Lords Committee rejects government’s ‘earned’ settlement plans and finds retrospective changes ‘manifestly unfair’

The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee has published a sobering critique of the government’s “earned” settlement proposals, concluding a seven-month review of evidence presented by immigration and labour rights experts including the Work Rights Centre.

In the report published on 23 June, the committee took a firm stance against the retrospective application of these changes to those already on a track to settlement. The committee agreed that because people had made life-changing decisions on the basis of existing Immigration Rules and upended their lives, to have those rules changed would be “manifestly unfair”, and against the spirit of how legislation should be made in this country.

The committee also highlighted how “earned” settlement will harm, rather than encourage integration. This includes making it impossible for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups to ever settle, causing child poverty, and increasing labour exploitation of sponsored workers. At the same time, there is serious doubt that the Home Office could even manage such a system throttled by the many more applications it would require people to submit.

All in all, the committee questioned both the principles behind “earned” settlement and expected outcomes of this policy. The Home Office will now have two months to provide the committee with a formal response. We worry that this response will come too late for scrutiny, and that “earned” settlement could be steamrolled through by PM-hopeful Andy Burnham, who appears to back Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood’s plan.

Retrospectivity is a no-go

The government’s rationale for retrospectivity is simple: cost saving. But the committee effectively treated the merit of this statement as irrelevant – people had made life-changing decisions to relocate on the basis of existing rules. They will have had no way of planning for these changes or time to prepare to meet new requirements. And so retrospectivity would be “manifestly unfair”.

It also referred to the Institute for Government, pointing out that such radical changes in policy at short notice create an uncertain policy environment. The committee concluded that this would damage the UK’s reputation, making the UK “a less attractive destination for highly skilled migrants in the future”.

To top off this line of critique, the report questioned the legality of “earned” settlement. Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mike Tapp, was confident that there were no grounds to challenge the policy. The report contested this, citing the House of Lords Constitution Committee in that “rule of law requires that laws should be prospective, rather than retrospective”, and emphasised experts’ views that the policy is fertile ground for litigation on the basis of “perversities” in the immigration system that it would create.

‘Earned’ settlement would increase child poverty, hinder integration and exacerbate labour exploitation 

In contrast to Shabana Mahmood's assertions, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee found that in many ways "earned" settlement would reduce, not encourage, integration. 

The committee noted that certain groups would find it more difficult to meet a mandatory minimum income requirement, because they are not able to work substantial hours. As a result, they would be unable to settle for a very long time, or ever, leaving them trapped with precarious immigration status. Examples pinpointed by the committee include those on maternity leave, with disabilities and unpaid caring responsibilities, all of whom it said should be on a list of exempted groups.

The report also zoomed in on child poverty. For context, the Home Office application to extend permission to remain normally costs thousands of pounds in fees per person, which can add up to more than £10,000 per family of four. Whereas on the existing five-year route to settlement households would pay these fees no more than once or twice, on a 10, 15 or 20-year route, they would need to extend their permission to remain many times. This would put incredible financial strain on households, who have no recourse to public funds until they settle, and is expected to push many into poverty. The committee found that the policy “will have a significant impact on children, likely delaying settlement for many, with associated negative outcomes such as poverty”.

The report also cited evidence that migrant children would struggle to access higher education, being classed as overseas students and having to pay double tuition fees. And without a secure immigration status, their parents will face “increased mortgage rates and deposits and larger rental advances” putting the entire family at higher risk of homelessness. Citing Barry O’Leary, partner at Wesley Gryk, the committee found that having more children in the UK who are not UK citizens because of this policy “is not a very integratory goal.”

Finally, for sponsored migrant workers, who along with their dependents comprise a majority share of people expected to be affected, “earned” settlement could spell exploitation, rather than integration. The committee reflected on the Public Accounts Committee’s report on the Skilled Worker regime, noting that the Home Office had created a work migration system that enables labour exploitation by design, and its response to the issue had been insufficient. Tying people’s immigration status to an employer for 10 or even 15 years would raise exploitation risks further. We’re pleased to see that the committee cited our evidence submission in calling for a decoupling of visa sponsorship from employment.

No impact assessment to date spells trouble

The committee stated it was “unhelpful that a full impact assessment was not published during the consultation process for the Government’s earned settlement proposals,” making it difficult to assess both policy trade-offs and its fiscal impact.

This raises alarm bells. When the Home Office rushed to launch the Health and Care Worker visa route, mass exploitation in the care sector was the result. And when it clamped down on the Skilled Worker visas last year, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee decried it as “a sub-optimal way to make policy”. With “earned” settlement, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee foresees not just adverse human impact, but also governance failures.

The committee also said that introducing “earned” settlement will make an already complex immigration system even more difficult to navigate, echoing former ILPA Director, Zoe Bantleman. The Home Office will receive not only a greater volume of applications, but a more complex workload, as people would need to extend their permission to remain more times (over a longer period) to qualify for settlement. 

Taking the impact of these two things together, the committee struggled to see how the Home Office will cope under “earned” settlement rules, when it is “struggling to manage the immigration, settlement, and citizenship system as it currently stands”. Suddenly improving the recruitment and retention of caseworkers to handle is easier said than done – “morale amongst caseworkers is [currently] low, and adding whole swathes of repeat checks alongside spending review staff reductions will further exacerbate the situation.”

The government must provide answers

Once again, the issue of poor immigration policymaking comes front and centre. Mike Tapp expects to “introduce major reforms in the autumn”, but fundamental questions about the impact and feasibility of the proposals, raised by the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, remain unaddressed. 

The committee reported it is “concerned that [the government] has not fully thought through the policy, or it has sought such evidence and is not divulging the results of its investigations, which would be contrary to good practice”. Citing our evidence submission, the committee then called on the government to “publish an impact assessment when the decision on the earned settlement policy is made but before implementation”.

This is vital, but we worry the government will not heed this recommendation. When the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on “earned” settlement, a response was due on 13 May 2026. The Home Office is yet to provide one. A response to this report is due by 23 August, so we hope that Parliamentarians will press ministers for a response, and push for an impact assessment to ensure that the public can scrutinise this major reform.