News Update – 26 June 2026
This week saw several developments of the Government taking a tougher approach to asylum and settlement. At the same time, its own watchdogs, children’s services and international partners have raised serious concerns about the details, the evidence behind the plans and whether they can be put into practice.
This week, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee published a major report on settlement, citizenship and integration. Its findings do not sit easily with the Government’s current plans. The Committee says the data used to support migration policy is not strong enough. It found major gaps in Home Office figures, especially on people leaving the UK. It also said ministers and scrutiny bodies cannot be sure how many migrants remain in the country, partly because departure records have been missing since 2021. Without reliable evidence, the Committee says the Government and Parliament cannot properly judge whether the proposals are likely to work.
It is against this backdrop that the Committee voices clear opposition to the Government’s earned settlement plans. Its central objection is that lengthening the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain, to ten years on the standard route, fifteen years for work visa holders below RQF 6 and twenty years for refugees on the core protection route, would do more harm than good.
Longer qualifying periods, in the Committee’s view, undermine integration by leaving migrants in a prolonged state of insecurity, making it harder for them to commit to long-term decisions around employment, housing and family life. The Committee was also troubled by the cumulative cost of repeated visa renewals and the Immigration Health Surcharge, warning that these costs risk pushing lower-income migrants into poverty or, in some cases, out of lawful status altogether.
Its preferred alternative is to retain the five-year qualifying period for ILR but decouple settlement from access to public funds, so that migrants could hold ILR while remaining subject to the no recourse to public funds condition until they had been resident for ten years or had acquired British citizenship.
Particularly pointed objection concerns retrospective application of any changes to those already on a route to settlement. The Committee describes this as manifestly unfair, and potentially unlawful, given that people have built their lives, careers and family arrangements around the current rules. It singles out the position of Hong Kong BN(O) visa holders as especially troubling, noting that they were given clear assurances about a route to British citizenship that retrospective change would now undercut, with knock-on consequences for the UK’s international reputation and its attractiveness to skilled migrants.
The Committee was not unanimous on these points, with a minority of members supporting the Government’s approach, but the majority view was firmly against both the extended timeframes and any retrospective effect.
The report does not reject the principle of earned settlement outright, describing it as a sensible and internationally recognised concept, but it argues the Government’s version places too much weight on income and too little on broader positive contribution, and recommends that the Migration Advisory Committee review income thresholds with reference to fiscal contribution rather than income tax bands.
The Committee was equally critical of the wider state of immigration law, describing the current rules and legislation as a “farrago” that confuses even experts in the field, and called for the Law Commission’s remit to be expanded to take on simplification of the Immigration Rules. Underlying all of this is a warning about capacity.
The Committee was not convinced that the Home Office, already grappling with backlogs and staff shortages, could deliver a more complex settlement system, particularly given the addition of 30-month status reviews for refugees, without a public staffing impact assessment and a serious recruitment drive for caseworkers.
That capacity question becomes still more pressing in light of confirmation this week that Shabana Mahmood’s immigration and asylum bill is expected to be laid before MPs as early as next week. The bill is reported to cover several contentious areas at once; an increase in forced removals of those refused asylum, the introduction of stricter age assessment processes for those whose age is disputed, restrictions on the use of article 8 ECHR family life arguments in deportation cases, a new internal appeals structure within the Home Office to replace the current independent tribunal system, and amendments to the modern slavery framework affecting how claims are presented.
Notably, the doubling of the ILR qualifying period is not included in the bill and is instead expected to proceed by secondary legislation, a route that has already drawn criticism from around forty Labour MPs, including Angela Rayner, who regard retrospective application as both unfair and unworkable.
The pace at which this legislation is moving is becoming a source of contention. Refugee sector organisations have voiced concern that reforms of this scale and sensitivity are being rushed through, with the bill expected to reach Parliament within days of being finalised and ahead of the Government’s own response to a recent consultation on these very proposals.
Safe Passage International has criticised the curtailing of family reunion rights for refugees, warning that families already separated by conflict need a route to reunite rather than further barriers. The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium has raised a related set of concerns about how the bill’s age assessment provisions could result in children being wrongly treated as adults and processed through an adult asylum system, about the implications of a tightened family life test for bereaved children or those in non-traditional family structures, and about whether moving appeals into an internal Home Office process will weaken access to justice. The Consortium has also pressed the Government to publish a child rights impact assessment, which has not yet appeared despite the bill’s imminent introduction.
The Children’s Commissioner for England, Rachel de Souza, has warned the Home Secretary that parts of the proposed asylum reforms could seriously harm children and may breach the duty to treat children’s best interests as a primary concern. She is especially concerned about plans to remove support from families whose asylum claims have failed, even where a child is receiving medical treatment. She also objects to proposals allowing immigration officers to use force, including handcuffs, against children during removals. Her office estimates that up to 27,000 children could be affected but says the Home Office has not confirmed the figure despite repeated requests.
There is also uncertainty about the future of the UK-France “one in, one out” returns scheme, which may not continue beyond October. The scheme allows some asylum seekers arriving by small boat to be returned to France, while the UK accepts the same number through safe routes.
