The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on this Government’s policy of earned settlement.
A little over a month ago, at the Labour party conference, I promised that we would adopt a policy on this issue that is guided above all by fairness—fairness towards those who come here legally and play their part, and fairness towards British citizens, already here, who should not be asked to bear a greater burden. Fairness matters to me, because it matters to my family. Over 50 years ago, my parents came to this country from rural Kashmir. They came here knowing one thing above all else: that they would be treated fairly here. They came from a place where power was often arbitrary, and where the dice were always loaded. They came to this country because they knew that we do things differently here, and that we value, above all else, fair play. It is my responsibility to ensure that our migration system lives up to that ideal, and I believe that doing so depends on a contract between those who come, and those already here. This country welcomes those who seek a new and better life within it, but there is an expectation on those who do, which is that they will play their part, contribute to their community, and become a part of our national life. That is what I think, not despite being a Labour politician, but because I am a Labour politician. If we are to ask our fellow citizens to buy into a system of shared taxation and universal public services, they must know that everyone is playing their part. Solidarity is the precondition for social justice.
Creating a fair migration system demands reform to settlement—the ability to live in this country forever. Settlement confers some of the most valuable rights that this country can offer. At settlement, a migrant receives the right to free education and use of our NHS, and, should they need to fall back on it, the welfare state. Until now, settlement rights have come at five years, almost exclusively as a result of time spent in this country. It has therefore been a right accrued with little expectation of responsibility. I do not believe that this represents true fairness. Instead, I believe those considerable rights should come after responsibilities have been met and a contribution has been made. Settlement should not be automatic; it should be earned.
Today the Government publish a policy called “earned settlement”. It ensures that the period for which someone must live in this country before they settle is determined by the contribution that they have made. It starts by setting out clearly what we consider to be disqualifying criteria: first, a criminal record; secondly, a failure to speak English to a high standard; thirdly, any unpaid debt to the British taxpayer; and finally, a failure to have made three years of national insurance contributions. This is the foundation of settlement—our non-negotiable expectations of anyone who seeks to live here permanently. For those who clear those bars, settlement then varies, based on contribution made, rather than simply time served. This contribution is judged, crucially, not just financially, but also in terms of public service.
A five-year path will remain open to all higher earners on salaries of over £50,000, and those who have contributed to healthcare and education, in professions such as doctor, nurse and teacher. For those who make an exceptional contribution, even faster routes are available. The highest-rate taxpayers, earning over £125,000, will, over the course of their lifetime, contribute £1.5 million. This funds the critical services that many, including the poorest in this country, rely on, so under these reforms, they will be able to apply for settlement after three years, as will those who arrive on our highest talent schemes. Everyone else will be placed on a 10-year path, including all those earning less than £50,000. Settlement will still be available to them; they will simply have to show a sustained contribution to this country, and they will be able to renew their existing temporary visas until that point.
Conditionality runs both ways. Those who commit an immigration breach will see settlement pushed back to 20 years, while those who have claimed benefits must have had five continuous years without falling back on the state before they make their application. A number of groups will see their path to settlement remain as it is today. These include Hong Kong British nationals overseas, members of our armed forces, those with a British connection and those on legacy routes, such as Windrush.
Before we finalised this policy, we first took it to the country through a consultation. Over 200,000 people responded, and I thank them for doing so. Many of the responses were focused on one particular group: social care workers. Between 2022 and 2025, 250,000 people and their dependants arrived on, or switched into, the social care route. They came at a time when the sector was under considerable pressure, following the covid-19 pandemic and the unique challenge of that moment.
It is also the case, however, that this route was abused. The last Conservative Government may have talked of restoring control to our borders, but, in truth, they lost control entirely. Never was this more obvious than when the shadow Home Secretary was an immigration Minister in the Home Office. Delegations were sent across the country to encourage ever more businesses to sponsor foreign workers, with little apparent interest in their suitability to do so. As a result, there was significant abuse of the care route, sometimes because of fraudulent and exploitative companies, and sometimes because individuals came here knowing that there was no job that they could fill.
A fair solution must address both sides of this issue by recognising the service of those who cared for our sick and elderly at a time of immense national need, and also addressing the abuse that was present on this route. The Government’s solution does so in two ways—first, by providing a five-year path to settlement for care workers who lived up to the promise that they made on coming to this country, worked hard and answered our call when we needed them. Those who earned £25,000 a year working in the social care sector, which was the condition of their visa, will therefore be able to settle on their existing five-year path.
The second group, who have not fulfilled the conditions of their visa, represent around a quarter of those who came between 2022 and 2025, or who switched into this route. We will offer them a second chance to make the contribution that they came to this country to make. They will be able to apply for another five-year care visa, and they will not be tied to their old employer, allowing those with rogue sponsors to break away from them. The Government have already stripped around 1,800 exploitative employers of their licences, and we are lifting standards in care with our fair pay agreement across the sector. The Government will help workers to find a new position with a legitimate provider, and we will give them a longer period to do so before their existing visa is curtailed.
There remain tens of thousands of legitimate vacancies in the care sector today, so those who seek a new job in care and have the requisite skills should be able to find one. At the completion of their new five-year visa, those workers will be able to apply for settlement once more. Everyone will have a fair shot at making their contribution, and no one will be punished for the sins of their employer, but we will also preserve the critical element of this reform: settlement must be linked to contribution. The same transitional arrangement will be applied to public sector workers in roles identified by the Migration Advisory Committee in healthcare and education, such as auxiliary nurses. This country has been highly dependent on them, and their contribution will be recognised.
These transitional arrangements apply only to those who joined before this Government published the immigration White Paper in May 2025. After that point, as our consultation shows, the Government’s position of a 10-year path to settlement was widely understood. These are exceptional exclusions for exceptional circumstances, and it remains the case that the rules around settlement are determined when a settlement decision is made, not at the point when someone arrives. That is a long-established position in this country, and it has been tested conclusively in our courts.
