Migration: Settlement Pathway

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:45

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Thursday 20 November.

“With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement on a fairer pathway to settlement for migrants.

The story of migration in this country is woven through my own. My father came here in the early ’70s, my mother a little less than a decade later. Both came to seek a better life, and they found one here. In time, while always proud Kashmiris, they became British citizens themselves—Brummies, too—and brought up four children just as proud as them to be a part of this country and that great city. This is not just my story; it is the story of many of my constituents in Birmingham Ladywood, and of many millions more across this country.

Like so many others like me, I am a patriot. Mine is a love of a country that is for ever changing, while something essential about us always endures. It is a patriotism that finds room for those who trace their roots back many generations and for those who, like me, do not. However, I worry that for some, that broad patriotism is narrowing, and that a vision of a greater Britain is giving way to that of a littler England, as anger turns to hate. Some will choose to scorn this analysis; they would rather that we simply wished it away, but those who look like me do not have that luxury. Our lives and those of our families are more dangerous in a country that turns inwards, so we have no choice but to ask what the cause of our division is, and how this country might be united.

As I said earlier this week, the pace and scale of migration in this country has been destabilising. I spoke on Monday of the 400,000 people who have claimed asylum since 2021, but that figure pales in comparison with the net migration figure for the same period. In that time, 2.6 million more people moved to Britain than left. To place that in perspective, around one in every 30 people in this country arrived in those four years. This is the result of the extraordinary open-border experiment conducted by the last Conservative Government.

In that period, now sometimes called the Boriswave, immigration controls were drastically lifted. This was most notable in the case of the health and care visa, for which minimum salary requirements were dropped. An attempt to fill between 6,000 and 40,000 jobs led to the arrival of 616,000 individuals between 2022 and 2024. Over half of those individuals were not even filling jobs in the sector—rather, they were dependants of those who were—and as any Member of Parliament could tell us, abuse was rife.

I would have thought that my support for migration did not need to be stated, but after some of the questions I faced on Monday, I think I had better do so. Migrant communities have been woven into the tapestry of British life for generations. While I will never believe in assimilating communities, we have achieved cohesion because different communities have integrated, retaining their distinction within a single, pluralistic whole. This makes demands of those who are already here to remain open to new arrivals, but more than that, it demands something of those arriving. To settle in this country for ever is not a right, but a privilege, and it must be earned. Today, that is not the case; settlement, or indefinite leave to remain, comes almost automatically after five years’ residence in this country. At that point, a migrant gains access to many of the rights of a British citizen, including to benefits.

As a result of the unprecedented levels of migration in recent years, 1.6 million people are now forecast to settle between 2026 and 2030, with a peak of 450,000 in 2028—around four times higher than the recent average. That will now change. As this Government announced in their immigration White Paper, the starting point for settlement will move from five years to 10. To ensure that this is earned, new criteria will be added, which will act as a disqualifying bar for those who do not meet them. First, the applicant must have a clean criminal record; secondly, they must speak English to A-level standard; thirdly, they must have made sustained national insurance contributions; and finally, they must have no debt in this country.

While these criteria set the bar that everyone must meet, there are a series of other tests, which today have been published for consultation. These either add to, or subtract from, the 10-year qualifying period. To recognise the particular value to society they play, the Government propose that those who speak English to a degree-level standard could qualify for a nine-year path to settlement; those paying the higher rate of tax could qualify at five years; and those on the top rate could qualify after three, the same as those on global talent visas. Those who work in a public service, including doctors, teachers and nurses, would qualify after five years, while those who volunteer—subject to this consultation—could qualify at between five and seven years. Not subject to consultation, the partners of British citizens will continue to qualify at five years, as is the case today. This is also true of British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, who will qualify at five years in honour of our unique responsibilities to them. All grants under the Windrush and EU settlement schemes will also remain unchanged.

While some people will be able to qualify for settlement earlier than 10 years, others will be forced to wait longer. Once again, these proposals are subject to consultation, but the Government propose that those who have received benefits for less than 12 months would not qualify for settlement until 15 years after arrival. For those who have claimed benefits for more than 12 months, the duration would rise to 20 years, and to encourage the use of legal routes into this country, those who arrive illegally could see settlement take up to 30 years. As has already been set out, refugees on core protection will qualify for settlement after 20 years, although those who move to a work and study visa could earn settlement earlier, and those arriving by a safe and legal route would earn settlement at 10 years. This consultation is open regarding settlement rights for some cohorts of special interest, including children, members of the armed forces and victims of certain crimes.

