By Mr JP Breytenbach
Director | Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants
On 23 June 2026, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee published Settlement, Citizenship and Integration (HL Paper 13), its 1st Report of Session 2026–27. The report scrutinises the Government’s proposed overhaul of the route to Indefinite Leave to Remain and British citizenship. This article covers the proposals and findings most relevant to our clients. Both the White Paper and the report are extensive documents and readers who wish to explore them in full are encouraged to do so.
What the Government is proposing
The Immigration White Paper of May 2025 proposed significant changes to the settlement system. Among the most consequential are:
- Extending the standard qualifying period for ILR from 5 years to 10 years, and up to 15 years for workers in lower-skilled roles below RQF level 6.
- A 20-year route for refugees, with status reviewed every 30 months.
- An “learned settlement” model under which migrants may reduce their waiting time (for example by earning over £50,270 per year or by speaking English to C1 level) or have it extended (for example if they have received public funds or entered the UK irregularly).
- Applying all of these changes retrospectively, meaning people already lawfully in the UK on an existing 5-year route would be caught by the new rules.
What the House of Lords found
The Committee’s conclusions are sharply critical of the Government’s approach on several key points. This is not a complete summary of the report’s findings, but the following are most directly relevant to clients on a settlement pathway:
- Oppose the 10-year extension. The report recommends retaining the 5-year ILR baseline but separating ILR from access to public funds, meaning settled status would be granted after 5 years but welfare entitlements would not follow until 10 years’ residence or naturalisation. This addresses the Government’s fiscal concerns without the integration damage a longer route would cause.
- Oppose retrospective application as “manifestly unfair and potentially unlawful”. Individuals already in the UK have made major life decisions on the basis of the existing rules. The Committee invokes the rule of law principle that legislation should not apply retroactively, draws attention to the 2008 HSMP Forum judicial review as a relevant precedent, and makes an unequivocal recommendation: no retrospective changes.
- Criticise the absence of impact assessments. The Home Office has published no impact assessment for any of its proposals. The Committee notes that the Home Secretary declined to appear before the Committee in person.
- Call for children to be protected. Children who grow up in the UK should normally be granted settled status by the age of 18, regardless of their parents’ circumstances or earning history.
What this means practically
This report carries significant weight, but it is important to understand what it is and is not. It is a parliamentary scrutiny report, influential but not binding on the Government. The earned settlement proposals have not yet been enacted, and new rules are expected to be introduced via the Immigration and Asylum Bill confirmed in the King’s Speech of May 2026.
The key practical points right now:
- The current 5-year ILR route remains in place. No changes have yet taken effect. Applications submitted now are decided under the existing framework.
- Timing may matter. If you are approaching your 5-year qualifying date, it is worth taking advice promptly on whether an early application is advisable before any new rules are introduced.
- BN(O) Hong Kong visa holders are specifically highlighted by the Committee as a group for whom retrospective application would be particularly unjust, given the representations made when the route opened.
- The Long Residence route is at risk. The Government has proposed abolishing the 10-year Long Residence ILR route. If you are on this path, or considering it as a fallback, review it with an adviser without delay.
We are monitoring these developments closely and will provide further updates as the Immigration and Asylum Bill progresses through Parliament. If you have concerns about how the proposed changes may affect your position, please contact our office.
On 23 June 2026, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee published Settlement, Citizenship and Integration (HL Paper 13), its 1st Report of Session 2026–27. The report scrutinises the Government’s proposed overhaul of the route to Indefinite Leave to Remain and British citizenship. This article covers the proposals and findings most relevant to our clients. Both the White Paper and the report are extensive documents and readers who wish to explore them in full are encouraged to do so.
What the Government is proposing
The Immigration White Paper of May 2025 proposed significant changes to the settlement system. Among the most consequential are:
- Extending the standard qualifying period for ILR from 5 years to 10 years, and up to 15 years for workers in lower-skilled roles below RQF level 6.
- A 20-year route for refugees, with status reviewed every 30 months.
- An “learned settlement” model under which migrants may reduce their waiting time (for example by earning over £50,270 per year or by speaking English to C1 level) or have it extended (for example if they have received public funds or entered the UK irregularly).
- Applying all of these changes retrospectively, meaning people already lawfully in the UK on an existing 5-year route would be caught by the new rules.
What the House of Lords found
The Committee’s conclusions are sharply critical of the Government’s approach on several key points. This is not a complete summary of the report’s findings, but the following are most directly relevant to clients on a settlement pathway:
- Oppose the 10-year extension. The report recommends retaining the 5-year ILR baseline but separating ILR from access to public funds, meaning settled status would be granted after 5 years but welfare entitlements would not follow until 10 years’ residence or naturalisation. This addresses the Government’s fiscal concerns without the integration damage a longer route would cause.
- Oppose retrospective application as “manifestly unfair and potentially unlawful”. Individuals already in the UK have made major life decisions on the basis of the existing rules. The Committee invokes the rule of law principle that legislation should not apply retroactively, draws attention to the 2008 HSMP Forum judicial review as a relevant precedent, and makes an unequivocal recommendation: no retrospective changes.
- Criticise the absence of impact assessments. The Home Office has published no impact assessment for any of its proposals. The Committee notes that the Home Secretary declined to appear before the Committee in person.
- Call for children to be protected. Children who grow up in the UK should normally be granted settled status by the age of 18, regardless of their parents’ circumstances or earning history.
What this means practically
This report carries significant weight, but it is important to understand what it is and is not. It is a parliamentary scrutiny report, influential but not binding on the Government. The earned settlement proposals have not yet been enacted, and new rules are expected to be introduced via the Immigration and Asylum Bill confirmed in the King’s Speech of May 2026.
The key practical points right now:
- The current 5-year ILR route remains in place. No changes have yet taken effect. Applications submitted now are decided under the existing framework.
- Timing may matter. If you are approaching your 5-year qualifying date, it is worth taking advice promptly on whether an early application is advisable before any new rules are introduced.
- BN(O) Hong Kong visa holders are specifically highlighted by the Committee as a group for whom retrospective application would be particularly unjust, given the representations made when the route opened.
- The Long Residence route is at risk. The Government has proposed abolishing the 10-year Long Residence ILR route. If you are on this path, or considering it as a fallback, review it with an adviser without delay.
We are monitoring these developments closely and will provide further updates as the Immigration and Asylum Bill progresses through Parliament. If you have concerns about how the proposed changes may affect your position, please contact our office.
Author and Editorial Oversight
Author
Mr JP Breytenbach
UK Solicitor | Director, Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants
Mr JP Breytenbach is a UK-admitted solicitor with extensive experience in British nationality and immigration law. He advises multinational employers, high-net-worth individuals and internationally mobile professionals on complex UK immigration matters, including sponsor compliance, settlement pathways and British citizenship applications under the British Nationality Act 1981.
Editorial Oversight
Hannes Breytenbach
Founder | Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants | Attorney of the High Court of South Africa
Hannes Breytenbach is the founder of Breytenbachs Immigration Consultants and an attorney of the High Court of South Africa. Over several decades, he has developed an international immigration advisory practice assisting individuals, families and multinational organisations with complex cross-border immigration strategy and long-term immigration planning.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law changes frequently and individual circumstances vary. Specific advice should be sought before taking action.