The responses to our consultation focused also on settlement rights for refugees. I know that the people of this country wish to continue welcoming genuine refugees; however, I also know that there is nothing fair about allowing unsafe and illegal entry to this country. It is not fair that our borders are run by people smugglers. It is not fair that women and children are dying in the channel. It is not fair that, after historic levels of illegal arrivals, British citizens are paying £4 billion a year to fund asylum support. As we open new safe and legal routes for genuine refugees, we must also discourage dangerous, unsafe and illegal crossings, and settlement plays a key part in that.
We will place those who come to this country on one of our new safe and legal routes on a five-year path to settlement. That is as fast a path as the path for higher earners entering Britain today. At the same time, we will discourage the use of unsafe and illegal routes; the standard qualifying period for all refugees who have not come by a safe and legal route will become 20 years. A further 10 years will be added for those who entered the country by an illegal method, such as by small boat.
We want to promote integration into this country for all those who are here. For that reason, those who enter work or study will be able to earn settlement 10 years earlier. That means that a refugee who did not arrive by small boat and who is working or studying could qualify for settlement after 10 years. Let us not forget that, regardless of the question of settlement, for as long as a genuine refugee requires protection in this country, we will provide it. The British people’s sense of fair play means that they welcome refugees and those who seek to contribute to our society once they are here, but there is nothing fair about incentivising unsafe and illegal routes into this country, and I will not do that.
These reforms are the right thing to do, both morally and financially. A full impact assessment will be completed and published as we implement the reforms. Our changes ensure that those who are net contributors are encouraged to come to this country and stay here. Meanwhile, the cohort who are most likely to impose a cost at settlement must instead seek work and meet the conditions of their visa before they can apply. The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that our reforms will reduce the benefits bill by billions of pounds. This solution is fair for those who come here legally and play their part, and it is fair to British citizens already here, who should not be asked to bear a greater burden.
Earned settlement institutes a new paradigm in our migration system that is long overdue. One of the greatest rights that we can offer now depends on a contribution made and responsibilities met. The right to live in this country forever must now be earned; it will no longer be automatic. That is a fair settlement for all, and I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.
It took a year for the Home Secretary to build her reputation as tough on immigration, but what took a year to build she has just dismantled in 12 short minutes. I do not judge her by the actions we think she should take; I judge her by what she herself has previously said. She made announcements from the Government Dispatch Box on 20 November last year, and doubled down in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 5 March this year. She repeatedly singled out social care workers as a particular problem. She said on 5 March that fraud in the social care sector was “rife”, with bogus sponsors. She said from the Government Dispatch Box that it was right that “more stringent” restrictions should be applied to social care workers. Now, she stands there and says the exact opposite.
A Home Office document that the Home Secretary published on 5 March said that social care workers alone, because they work on low wages and have brought in many dependants, will cost the taxpayer £10 billion. Those are her figures about social care workers that she specifically chose to publish. She went on to say on 5 March that failing to implement her plans would be
“an affront to the idea of fairness”
in our society. That is exactly what she has done in the changes she has announced today. The Home Secretary now proposes to allow every single care worker and their dependants who arrived prior to May 2025—a number running into hundreds of thousands—to stay in this country beyond the expiry of their visa and, in the case of 75% of them, to stay permanently, even though she acknowledges that many of them arrived fraudulently. How can she justify allowing people who she acknowledges arrived in this country fraudulently to stay forever, at a cost that she herself has admitted is £10 billion? That is the cost of today’s U-turn: £10 billion.
Outside of care workers, many of the so-called highly skilled workers who have arrived recently are not highly skilled at all. The Home Secretary did not mention this in her statement, but in her document she proposes to extend the soft terms on which those workers can stay until 2035, extending the previous sunset by five years. Her own document published today, which she did not refer to, forecasts that a staggering 1.9 million permanent settlement rights will be granted between now and 2030, and a freedom of information request has revealed where some of those people work. German Doner Kebab, a chain of kebab shops, sponsored 106 skilled worker visas. Khans middle eastern restaurant sponsored 28 high-skilled visas. A Domino’s Pizza franchise in South Yorkshire sponsored 78 high-skilled visas—Members get the picture.
Just a year after getting ILR, someone can easily get full citizenship, and we know what that means: benefits, social housing, and free NHS treatment. [Interruption.] When the Home Secretary said in March that failing to implement her changes would be an affront, she was right, but now she has done exactly that. She also plans to give illegal immigrants who have arrived on small boats ILR and citizenship. We disagree with that.
Why has the Home Secretary made those changes? It is because the Housing Secretary—who I notice has run out of the Chamber—the Energy Secretary and the Labour open-borders left oppose what she previously announced. The Home Secretary is no longer running the Government’s immigration policy—the Housing Secretary is—and her position is looking increasingly untenable. The Home Secretary has done no better with her announcements last year than Keir Starmer did with his welfare announcements, and we know what happened to him.
We would go a lot further than the Home Secretary’s previous announcements, although they were a good start. If she wants to implement them in full, we will vote for them, because mass low-skilled migration must end. Those people who came here on a temporary visa and are working in low-skilled, low-wage jobs must leave when their temporary visa expires. We cannot allow them to stay forever, claiming benefits and social housing, yet that is what the proposals today will allow to happen. Ten billion pounds—that is the cost of today’s U-turn.
To those who ask where we will find the workers, I say there are 9 million economically inactive adults in this country. Thanks to this Labour Government’s high-tax, high-regulation policies, there are now a million young people not in education, employment or training. If the Government had the courage to toughen up the welfare system, we would get some of those people into work, instead of relying on mass low-skill migration. If the Home Secretary wants to face down her nemesis, the Communities Secretary, and implement her own plans, we will vote for them. However, if she capitulates to the open borders left, her credibility as Home Secretary will not recover.
Shabana Mahmood
I tell you what is an affront, Mr Speaker, and that is the shadow Home Secretary’s response. He might have amnesia, but given the muted response from those on his Back Benches, they clearly still remember what happened on their watch when they were in government, as does the country. When he was immigration Minister, it was his Government who ran around the country signing up people to become sponsors of foreign workers. He might have complaints about the companies on the register, but it was his Government who signed them up. Perhaps an apology for that would have been appropriate. His Government were responsible for a number of arrivals in four years that we had previously seen in four decades. Before he starts trying to lecture anybody about being tough on immigration, perhaps an apology for his Government’s abject track record would be appropriate.