As well as considering the responsibilities that are expected of those who seek a permanent life in this country, the consultation also raises the question of the rights that will be provided. Specifically, it proposes that benefits might not be available to those who have settled status, reserving them instead for those who have earned British citizenship. Finally, the consultation addresses the question of the so-called Boriswave, specifically the cohort of lower-qualified workers who—along with their dependants—entered the country through the health and care visa, and some of whom are never expected to be net economic contributors. It is right that we apply more stringent controls for this group. For that reason, we propose they should wait 15 years before they can earn settlement. Crucially, for these people and for every other group mentioned, we propose that these changes apply to everyone in the country today who has not yet received indefinite leave to remain, although we are seeking views on whether some transitional arrangements should be available.

May I make one thing absolutely clear, though? We will not change the rules for those with settled status today. These are people who have been in our country for years, or even decades. They have families here—wives, husbands and children. They have worked in our hospitals and taught in our schools, and have been contributing to our society for years. Fairness is the most fundamental of British values. We made a promise when we gave those people settlement, and we do not break our promises.

The Reform Party—whose Members, I note, are not in the Chamber today—has said that it will do this most un-British of things. The Tories have said that they will, but then said that they will not; I am left in as much of a muddle about their policy as they are, although perhaps the shadow Home Secretary might enlighten the House today. But I can be clear that this Government will not change the rules for those with settled status.

As this consultation shows, we listen to the British public, and I encourage all those interested to make their voices heard. Today I have set out what we propose and, perhaps more importantly, why. I love this country, which opened its arms to my parents around 50 years ago, but I am concerned by the division I see now, fuelled by a pace and scale of change that is placing immense pressure on local communities. For those who believe that migration is part of modern Britain’s story and should always continue to be, we must prove that it can still work, with those who come here contributing, playing their part and enriching our national life. While each will always retain something of who they were and where they came from, they become a part of the greatest multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy in the world. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is the second set of changes to immigration policy announced this year, on top of the Bill we have just passed, and the changes to the asylum system; it is fair to say the Government are feeling the pressure. But, as with the asylum Statement last week, I welcome many of these measures announced by the Home Secretary.

The Government are proposing a scheme whereby the default length of time for settlement is 10 years and, depending upon a person’s situation and circumstances, time will be either added or subtracted from those 10 years, meaning some people will qualify for indefinite leave to remain much sooner, and some much later. I am particularly supportive of those who receive benefits for more than 12 months having to wait for 20 years before qualifying for settlement. But this does raise the question of the degree to which foreign nationals are able to access public funds. It would be useful for the Minister to specify how this particular route would work. Surely, where a person is on a settlement route but not yet received settlement, they should not be able to receive any public funds.

I am interested in understanding how the Government have made the decision on the number of years they propose for each settlement pathway, as some seem to be rather odd. For example, the proposal is for a person who can speak English to degree level to be offered a nine-year path to settlement, while those who volunteer will be able to qualify between five and seven years. I understand that the volunteering pathway is subject to consultation, but what reasoning do the Government have for requiring a person who has degree-level English to wait for longer than a person who has done some volunteering? Furthermore, how will the Government ensure that the volunteering pathway does not lead to abuses of the system?

One concern I have about these proposals is about the settlement periods for illegal migrants. The consultation document states that illegal entry will add “up to 20 years” to the baseline qualifying period. It then says:

“We are consulting on whether this should be 5, 10, 15 or as high as 20 years”.


I ask the Minister why the Government need to consult on this. Why can they not make a decision themselves? Are the Government considering allowing scope for discretion?

On this, it somewhat beggars belief that the Home Office is actually considering permitting those who arrive illegally to still be able to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. I know I have made this point before, but I will keep making it until the Government absorb it and listen: there should be absolutely no route to settlement for those who enter illegally. Any person who commits a criminal offence by entering the UK without valid leave to enter and remain should be deported and never permitted to receive settlement. I look forward very much to what the Minister has to say in response.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we recognise the issues facing communities and immigrants across the country, and we agree that faith must be restored to the immigration and asylum system, which requires changes to policy. We appreciate the commitment to maintaining the five-year pathway to settlement for partners of British citizens and British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, honouring our unique responsibilities to them. However, we are concerned that this overhaul overlooks key failures of past Governments.

Prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration. It is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy.

Changes to settlement must be made giving due regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect this policy and rhetoric could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation. However, and moreover, the NHS is heavily reliant on non-British national staff.

