes as a serious lack of reliable migration data, which it says hampers effective policymaking. It calls for the urgent publication of exit-check data, improved data sharing across government departments and the creation of a linked administrative data system similar to those used in Scandinavian countries.

The committee additionally recommends an independent review of Home Office operations, covering staffing levels, administrative processes and technology systems.

Perhaps its strongest criticism is reserved for the complexity of the UK’s immigration framework itself. In unusually blunt language, the committee describes the current system as a “farrago” of rules and legislation that is “anathema to good governance”.

“A system that confuses experts in the field is clearly systematically unworkable,” the report states, arguing that excessive complexity contributes to delays, increased costs, poor decision-making and miscarriages of justice.

The Government now has two months to respond to the committee’s findings. Whether ministers will alter the direction of their proposed Earned Citizenship reforms remains to be seen.