Home Affairs Committee: ILR Earned Settlement Reforms Not Ready for April — Delay Until They're Right

The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee published its report on the Government's proposed earned settlement reforms on 13 March 2026. The report — 87 pages, drawing on over 5,700 written submissions — is the most detailed parliamentary scrutiny yet of the plans to extend the standard qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) from five to ten years, with some migrants facing routes of fifteen or even thirty years.

The committee's overall verdict is cautious: it broadly accepts the Government's aim of reducing the fiscal impact of recent high migration levels, but finds the proposals as they stand are "unclear and under-developed" in key areas, carry serious risks of unintended consequences, and concludes that the Home Office is simply not ready to implement changes of this scale from April 2026.

What the committee found

The committee's central finding is that the Government declared April 2026 as the implementation start date before the policy was ready, causing "unnecessary distress" among migrants who are close to qualifying for settlement under the current rules. It calls for a "clear and realistic" implementation timeline to be published, and warns that the reforms must not be rushed at the expense of getting them right. The Government is expected to settle between 1.3 million and 2.2 million people between 2026 and 2030, with the Home Office projecting a peak of 359,000 to 620,000 settlements in 2028 alone — and it is this trajectory, not any individual abuse, that is the stated driver of the reforms.

Income thresholds and settlement calculation

The Government has proposed allowing shorter routes to settlement for higher earners, with the reduction thresholds aligned to current income tax bands (£50,270 and £125,140). The committee finds this approach lacks justification: the Home Office has not explained why tax thresholds are the right basis for determining settlement eligibility, and the current alignment is described as "convenient, but not yet justified." It recommends the Migration Advisory Committee be commissioned to advise on appropriate thresholds.

A further concern is that the proposals would assess income at an individual rather than household level. This could produce what the committee describes as "perverse outcomes" — two colleagues on identical salaries could end up on different settlement routes depending on how much their partner earns. The committee recommends household-level income assessment to reflect how families actually make financial decisions, while acknowledging this introduces its own complexities.

Medium-skilled workers and the 15-year route

The most contentious proposal is the potential 15-year settlement route for workers classified at RQF levels 3–5 — broadly, those in roles below degree level. This group includes many former Health and Care Worker visa holders, but also chefs, welders, prison officers, and a wide range of administrative and business roles.

The committee's view is that using RQF skill classification as a proxy for income is "odd and unnecessary." If the Government's concern is the fiscal impact of lower-earning migrants settling, it should assess income directly rather than through an occupational classification system that does not reliably reflect earnings. A high-earning chef, for example, could end up on a longer settlement route than a lower-earning graduate simply because of the SOC code attached to their role.

Care workers: an "extremely difficult choice"

The committee gives particular attention to adult social care workers, who form a large portion of those who would face extended settlement routes. It describes the situation starkly as an "extremely difficult choice" for the Government:

• If it allows care workers to settle on the current five-year route, hundreds of thousands will gain access to public funds in the coming years, which the Government estimates will cost the taxpayer approximately £10 billion over their lifetimes.
• If it imposes a 15-year route, the committee predicts two likely outcomes: workers leave the UK and return to their countries of origin (deepening the social care staffing crisis) or they remain in the UK on prolonged temporary status, at heightened risk of poverty and exploitation due to their dependence on employer sponsorship for fifteen years.

The committee is critical of the Government's failure to assess the interaction between the settlement reforms and its wider strategy for adult social care. It notes that the Government is already dealing with the consequences of what it calls "fundamental failures" in the expansion of the care worker visa route in 2022, and that the NHS and social care are interlinked — destabilising the care workforce will ultimately affect the NHS too. It calls for a full joint assessment by the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care before any changes are made.

Children and young people

One of the most striking recommendations in the report concerns children who grew up in the UK. The committee finds that under the proposed framework, children who arrive in the UK young could spend most of their childhood with temporary immigration status, and might not reach settled status themselves until their late twenties or early thirties — after their parents settle. The committee warns: "Without robust protections for young people, there is a risk of settlement policy being incoherent and leading to unfair outcomes, based on factors entirely out of the control of the young people affected."

The committee's recommendation is clear: any child who grows up in the UK should be granted settled status at the age of 18, without needing to meet the "earned" requirements that apply to adults. It also highlights the risk of extending settlement routes for lower-earning families increasing child poverty, and calls for a full impact assessment on child welfare before implementation.

Exploitation and the sponsorship trap

A significant thread running through the report is the risk that extended sponsorship-based routes create greater vulnerability to exploitation. Requiring migrants to remain tied to a single employer for their immigration status for up to fifteen years, the committee warns, "is likely to exacerbate these power dynamics" — particularly for workers who already have limited bargaining power, such as those in adult social care.

The committee recommends the Government explore more flexible visa arrangements that allow workers to move employers after a set period, potentially retaining a No Recourse to Public Funds condition, while still providing a clear route to settlement. It also recommends the Government consider what role the new Fair Work Agency (operational from 7 April 2026) should play in tackling exploitation of sponsored migrant workers on long routes.

What happens now

The Government has until 13 May 2026 to respond formally to the committee's report. It is expected to do so alongside, or shortly after, publishing its formal response to the earned settlement consultation — which will include its final policy position and draft Immigration Rules.

Based on the committee's findings and the practical reality of parliamentary scrutiny, immigration lawyers broadly expect the implementation of the wider reforms to slip to autumn 2026 at the earliest. There is no confirmed date. There is also a possibility that the final Immigration Rules, once published, could be left until 2027 to align with the B2 English language requirement — which takes effect on 26 March 2027.

The committee's report does not carry legal force. The Government can accept, reject or modify any of its recommendations. What it does do is set the terms of parliamentary debate and increase the political cost of rushing through reforms that MPs have found to be under-developed. For migrants currently on a route to settlement, the practical advice from immigration lawyers remains consistent: apply as soon as you become eligible under the current rules — do not wait.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. The earned settlement proposals have not yet been implemented — always check GOV.UK for the current rules and consult a qualified immigration adviser or solicitor for advice specific to your circumstances.