The policy statement sets out that debt would limit an individual’s eligibility for settlement. What does that mean? Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Does it include credit cards or a mortgage? When consideration is being given to preventing access to public funds for those with settlement? What is the position of the state pension, which an individual would have contributed to over the years that they have been in the UK? If you take your pension, does that mean that you would no longer be eligible for that final route?

The Statement explicitly targets the cohort of lower-qualified workers who entered via the health and care visa, proposing they should wait 15 years before earning settlement, extending the pathway beyond the new 10-year baseline. Would that lead to a situation where care workers would be incentivised to volunteer in their community rather than work extra hours as a care worker? This proposal unfairly targets low earners and our carers. Why are carers not to be considered public service workers? What are we saying about the value of care? Care is a fundamental need in our society, especially as we are an ageing population.

Further, these proposals raise serious questions about those who are most vulnerable. The Government have committed to keeping some immediate short-route pathways for victims of domestic violence and abuse. Will the Minister explicitly reassure the House and survivors that these changes will not have the adverse, and perhaps unintended, impact of locking those survivors into abusive relationships?

The care sector in the UK is facing chronic staffing shortages, putting immense pressure on families and the wider social care system. Given that the Home Secretary has proposed that public service workers could qualify after five years, what assessment has been made of the risk that some essential public service workers will leave the UK? That was shared by the nurses’ union. What credible plan are the Government making to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector, especially in the short timescale that is available to them?

The Ukrainian people continue to resist Russia’s war of aggression, and many families who have sought refuge in the UK face further uncertainty over their visa status, causing significant instability. Will the Home Office and the Minister consider establishing a pathway to indefinite leave to remain for Ukrainians who have integrated into life in the UK and wish to remain long-term?

How does this policy relate to the family unit? It would seem that we could have a situation where people within the same family unit are on different routes to settlement because of their individual salaries on the one hand and caring responsibilities on the other—for example, a husband on a three-year route and a wife on a 10-year route. How might this disproportionately impact women, who often work less as a result of childcare?

The Home Secretary stated in the other place that fairness is central to these immigration changes. Is it fair to change the rules for an individual who has come to the UK on a legal route, with certain expectations, and move the goalposts midway through their route to settlement? While no one disputes that people coming to the UK should integrate, how will the Home Secretary and the Home Office ensure that the new mandatory measures, such as making sustained national insurance contributions above the personal allowance threshold and demonstrating English language proficiency to A-level standard or more, do not impose unworkable red tape on people who have come here legally?

Finally, how will these arrangements and changes be implemented? Will some of it be in primary legislation? Will some of it be in secondary legislation? Will some of it just be changes to the Immigration Rules? I understand that it is a tricky and detailed answer that I am expecting from the Minister, but if he cannot give me the exact details now about the legislative route for these proposals, perhaps he might like to write to me on these matters. I appreciate that I have asked a significant number of questions, but I hope that I can get answers to some of them.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to answer questions in this House on the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

Let me start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the Government are not feeling the pressure on this issue. The Government are responding, as any sensible Government would, to some of the challenges we have inherited after 14 years of his Government. There was a large build-up in a range of asylum issues, and they did not tackle the issue of earned settlement that we are looking at now. The last change on earned settlement was in 2006, and this is the most fundamental change in over 40 years. Settlement is a privilege, not a right. We are trying to have a discussion, so I would welcome formal consultation from both noble Lords on the points they have made. We are trying to solve some of the problems and challenges for the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about issues to do with the different years of earned entitlement, up and down. We have made judgments on that, but it is open to consultation. He can make representations, if he thinks any of the decisions that we have come to in the initial document are wrong. We will look at his representations on those issues. We have settled on degree-level English as being an important benchmark. For the core narrative and the four main criteria, the English requirement is A-level standard, which is the B2 test of the common European framework. I think that is reasonable.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned illegal entry. We have set very high bars on the punitive elements of additional years before any consideration can be given. Again, that is open to consultation. There may be circumstances where somebody has arrived illegally who we wish to examine, and that is part of the reason for the discussion. All the areas the noble Lord has mentioned are subject to consultation, and I would certainly welcome his views.

I can tell the noble Lord, Lord German, that the anticipation is that most of this will be done via the Immigration Rules. The process, as set out in the Statement that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made on 20 November, is that a consultation will be open until 12 February 2026, and we would hope to try to make some changes with effect from the next financial year, in April. Again, that will be subject to consultation and parliamentary consideration.