It is this Government who have cut net migration by 82%, and it is this Government, with me as Home Secretary, who have found a fair solution to the mess left behind by the shadow Home Secretary and his colleagues. He talks about the cost of those who will be settling. If he had been paying attention to my fair solution and the detail in the response to the consultation document, he would know that the cohort most likely to impose a cost will now, as a result of my measures, wait longer for settlement. That is why the DWP says that these measures will save billions in the benefits bill. Half a million people will settle later as a result of these reforms. That is a fair solution to the mess I inherited from the Conservatives.
The shadow Home Secretary talked about the arrangements for those workers on low pay who were allowed by previous Conservative Governments to extend their visas up to 2030. That was in order to allow them to attain settlement in 2030. To honour the promise made by the previous Government, I have extended that period to 2035, reflecting the changes in the earned settlement consultation. Again, that is a fair solution, honouring promises made previously—there are also exceptional cohorts and exceptional circumstances—in order to clean up the mess left behind by the Conservatives.
I could answer more detailed questions, but apart from political rhetoric, the shadow Home Secretary had nothing else to say, so I have nothing more to say to him.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
It is extraordinary that the Opposition see migration issues as some kind of political football. We are talking about people’s lives, and whatever idea one has about policy and programmes, I think people’s lives deserve more seriousness. It is right that care workers are exempted from the new arrangements for ILR, but for the rest of the workforce, the retrospective nature of those new arrangements still seems unfair. People can come in legally and work legally, and then have their residency rights turned upside down. How can that be fair? May I ask the Home Secretary whether she has read the 276-page “lessons learned review” on the Windrush scandal, published by the Home Office in 2018? If she had read it, she would realise that she is in danger of finding herself in the same position as Home Secretaries who were in office at the time of that scandal.
I have heard Members of this House talk about people coming here just to claim welfare. I have heard Members of this House say that people are not making a contribution. I have heard Members of this House say that we have to look at the rights of British nationals as opposed to migrants, as if many British nationals were not themselves immigrants. My parents were immigrants. My mother was a nurse. She was one of that generation who came to this country to build the NHS after the war, and it remains the case that immigrants play a very important role in our NHS. I say to the Home Secretary, and I say to the House, that we should always remember the contribution that immigrants made and continue to make to our society.
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my right hon. Friend about the contribution made by immigrants. As she knows, and as I said in my statement, I too was a child of migrants, and that experience informs the way in which I think about policy and how to strike the right balance between all the different communities in our country, which is what I have sought to do. As for indefinite leave to remain and what she calls the “retrospective nature” of the changes, she will know that I do not agree with that characterisation. Any Government must be able to make changes in immigration rules to reflect things that are happening, to reflect abuses that we can see in the system, and must also be able to make additional changes based on assessment of numbers and costs. As I said in my statement, that has always been the case. These matters have been litigated before in our courts, and the courts have upheld the principle that the rules that apply to settlement applications are those that apply at the point of application and decision, not the point at which a person entered the country. That is an important principle that will be upheld, and is upheld by the changes that we are making.
I have heard a number of people try to suggest that these settlement changes are akin to what we saw during the Windrush scandal. Again, respectfully, I disagree with my right hon. Friend on that. The issue relating to the people who were caught up in the Windrush scandal made it a scandal precisely because the country already had obligations to those people relating to their right to be in this country, and failed to honour the obligation that we already had. That is different from the position of workers arriving in this country on temporary work visas, and the rules that apply to them for settlement itself. The two are not the same. Let me, however, assure my right hon. Friend that I will always be mindful of the lessons that were revealed during the Windrush scandal, and I will make sure that those lessons are learnt.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a year since the Home Secretary’s initial statement on her immigration reforms, and we still disagree with the Government and with the official Opposition. Just as we predicted, the Government’s immigration reforms are unravelling. By prioritising tough rhetoric rather than a system that works, the Home Secretary has apparently split her party and the Cabinet, and has alienated people on all sides. Viewing immigration simply as a matter of raw numbers and images of small boat arrivals is degrading the nation’s ability to engage in the informed national discussion that we need. Immigration reforms must of course bring greater control, and they must prevent small boat crossings too, but, crucially, they must also serve our economy and public services.
The Home Secretary previously claimed that ILR for care workers will cost us £10 billion. The shadow Home Secretary made much of that today, yet the IPPR, using the same methodology, estimates that the net benefit of skilled migrants settling in the UK under the current rules is £115 billion. Will the Home Secretary publish the full economic impact of the changes that she is suggesting?
As the Prime Minister has acknowledged, being an EU member brought more order to our migration system. It prevented small boat crossings, and it meant that many who came to work here went home again in due course. This is not all down to the Government; they simply would not be considering today’s changes to ILR if it was not for the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal and the record levels of immigration that they allowed while promising lower numbers. It is no wonder so many people in this country are confused. Now that the Conservatives are the official Opposition, their No. 1 policy on immigration is leaving the European convention on human rights.
But something does not add up. The Conservatives tell us also that their Brexit deal is settled and must never be reviewed. The fact is that the Brexit deal they negotiated with the EU would be ended if this country left the European convention on human rights, which would send the UK into further chaos. [Interruption.] They look confused and are disputing this, but perhaps that is because Conservative MPs have no idea what they are actually arguing for. Either they are misinformed, or they are misleading the public.
I turn back to this Government. Today I have two further questions for the Home Secretary. First, why does she think that so many of her Back Benchers disagree with her about immigration? My second question relates to Europe. Our future clearly lies closer to Europe, which will bring opportunities to fix our migration system, so why does the Home Secretary disagree so strongly with the Prime Minister about this?