So far, the numbers have been limited: 921 people have been returned to France and 896 have come to the UK. The scheme has been criticised by charities, including Médecins Sans Frontières, and there are concerns about risks faced by people returned to France, including threats from smuggling networks.
Reports also suggest smugglers are changing Channel crossing routes to avoid enforcement, and some people returned to France have tried to cross again. Practitioners may therefore need to reassess any cases relying on this return route before a wider EU-level alternative is in place.
With removals back at the centre of the Government’s agenda, advisors should expect a rise in refusals and the appeals that follow. Tribunals are taking a strict approach to appeal preparation, leaving no room for error, so advisors will need to tighten their practice accordingly.
HJT Training’s in-person conference, Preparing & Presenting the Perfect Appeal, could not be better timed. Closing out the season, the conference brings together Julian Phillips, former national head of First-tier Tribunal immigration judicial training, Mark Symes, tenant at Garden Court Chambers and part-time Upper Tribunal IAC judge, and David Jones, also a tenant at Garden Court Chambers.
It is a rare chance to learn appeal preparation from the combined vantage point of two judges and a senior barrister, offering advisors genuine insight into what tribunals expect and how to meet that standard with confidence. Visit here for more information.
For assistance with booking or enquiries, contact us at enquiries@hjt-training.co.uk or call us on 075 4416 4692
For the full list of updates on media news SEE BELOW
News
Shabana Mahmood’s immigration and asylum bill to go before MPs next week – The Guardian
The immigration and asylum bill is expected to be put before parliament next week and will face opposition from some Labour, Lib Dem and independent MPs. Andy Burnham’s team, widely expected to be in No 10 within weeks, is understood to be aware of the bill and its contents. To view the full article, visit here
‘Significant harm’: children’s watchdog decries Home Office plan to push out refused asylum seekers– The Guardian
Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner for England, said the home secretary’s plan under consultation to push families to leave the UK, including those with children receiving medical treatment should not be implemented as proposed. To view the full article, visit here
‘One in, one out’ deal on Channel crossings to end in October, French reports say– The Guardian
The “one in, one out” agreement on cross-Channel migration between the UK and France is due to end in October, according to French media reports. Under the terms of the deal, asylum seekers who arrive in the UK in a small boat can be forcibly returned to France, in exchange for others in France who have not tried to cross the Channel being brought to the UK legally. To view the full article, visit here
Home Office fails to deport half of 400,000 migrants set for removal – The Times
The Home Office identified more than 400,000 illegal migrants in the UK but nearly half of them could not be removed because of outstanding asylum and human rights claims, leaked documents have shown. It includes foreign workers, students and visitors who have overstayed their visas, asylum seekers who arrived illegally and failed asylum seekers appealing against rejected claims. To view the full article, visit here
Care home boss critical of foreign worker tax – BBC News
Reform UK says if elected it would use the extra revenue to reduce the National Insurance paid by employers on British staff. The boss of Sefton Hall care home in Dawlish says they have to employ foreign staff as British people very rarely apply for jobs there. To view the full article, visit here
Women kept in detention despite suicide concerns – BBC News
Derwentside Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) in Consett, Durham, is England’s sole women-only IRC. Last year, the Home Office received 160 medical reports about detainees at Derwentside. Known as Rule 35 reports, these are triggered by allegations of previous torture or staff concerns about health or suicide risk. To view the full article, visit here
Man denies being English Channel small boat pilot– BBC News
Idris Abdu, originally from Eritrea but now living in Bradford, is accused of assisting unlawful immigration with a small boat crossing on May 13 last year. The charge alleges he piloted a RHIB (rigid hull inflatable boat) which facilitated a breach of immigration law. The 24-year-old is also accused of arriving in the UK on the same date without valid entry clearance. To view the full article, visit here
More than 50,000 illegal migrants are missing in Britain – The Telegraph
Absconders total includes 1,200 criminals and outnumbers asylum decision queue, Home Office records show. To view the full article, visit here
Home Office crackdown on migrants already in Britain would hit two million people – iPaper
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s hardline immigration reforms will hit at least two million people, including around half a million children already in the UK and could make child poverty worse, a new analysis claims. To view the full article, visit here
Independent Reports
Settlement, Citizenship and Integration, 1st Report of Session 2026, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, House of Lords
The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee has published its report on settlement, citizenship and integration, recommending improvements to the collection and use of migration data and advising caution in relation to broad extensions of settlement routes for most migrants. To view the full report, visit here
Home Office Policy and Guidance Updates
Guidance: Interpretation services and use of translation devices has been updated on 25th June 2026. To view the updated Guidance, visit here
Transparency data: Small boat activity in the English Channel has been updated on 24th June 2026. To view the updated data, visit here
Guidance: Detainee Escort records has been updated on 24th June 2026. To view the updated Guidance, visit here
Guidance: Paid activities for detainees has been updated on 24th June 2026. To view the updated Guidance, visit here
Transparency data: Returns from the UK and enforcement activity has been updated on 24th June 2026. To view the updated Guidance, visit here
Guidance: Extradition and mutual legal assistance agreements has been updated on 18th June 2026. To view the updated Guidance, visit here
Written by Shareen Khan- Legal Content Writer, HJT Training
Disclaimer: This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration advisors should consult the full decisions and official policy documents when advising clients on specific cases.