The noble Lord mentioned what the debt would look like for individuals. The three types of debt that we are looking at in the consultation are any outstanding litigation debt, tax debt or National Health Service debt. It would not be debt on a personal basis; effectively, we will be examining state debts. Whether pensions would be included is for the consultation. We are looking at issues such as jobseeker’s allowance and child benefit, but it would be open to discussion. I would welcome the noble Lord’s contribution to that.

The noble Lord mentioned the situation with health and care visas. There is considerable growth in this area, arguably because people are living longer and require more care. In 2028, we anticipate an additional 210,000 care workers coming to the UK, with the potential for long-term settlement. We are trying to ensure that we raise the level of training and are looking into recruiting UK-based citizens into that work. There will always be a need to examine that route, which is why we will maintain it, but there is a much longer period for final settlement.

The noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned Ukraine. We would not have anticipated the Ukraine scheme four or five years ago, but it is in place because we responded to a humanitarian need in what I and the Ukrainian Government hope is a temporary circumstance. The Ukraine route has never been a route to permanent settlement. It has now been further extended for around 18 months. We will keep it under review. Self-evidently, Russia is still present in Ukraine and bloodshed is still going on. The Ukrainian Government have our support in dealing with that, which is why we have maintained and extended the scheme into the future. The Ukrainian Government do not wish this to be a permanent route, so it will be kept under review. It is a separate scheme for Ukrainian citizens who have come to the United Kingdom for the moment.

The noble Lord mentioned family routes and the potential for different family timescales. That area is potentially subject to consultation. We want to look at it so that we do not necessarily disadvantage families. I cannot read my writing, but I have written “transitional”. I will examine the noble Lord’s comments in Hansard and write to him shortly, because I have forgotten exactly why I have written it down.

We are taking this measure because there are currently 70 routes, 40 of them leading to settlement. Between 2026 and 2030, we estimate that between 1.3 million and 2.2 million citizens, under the current scheme, will be able to have a period of settlement. We need to take action. The immigration White Paper published in May 2025 set out that we will increase the default qualifying period for settlement from five to 10 years. We have put down some core criteria: the lack of a criminal record, the ability to speak English to A-level standard, three to five years of national insurance contributions and having no debt, as I defined to the noble Lord a moment ago. We wish to put those core issues as a base but, on top of that, we have put positives and negatives in terms of earned entitlement. We are doing that to ensure that citizenship is part of a commitment and is focused on no recourse to public funds, speaking English to degree level and other matters that I have outlined to the House.

I hope the House will not just look at the two Statements but participate in the consultation. At the end of that consultation in February, we will undoubtedly bring to both Houses a package that will be subject to parliamentary approval and that this House and the House of Commons can examine and question in detail.

19:04

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

What worries me most about this is what it will do to our society. I do not like the concept of a much larger group of second-class people in our country with restrictions on what they can do, under a sort of surveillance state, for much longer periods of time. I suspect it will be divisive in our society. I particularly dislike the idea that it might be divisive in families. This White Paper says that

“a person admitted as the dependant of an economic migrant will not necessarily enjoy the same qualifying period for settlement as their partner. It may be shorter or longer, according to their particular circumstances”.

We are seriously envisaging telling couples that they must choose between living in the country that they chose to come to and hope to settle in for the rest of their lives and living with a person they have married and hope to stay with for the rest of their lives. That is a pretty cruel choice.

I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, having to deal with such nasty news. My question to him is about what he has just said about transitional arrangements. A particularly unpleasant aspect of all this is retrospection. I agree with what has been said about that. Somebody who has been here for four and a half years, who chose to come here on the understanding that after five years his permanent settlement as a citizen of this country would be adjudicated—perhaps he is married, has children and has thought about careers, schooling and all that on the basis of certainty five years ahead—now knows that he may have to wait another 15 years. What are the transitional arrangements that

“may be designed to ease the impact of policy change, especially for individuals or groups already afforded permissions by the previous system”?

I do not know what that means. The consultation that is starting will consider that:

“Without any transitional arrangements, the earned settlement policy will affect people already in the system, who are not already settled when relevant Immigration Rules come into force”.


Quite—but what is the idea inside the Home Office? Is it that there should be a limited degree of retrospection? Should those who have been here for four years be treated more generously than those who have just turned up?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, for reminding me why I wrote down “transitional” in relation to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord German. I hope that, following my explanation, he can avoid another missive from me off the back of this.