Shabana Mahmood
That was a classic Lib Dem response: all very “I agree that this is a problem, this is a problem and this is a problem, but, but, but—”, which leads to no solutions whatsoever. Again, I am not going to engage with ridiculous political rhetoric. We consulted, and I have presented the House with a fair solution that does right by all the different cohorts—those who came to this country and those who are already here—recognising the exceptionality of care workers in particular, given that they arrived at a very specific post-covid moment when they were needed for gaps in our care sector. I think that is a fair settlement, and it has taken place after a genuine consultation. Usually, the Lib Dems are so in favour of consultations. They should be applauding the fact that this was a genuine one. We asked questions, we have considered the responses, and we have formulated the policy as a result of those responses.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the recent IPPR report. He is right to say that it uses the same methodology that I have used before, but he failed to say that the report looks at a totally different cohort of people in order to talk about the numbers. Perhaps he would like to go back and look at the detail. I am happy to engage with him once he has acknowledged the difference in cohorts.
The hon. Gentleman made some points about the EU. It is another classic Lib Dem thing to assume that all these matters relate only to our post-Brexit reality, but settlement is a policy of this Government and all our predecessor Governments. It is a right conferred on people, who then obtain the right to live in this country permanently. It is right that this Government consider what the rules should be, just as every previous Government have done. He will know that after we left the European Union, over 5 million European citizens settled in this country under the EU settlement scheme. That is another of our post-Brexit consequences. I am always happy to discuss with him the position in relation to the EU, but I do not think that has anything to do with settlement.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I welcome this statement and its greatly imaginative measures. I particularly welcome the fact that care workers will have a second opportunity to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Does the Home Secretary agree that the care workers whom we welcome to this country are every bit as valuable as the highly paid doctors, entrepreneurs and industrialists who come here with high salaries?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend. In acknowledgement of the very specific circumstances of the care worker cohort and their unique position in relation to the covid-19 pandemic, we have the transitional arrangement for care workers who arrived before May 2025. He is right to say that it is appropriate to give a second chance to those who have been unable to meet the requirements of their visa, who would normally be expected to leave the country. They now have a second chance at gaining employment in the care sector with a legitimate employer and a chance to meet the visa conditions, so that they can once again consider settlement in another five years’ time.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Home Secretary is right to say that government is about a social contract, and I can see where she is coming from. Some of us do not have amnesia. Many of us were putting this to our then Government in that period in 2023, and anybody who was serving as a Home Office Minister at that time should wear sackcloth and ashes. Frankly, as a party, we will never move on until we accept that—although there was a very difficult situation after covid.
I still worry about a couple of things. I am still not entirely clear why, apart from political pressure, the Home Secretary is watering down her proposals from last time, if she is. I can see what she is trying to get at with care workers earning their right, but surely we should establish the firm principle that people have to have come here honestly to work in the care system and go on working. My last point is that I agree with her that, if people come here illegally, they should not be allowed to claim an indefinite right to stay until after 20 years, but are we going to have people in hotels for 20 years? Surely this underlines the fact that we have to arrest people, detain them and return them, otherwise there is no deterrent.
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with the Father of the House: it is high time that his Front Benchers took responsibility for the reality of their Government’s time in office—something that the shadow Home Secretary once again failed to do today.
On care workers in particular, this reflects the consultation responses and the recognition of the unique circumstances of that cohort—not just with what they were asked to do in the post-pandemic period, but that this route was subject to a huge amount of abuse. The Home Office has revoked the sponsor licences of over 1,800 employers, primarily from the care sector. Recognising that, if there are people in this country today who came in on this visa and have fulfilled its terms—they have their £25,000 a year earnings and are with an employer in the care sector—they will be able to settle. That is also why we are providing a second chance to make that contribution to those who have not been able to meet the terms of their visa. I think that is a fair settlement; it gives a second chance to those who were exploited, but does not create a new immediate right to settle for those who were not able to fulfil the terms of their visa.
On those who have arrived in this country illegally, the Father of the House will know that, in addition to the new core protection model, which means that people cannot settle before 20 years, we will be creating the work and study route, which will allow those integrating into this country by working or studying to settle earlier. Again, I think that is the right thing to do.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s focus on fairness. People know that this country has a set of rules, and we all should adhere to them, whether we arrive in this country or are born here.
The Home Secretary raised the matter of English language. Many people have settled already, and some have come in as spouses, without good English. This is a very gendered issue, with many women in particular trapped because they do not have access to English. Is she working with colleagues across Government and society generally to make sure that better English language teaching is available, so that people are not excluded and are able to participate fully?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point, and she is right to talk about the gendered nature of those who are able to access English learning in this country. This Government have raised the English level expected of most migrants coming into this country, including refugees, apart from those on the UK resettlement route, precisely because we believe a good standard of English is absolutely critical to the ability of people to integrate fully into this country. Let me assure her that those cross-Government conversations are happening, and I would be happy to meet her in order to provide her with an update in due course.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The Home Secretary will know that the Committee conducted a piece of deliberative democracy work, in which we worked with the public to find out their attitudes to people who are coming in on work visas. It was very clear that the public want skills training so that those in the domestic population can take vacancies. Can she confirm what work she is doing across Government to make sure there is appropriate skills training for those who are here to take the jobs available, and can she confirm when she expects the new provisions to start?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Chair and the Home Affairs Committee for their work in this area. I will be responding officially to their recent report on settlement. She will know that I have waited until this policy was settled, but I will set out the Government’s full response to the Committee’s very good work in this area, for which I thank it.
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about the need to make sure that domestic workers can access the skills they need to get jobs that are available in this country. She will know that I am flanked by many members of the Government, including the Secretary of State for Education, who is very alive to the issues of skills and training, as are my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and elsewhere. That will be an important piece of work, especially in the care sector where the Government have already recognised that there is a need for an improvement in pay and conditions for care workers, with our fair pay agreement expected by 2028; that is a recognition that things need to change in that sector to make it more attractive to domestic workers as well. So let me assure the right hon. Lady on that point.
The changes that have been announced will begin to be laid from the December immigration rules. They will be implemented over the course of 2027. I will be providing impact assessments and other detailed guidance as the changes are rolled out.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
A large number of people from Hong Kong have chosen to make Stockport and Greater Manchester their home, and they make an invaluable contribution to our town and city region. Many of them have been worried over the last couple years about potential upcoming changes to indefinite leave to remain. I have met many of them over the last few months. What more can the Secretary of State say to reassure the people from the Hong Kong community who have used the British national overseas visa scheme that they are welcome in this country and that they will have a fair shot in terms of ILR?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me confirm to my hon. Friend that those who arrived on the BNO route are exempt from these changes. He knows that they have to meet the minimum requirements for English language, as well as no criminality and so on, but he should also know that the over-65s are exempt from the change in relation to English, which I think also provides a fair resolution for those who arrived on that route.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
A Home Secretary clearing up the mess of her immediate predecessor—who would have thought it? When I brought through changes to the visa regime, the chorus of disapproval from the then Opposition, who now sit on the Government Benches, was deafening. She has already conceded that her proposals are not as robust as the announcement she made this time last year, so what confidence can the House or the country have that she will not further water down the proposals she has announced today as they go through the legislative process?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me say to one of my many predecessors as Home Secretary that the proposals I have announced today are far, far more robust than everything he and his Government left behind. It is their mess that this Government have been cleaning up. The right hon. Gentleman will know that both myself and my immediate predecessor as Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), are responsible for a number of changes, including: closing the care worker route to overseas workers; the requirement for sponsors to be Care Quality Commission rated; suspending family reunion for refugees while we settle family migration policy as we go into next year; and raising salary thresholds. This Government —both myself and my predecessor—have been taking the action that is needed and that is why net migration is down 82%.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
Those who come to our country and genuinely work in our care sector, looking after our elderly and vulnerable, do our country a great service. However, some are unfortunately working in poor conditions. They are exploited and underpaid partly due to the current sponsorship system. Will the Home Secretary seriously consider looking at an umbrella sponsor system, working with the Department of Health and Social Care?
Shabana Mahmood
I have had discussions with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. She is also very clear that conditions for employers in the care sector must improve and that there should be minimum standards in future. She is undertaking that work, and it will be part of the wider reforms to the care sector that the Government are undertaking. What I have undertaken to ensure that the immigration system reflects any changes made to improve standards in the care sector and that we will follow those changes. It would be in appropriate for us, as an immigration Department, to change licensed routes ourselves without the wider work required, which the Health Secretary is undertaking, to improve the functioning of the care sector. Once that work is complete, I will make the relevant changes.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I proposed an amendment to our recent report on earned settlement that included a plea to only make changes to indefinite leave to remain for those not already embarked on the pathway to settlement. While my amendment was defeated, only three Labour MPs on the Committee voted against it, with four other Labour colleagues voting with me or abstaining. In the statement, which I applaud and welcome, the Home Secretary rightly lauds the UK’s reputation for playing fairly, so will she join the Liberal Democrats in agreeing not to make any retrospective changes to the time required to achieve indefinite leave to remain for all those already on pathways to settlement, not only care workers—or do other contributions not count?
Shabana Mahmood
I will repeat for the hon. Member an answer that I have given many times, including to the Home Affairs Committee. I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member’s point: it is a long-established principle that the rules that apply to an application are those that are in place at the point of decision, not at the point when somebody arrived in the country. I am afraid that to go down that road would render this and all future Governments unable to manage the migration system effectively. It would be the wrong step. It is not a step required of us by our legal system and courts, and we will not be taking it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Because of the nature of my constituency, I work with a large number of people who come here—often on the boats—and their families as well, and the years of waiting for security have an impact on their mental health. I would like some clarity on the third paragraph of page 4 of the Home Secretary’s statement, where she says:
“The standard qualifying period for all refugees who have not come by a safe and legal route will become 20 years. A further 10 years will be added for those who entered the country by an illegal method, such as by small boat.”
I have not misread that. Does it meant that earned settlement could take 30 years for some people?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes, that is right. We consulted on whether an additional period should apply to those who arrive in the country through unlawful means, such as by boat or on the back of a lorry, and there was an overwhelmingly positive response. My right hon. Friend will know that the Government wish to incentivise people to enter the country through safe and legal means. As I said in my statement, there is nothing fair about our border system being run by people smugglers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
One of the criteria to gain long-term settlement rights that the Home Secretary set out was no debt being owed to the state. What does that look like in reality? I have advocated for a student loan-style system for debts to be repaid. Will the Home Secretary address what steps she is taking to abolish the impact of rogue sponsors, namely chicken shops, Turkish barbers and vape shops, which all exist in plain sight and are an acute problem in the illegal immigration web?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member is right to acknowledge that there is a huge explosion in the number of people on the sponsorship register—that happened under the previous Government—and I will set out policy for how we resolve issues within the register. The hon. Member will already know that we are revoking licences where appropriate and where somebody should not be able to bring workers into this country. The debt the hon. Member references will include NHS, tax and litigation debt. For refugees, it will also include asylum support—either the payment of asylum support costs or at least for someone to be complying with a payment plan.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)
Victims of domestic abuse who have come over as dependants can currently apply for settlement immediately. Will that change under the new rules?
Shabana Mahmood
It will not change. Victims of domestic abuse will still be able to obtain immediate settlement.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Like the Home Secretary, I come from an immigrant family that came here legally, but I fail to understand why she thinks not being able to get settled status for 20 or even 30 years will deter people from coming here illegally, provided that there is no prospect of them being removed from the country because of laws like the European convention on human rights?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman and I disagree on the ECHR—a debate we have had many times. The time period in which someone attains settlement should both reflect the means by which they came to the country and incentivise the behaviour that we want to see, which is people working or studying, contributing to society, and taking steps to integrate. That will have an impact on the behaviour of everyone who comes to this country, whether they have come on a work visa or are in the asylum system. It is a fair solution for everyone.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. She will be aware of my ongoing concerns with regard to Turkish businesspeople who have made their life in the UK after entering under the European communities association agreement, also known as the Ankara agreement. Will she set out how today’s announcement affects that group?