I will start by saying something that I hope is positive. Nobody who has settled status now will have it unpicked by these arrangements. Some political parties have suggested that that might be the case. This Labour Government are not one of them. We have said that we will look at the pathway to settlement for those already on that pathway who have not yet been granted settled status. That means that in the consultation we will look at the transitional arrangements for those individuals. I hope that those who have views will put them to the Home Office, because we have to determine what we do for those who, as the noble Lord said, may be four and a half years down a settled status route when they expected five years and now the proposal, subject to consultation, is potentially the 10-year period in the immigration White Paper. That route is subject to discussion and consultation.

France and Italy both have a 10-year period. The noble Lord shakes his head, but we think what we have undertaken is the right thing to do. We are not out of step with some European partner countries on this, but I give him and the noble Lord, Lord German, the assurance that the points he has raised about transition will be examined as part of that consultation, and representations are welcome.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am not disagreeing with the noble Lord at all; he is completely correct about France. I am just sad that one of the defining features of this country—something we used to be proud of—is slipping. I agree that the change does not take us out of line with a lot of our neighbours, but it is nevertheless undesirable for our society.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I believe in an open, integrated, multicultural society where people are respected and valued for the work they do. That is nothing against the many thousands of people who, for example, work in this building, in hospitals or in teaching and bring great skills to this country. However, the question for the Government is: how do we manage future migration issues and future earned entitlement to settlement? We are looking to put some core guidelines around that and some alternatives which improve the earned entitlement, or penalise it by giving a further, longer period. That is reasonable, but it is subject to consultation, and I welcome the noble Lord’s views outside the Chamber.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord German raised many of the puzzling issues in this consultation, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out the divisive and unsettling elements. With all the love I have of France, we have historically done better than France in building a multicultural, multi-ethnic society, as the Minister’s last remarks conveyed. I would not necessarily say that we should emulate everything Frane has done.

I have a particular question about the introduction to the document, which says that the consultation

“proposes that benefits should not be available to those who have settled status”.

I assume that does not cover those who have EU settled status, because that would be a breach of the withdrawal agreement. Even some with pre-settled status can access some benefits. I am sure the Minister will reassure me on this.

The document shows evidence of having been put together rather quickly. The Minister clarified that

“they must have no debt in this country”

means that they must have no debt to this country. There is infelicitous phrasing in the document—it does not stop someone from having a mortgage, student fees, or whatever.

On the theme of divisiveness, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, earlier settlement would be available to “high taxpayers” and people

“who have worked at a certain level of seniority in our public services”.

Good luck to them, but middle and lower earning workers are also very valuable. I do not really see why their worth to this country and their earning settlement should be measured in terms of what they pay HMRC. That is peculiar, to be honest.

I really do not understand the twists and turns in this. The Government have adopted the language of some opposition parties about illegal entrants. They say they accept the refugee convention, but they actually do not, because it is not illegal to enter this country in order to claim asylum. We have said this time and again, and the Labour Party said it in opposition in this House. If you accept that someone has a right to stay in this country, why then make hurdles about when they are allowed to settle, integrate and become a fully-fledged member of our society? I do not understand the discrepancy between those two things. I had better shut up because I can see that other noble Lords want to get in, but I have that specific question about EU settled status.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She knows that we have had a lot of discussion around EU settled status. I can confirm to her that the EU settlement scheme is out of scope, as is the Windrush scheme. For British overseas nationals—those from Hong Kong—their visas will receive a five-year reduction, effectively maintaining their five-year route to settlement. Those with settled status will be able to keep it without any change. These are reasonable responses to the many European Union citizens, those of the Windrush generation and those from Hong Kong who have come to this country to live, work and integrate. We are looking to put down some basic discussion points for consultation on how we manage settled status when we have potentially 1.3 million to 2.2 million people coming to settled status between 2026 and 2030, on current estimates. That figure will only grow unless we take the action we are trying to take today.

The noble Baroness mentioned a number of points; they are all up for consultation. The high salary issue means that an individual who is a higher taxpayer or employed in specific public roles would also result in a reduction in the additional time required. That is an important recognition of the contribution that people make to the United Kingdom. All of those points are up for discussion in the consultation. Given that the time is relatively limited, I want to make sure we can take other questions, so I will answer the right reverend Prelate’s next.