Shabana Mahmood
I can confirm that those who arrived under the ECAA, which is a closed route that reflects the particular agreement that we were part of then, will face no changes to their settlement—they are outside the scope of earned settlement.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I have constituents who are waiting on the five-year route to ILR, who have brought their spouses and children with them to this country and taken on high-skilled, high-paying roles. Their spouses will now have to apply separately and will be on a 10-year scheme. If their children reach adulthood before both spouses have achieved ILR, they will not be eligible to remain in this country, despite having been here since childhood. Can the Home Secretary give any reassurance to those families in my constituency who are deeply worried about their children being left without citizenship?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member has probably not yet had the opportunity to look at the chapter on dependants within the consultation response, so let me reassure her that we have confirmed that the position on children is largely unchanged. Spouses will normally settle at the same time as the main applicant if they arrive at the same time; if they arrive after the main applicant, they will do the same time period. Looking at income—we consulted specifically on this point—we have also said that for those on lower incomes, or to reflect the fact that one partner might take time out for caring responsibilities, combined household income can be used rather than individual income.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for the changes she has announced today, but questions remain about the impact of these changes on children in particular. Children are not responsible for the choices of their parents, and we must ensure that they do not face greater poverty or instability as a consequence of any changes. The Home Secretary did not say much about children in her statement today. I have had a brief look through the consultation response, but I have a few specific questions. First, will she publish a child rights impact assessment ahead of implementation? Secondly, will she provide greater clarity on the situation for children, including whether the existing private—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Marvellous. I call the Home Secretary.
Shabana Mahmood
Again, I appreciate the fact that not everybody will have had a chance yet to look at the whole consultation response, so I say to my hon. Friend that the position on children is largely unchanged. The rules about whether applicants have been here for seven years or the majority of their life in order to be able to settle still apply, and children will normally settle when both of their parents get ILR, which is the same position as today.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
What a missed opportunity to strengthen the rules, strengthen the illegal immigration policy and strengthen our borders. How can the Home Secretary reasonably think this is fair to the British people?
Shabana Mahmood
I think that was actually a missed opportunity to apologise, which nobody on the Opposition Benches has done.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As she knows, I have written to her about this matter, and I have met migrant workers in my constituency. She has mentioned that the Health Secretary will be carrying out a review looking particularly at fraudulent and exploitative companies, and I urge the Home Secretary to ensure that strong, robust action is taken against these companies to deter their behaviour. I would also like reassurance that the Home Secretary will meet migrant workers as part of this consultation and this review to ensure that their concerns are addressed.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I think I have covered the immigration aspects in today’s statement, but it is the case that exploitative and rogue employers have had their licences revoked. My colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade have agreed that the Fair Work Agency will look specifically at the care sector and the behaviour of employers within it. My colleagues in the Health Department are looking at the wider reforms that are needed for the care sector, and the Minister for Social Care and Mental Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), has kindly agreed to meet my hon. Friend on that.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I was hoping when I turned up today that I would hear the Home Secretary say that she was abandoning all the proposals around ILR. While it is positive that she has responded to the cross-party campaign on social care workers, she still has a long way to go to address the unfairness at the heart of these proposals. The un-British retrospectivity is still in place, and those who thought they had a contract with the UK will still be let down. When is she going to be positive about immigration, including its economic benefits and the value that it brings to our communities?
Shabana Mahmood
I have literally been talking about the positive impacts of migration, including for me personally—I would not be in this country were it not for migration into this country. As for what the hon. Gentleman has to say about the ability of the Government to change the rules, no Government would be able to run an effective migration system if they followed his approach. We will not be doing that. This is a long-settled position that has been upheld by the courts, so we are fully compliant with our legal obligations. The Government have set out a fair policy for all.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I would like to ask a question on behalf of a constituent of mine who has been in touch today. He came across the world from Pakistan to Islington to work as a care worker nearly five years ago, so he is greatly relieved that he will be able to get his ILR quickly and that his family will get some security. But that family has now been joined by a little boy with a rare genetic condition. Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the family will be able to apply for additional support once dad has got his ILR, or will it be necessary for them to wait until he is actually a citizen?
Shabana Mahmood
If my right hon. Friend’s constituent has met the terms of his visa, as I set out in my statement he will be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain at five years. At the point of settlement, people are able to access the benefits system.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Restricting access to public funds to those with settlement rights will most likely require primary legislation. When will such a Bill be brought forward?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government are not restricting benefits for those with settlement rights. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that not only does that require primarily legislation, but it would create two-tier settlement rights. The rules on no access to public funds apply before somebody can achieve settlement to make sure that those who have had to fall on the state to seek assistance are still working for a period before they apply for settlement.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is heartening to hear the Home Secretary dispel the lump of labour fallacy that people who come to this country simply take jobs. She is talking about the benefits of people coming to this country through immigration, and that is welcome, but if we are to help our constituents understand the new scheme that she is proposing, we do need some clarity. If I understand rightly, around 200,000 people who are working but do not earn more than £50,000, do not have a British spousal connection and are not working in the care sector or public sector—scientists, researchers or skilled technicians, for example—will now face a 10-year wait to get settlement in this country. She says that there is going to be an economic impact assessment. Does she expect these proposals to have a positive or negative impact on our economy?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend mentions number of different professions. It will depend on entry levels and whether they fall within a transitional arrangement, but the default period for settlement has moved from five years to 10 years. I do expect there to be economic benefits, not least the billions saved to the Department for Work and Pensions from people waiting longer before they are able to access benefits.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
By allowing those with more money to jump the queue and receive earned settlement status faster, these changes amount to an attack on lower-paid workers and, by extension, lower-paid British-born people too. Time and again the working classes, whatever their nationality or migration status, have been looked down on and left behind. Does the Home Secretary agree that her changes send a clear message to people who have come here or people who have been born here that they are worth less if they do not earn enough?
Shabana Mahmood
I reject that entirely. First of all, lower-paid British workers are already British; they do not need settlement in their own country. In this policy, including with all its transitional arrangements, the Government have recognised public service alongside earnings for faster pathways to settlement. I ask her to bear in mind that the highest earners pay the highest in tax, and it is our taxpayers’ money that funds the public services that we all rely on. We have found a solution that is fair for everybody, rewarding those who make the biggest contribution, including in public service roles.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the fair solution for existing migrant care workers, because they did nothing but respond to a need for their labour that was caused by our care recruitment crisis, which was caused by low wages and inadequate training. What are the Government doing cross-departmentally to prevent future care recruitment crises? How will the contribution of care workers be weighted in the framework in future for those who have arrived or will arrive after May 2025?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for that. The Health Secretary and her team are working hard on all the reforms needed to ensure that the care sector is functioning properly, including a workforce plan, which I believe is due before Christmas, and the fair pay agreement that will be in place in 2028. My hon. Friend knows that the Government also have the wider Louise Casey review on the country’s care needs and how they can be met. Taken together, all that work means a fundamental change to how the care sector works in this country.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
It is weeks since I wrote to the immigration Minister, but I have not had a response—out of generosity of spirit, I will say that the Government have been busy—so I will take this opportunity to invite the Home Secretary to come to the proposed site in Linton-on-Ouse. It is an integrated village. If the Home Secretary were to come and see it for herself, I think she would be quite shocked. I do so in the full, open spirit of working co-operatively—I do not even mind if I cannot be there on the day. I really want the Home Secretary to come to site with the Linton-on-Ouse action group and to see for herself just how inappropriate it is.
Shabana Mahmood
I hear the passionate point that the right hon. Member makes as a constituency Member of Parliament. He will know that no decision has yet been made, and I will ensure that his letter is responded to promptly. He will also know that the Government have saved a billion pounds a year by closing asylum hotels and that we will go further to close all asylum hotels in this Parliament. As we do so, it is important that we move to a new model of providing asylum accommodation that includes more use of military sites. However, as I said in relation to the specific site he mentioned, no decision has yet been made.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
This country owes those in the Gurkha regiment a debt of thanks for their continued service. Will the Secretary of State outline what will happen to them and their dependants with these changes?
Shabana Mahmood
I can confirm that the position for Gurkhas is the same as for all of those in our armed forces—they have their own bespoke route to settlement, which is usually four years after service—and they are exempt from the changes we have made today.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does the Home Secretary believe that it is fair to change the rules retrospectively for people who are not earning in excess of £50,000 but nevertheless have built careers, raised families and paid taxes based on the settlement pathway that existed when they arrived? Does this not violate the British value of fairness and risk real damage to our economy and our social fabric?
Shabana Mahmood
I absolutely disagree. I simply repeat the point that I have made to many hon. Members on the Lib Dem Benches: a Government need to be able to change the immigration system rules to reflect emerging circumstances. If they had their way, the immigration system would be in absolute chaos. The resolution that we have found between the different cohorts, including those who will now be eligible for a transitional arrangement, represents a fair solution for everyone.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend for consulting so widely in developing the earned settlement proposals and for listening to the representations of care workers in particular. I must express my astonishment at the refusal of Conservative Members to accept moral, social, financial or political responsibility for their failed immigration policies.
These proposals will nevertheless adversely affect many. May I raise in particular early career researchers—postdocs and so on—who will not be earning £50,000 a year but will be contributing to our scientific understanding? Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the impact on our science base?
Shabana Mahmood
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and will happily discuss those issues with her, but with the proposals that the Government have set out—including the transitional arrangements for those cohorts in health and education, given our reliance on foreign labour in those two sectors and the Migration Advisory Committee’s specific treatment of them—I think that we have found a fair resolution for everyone.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The list of public sector jobs eligible to apply for the five-year settlement route does not appear to include prison officers. What assessment has the Home Secretary made of the effect that these changes will have on the crisis-hit Prison Service?
Shabana Mahmood
The list does not include prison officers, because the transitional arrangements apply to those cohorts of workers that the Migration Advisory Committee recognises on national pay scales in health and education for the purposes of the immigration rules. The right hon. Lady will know that it is a very small number of prison officers who will settle at 10 years, but let me confirm to her and the House that I have been discussing these measures with the Secretary of State for Justice and I will do everything I can to make sure that the Prison Service has the labour it needs in the future.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. The previous Conservative Government’s approach to net migration can at best be described as marrying in haste and repenting at leisure, so will the Home Secretary please assure my Carlisle constituents that the new settlement rules will ensure that future immigration is built on a long-term commitment and not on impulsive short-term fixes?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me also say that “repent at leisure” would apply if there was, in fact, any repentance from the Conservatives.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Home Secretary has said that anyone exploiting or abusing the system must be penalised, and I suspect the whole House would agree with that. Prestige Dental Services has more than 500,000 patients across the west midlands region and sponsors more than 40 skilled dental workers. Last week, it had its licence revoked, not because of exploitation or abuse but because of an admin error in relation to three of the 40 employees. Will the Home Secretary please look into this matter urgently, so that those 500,000 patients are not put at risk?
Shabana Mahmood
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about that specific case, he is welcome to do so. I would caution anybody about making assumptions on why a licence is revoked. I am sure that if it was a mere admin error, that will be looked at, but licence revocations have happened in record numbers because, under the approach taken by the previous Government, there was a desire to sign people up without much expectation of what standards they should meet.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I supported the Home Secretary’s original proposals and the tougher measures she has been taking since she came into post. I am also pleased that she made the point clearly about disqualification because of a criminal record. Has any assessment been made by the Department of how many of these care workers will remain in the care sector after the qualifying period?
Shabana Mahmood
The majority of visa holders who responded to the consultation were care workers, and roughly 50% of them said that once they had achieved settlement, they would look to leave the care sector. I think that that is down to a recognition that they would be able to get higher-paid jobs elsewhere. That is why colleagues across Government, including in the Department of Health and Social Care, are looking carefully at lifting standards in the care sector in such a way that people will wish to remain in the sector and we will be able to recruit other workers into the sector.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will migrants who come to this country and set up legitimate small businesses that employ people who pay taxes be advantaged under the scheme that the Home Secretary has announced for earned settlement, or will they be excluded because they are not working people, according to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s definition announced this weekend?