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords, I will keep my question brief because I want to give time to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. One of the most encouraging developments in foreign policy in this country in recent years has been the growing recognition of the evil of the denial of freedom of religion or belief across the world, leading to widespread persecution of faith communities, Christians not least among them, as we have tragically seen in these last days in Nigeria. The UK has become a recognised global leader in advocacy for this oft-overlooked right.

Does the Minister accept that denial of freedom of religion or belief is a significant driver of migration? It is certainly so in the case of a significant number who arrive illegally, who, according to the Statement,

“could see settlement take up to 30 years”.

Does the Minister agree that we need consistency in the development of foreign and domestic policy, especially in this area but also in upstream causes and drivers of migration, to ensure that very vulnerable individuals are afforded the protection and assistance they so badly need?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving me the opportunity to say to the House that there is a real difference between asylum, refugee status and immigration. This Statement concerns the transition of citizens who have come here through an immigration route to work to having earned settled status.

Last week, we discussed another Statement on asylum claims. Persecution for religious faith would be a ground to seek asylum. We have also had a policy statement on how individuals can claim asylum. Some people will come here illegally, which is why I said to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that that is not an automatic barrier. However, it is certainly a significant barrier and how that person has arrived can be examined. For those asylum claims, we will meet our obligations under the international refugee convention and our human rights obligations, and those claims will be based on an individual’s personal circumstances.

The key point of the Statement we made earlier in the week is that, instead of five years, it would now be a two and a half year period. If the circumstances of the individual are reassessed after two and a half years, the persecution in the native country may not be what it was two and a half years ago. It may be, in which case the asylum claim would still be processed.

The key to asylum claims is to process them quickly to determine whether an asylum claim is genuine. If so, we allow status. If that happens, they will fall under the routes of this particular Statement. If it is not a proper asylum claim, they will face removal from the country. That is a two-stage operation. This is not just around people who are coming on small boats; these are people who are coming on work visas who wish to have long-term settled status. Here, we are just putting some more guard-rails around that settled status so that we can ensure that individuals have contributed and, on the four key issues, are citizens that deserve the right and privilege of being British citizens as part of their consideration.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Statement says:

“Fairness is the most fundamental of British values”.


Is it fair that people who have uprooted their lives, moved their children here and made their lives here should suddenly find the rug pulled out from underneath their life plans? In responding to the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, the Minister said that there might be transitional arrangements and that they are consulting on all this. But that means that people who might have been here for four and a half years are facing massive levels of uncertainty about where their life is now. Is that fair?

I look at the overall fairness of the plans and think about a potential example of someone who is either already here now or comes in the future—a carer or maybe a nurse in a care home. The five years are kept for nurses working in public service, but what about those working in a privately owned facility? She might have to wait 15 years for indefinite leave to remain. What happens if, after 10 years’ service, she injures her back and needs a period of rehabilitation before she returns to work? What happens to her child, after 15 years, when they are unlikely still to be dependent? Perhaps they push to remain dependent to be able to stay in the country that is the only one they actually remember. Is all that fair?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me answer the first point. The announcements were made on 20 November. The consultation closes on 12 February, and the intention is to try to bring in proposals shortly after that. That is a three-month or four-month interregnum of uncertainty, which I accept is there. It is important that we make the policy statements that we have made and allow for consultation. The points that have been made across the House will undoubtedly be put in the consultation as a whole, and we will reflect on that in relation to any points made.

The noble Baroness asks, “Is it fair?”. It has to be fair if we want to ensure community cohesion and that people recognise that there is a society where people come but have an earned right, not an automatic citizenship privilege. I think that is fair for the British citizens who are here now. There are many political parties—I do not accuse the noble Lord of this—that would go much further, removing people from this country who have settled status and doing things like that. We have to address some real issues. It is never easy in government—it is difficult in government—but I am not going to go down the road of some political parties. We have to find a way to ensure that the fairness that is appropriate for the system is generated in the rules that we are consulting on now.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have a very simple and practical question for the Minister to end with. During his remarks about the Statement, he has said that gaining settled status would require a degree in English or an A-level in English. Can the Minister explain how that will be assessed? Will it be both written and spoken? Does he therefore expect the existing residents of the country to achieve the same levels?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The test is the B2 test, which is under the common European framework. We currently have a B1 test, which is slightly lower. The B2 test is a recognised under the common European framework, and that would be the test that is taking place.

Again, there are no residual changes being made to those with existing settled status and to those, such as myself, who were born in this country but whose English may sometimes not be up to the standard that some people would wish. It is important that that test is in place, and I hope the noble Baroness will support it in consultation.