Shabana Mahmood
They will need to meet the terms of their visa, which is the most important measure in ensuring that people who have come here on certain terms fulfil the contribution they were supposed to make.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
There was a certain irony in the shadow Home Secretary lecturing the House on who should be defined as highly skilled. He was certainly highly skilled at opening asylum hotels, including the one in my constituency. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the proposals she has made today, along with the other work she is doing in the Department, will mean that that hotel is closed by the end of this Parliament?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government have already closed a number of asylum hotels. We have made £1 billion-worth of savings in asylum accommodation, and we will fulfil our manifesto commitment to close all hotels in this Parliament.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
I respect the Home Secretary, but these are not the reforms that she wanted. When she said that the Boris wave was destabilising and unprecedented, and that it would cause incalculable damage, she was absolutely right. The Boris wave was the worst public policy failure of the 21st century, and now she risks locking it in for generations to come. When the last Conservative Prime Minister—my Prime Minister—ignored my advice on immigration, I resigned. Her Prime Minister has ignored her advice on immigration, and the damage is going to be disastrous for this country. Why has she not considered her position?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman could also do with more honesty and contrition about his track record, including on the difference between some of the positions he took when he was a Minister in the Tory Government and those that he takes now. I simply say to him that the package of reforms I have announced today, as set out in the consultation document, represent a fair solution for all the cohorts that are caught by the new earned settlement proposals. We have made targeted exemptions where the circumstances justify them. It is this Government that are cleaning up the mess we inherited from the previous lot.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is right to set out fairness as the guiding principle for her reforms. Does she accept that contribution and integration, which will be taken into account as a means of reducing the wait time, are subjective criteria on which caseworkers might come to different conclusions, and that that would not be fair? Does she agree that the unfairness for the British people comes from the gradual erosion of the difference between settlement and citizenship, such that all the benefits come with settlement and the only thing people get with citizenship is a blue passport and the right to return to the country after two years?
Shabana Mahmood
Many rights do accrue at the point of settlement, and that has been the policy under successive Governments over many decades. I do not wish to create a new system with a two-tier approach to what settlement means—one for historical cohorts and a new one for future cohorts—not least because some in this country, including some on the Opposition Benches, wish to rip up the status of indefinite leave to remain altogether. That would be the wrong thing to do. It would be unconscionable to throw into chaos the long-term residency arrangements of millions of people in this country, and this Government will not do that. On contribution and integration, the tests that need to be met are made clear in the consultation document. They are not subjective criteria, but detailed criteria that will be applied by caseworkers in the future.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Home Secretary did not address the issue of the dependants of armed forces personnel. In June, the majority of Government Members voted down my amendment to the Armed Forces Bill, which included the waiving of visa fees. That has now been overturned in the House of Lords, and the Bill will be coming back here, but will she clarify exactly what will happen to the spouses and children of armed forces personnel? Will their visa fees be waived? If they earn less than £50,000 and do not work in healthcare or a professional job, will they have to find themselves—sorry, I have lost my train of thought.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I think you made your point. Well done.
Shabana Mahmood
I know what the hon. Gentleman means. Let me assure him that the situation in relation to all members of the armed forces is unchanged by the package of earned settlement measures. They have their own bespoke regime. I will meet him to discuss the matter of fee waivers.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Home Secretary set out what internal changes she will make in the Home Office? One complaint I often get from people waiting for their ILR decision is about the length of time it takes to get that outcome from the point of application. As part of this new package to improve the system, what will happen to reduce the waiting time for applicants?
Shabana Mahmood
We have already made significant progress in improving Home Office processes, as evidenced by the fact that the backlog for initial decisions after an asylum application has decreased considerably. Since this Government have been in power, we have got removals up to over 80,000, alongside many other changes. Let me assure my hon. Friend that as these changes are rolled out—they will be rolled out over a period of time, so that the systems are ready for each of the changes as they are made—I will ensure that the Home Office is equipped to make timely decisions under the new rules.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
Where is the fairness in prioritising very wealthy people and very high earners over much lower-paid care workers who are obviously doing a valuable job and helping all our communities?
Shabana Mahmood
Perhaps the right hon. Member missed the bit of my statement where I set out transitional arrangements for care workers.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be well aware that the need for migrant workers varies throughout the country. What assessment has the Home Office made of the impact that these rule changes will make on areas such as mine in Lanarkshire, where the gap between the numbers of healthy working-age people and retirees is widening exponentially?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that immigration policy is a reserved matter and applies UK-wide, so the rules that we have announced today apply to everyone everywhere. The Government will publish an impact assessment in the normal way, around the same time as when the immigration rules are laid.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Although I welcome the earned progression model, it is disappointing that the Home Secretary has watered down her original proposals under pressure from Cabinet colleagues. Her plan to make illegal migrants wait 30 years for permission to remain will not deter any small boat crossings. Does she agree that the only way to stop the boats is to deport all those who arrive illegally?
Shabana Mahmood
First, it was a genuine consultation and we have listened to the unique circumstances of those who came to work in the care sector. I think it is right that we have arrangements recognising those unique circumstances. On illegal migrants, it is this Government who this year have overseen a 40% decrease in the number of people arriving by small boat. We have made a huge amount of progress, especially through our deal with the French Government and the law enforcement response, trying to go after the gangs that, in the end, put people in those boats. We will not rest until we have stopped people arriving in this country by boat in that way. I think that the settlement offer that people get when they arrive does make a material difference.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I just want to say something that I think everybody in this House recognises, which is that the Home Secretary is probably the first person in this job for two decades or more who has really got to grips with this system, and she has achieved a great deal. She also puts up with people projecting on to her what they think her views about immigration should be. Will she say why rebuilding public confidence in the immigration system is so important for social cohesion?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. He is absolutely right: there is quite a lot of projection that happens when you are a brown Muslim woman in the world of politics, but I am, alas, used to it. On rebuilding public trust, as I said in my statement, solidarity is a precondition of social justice. If we are to have a system based on taxation for universal public services, people need to know that everyone is contributing into the same collective pot that we can all then rely upon when we need to. That is how we maintain social cohesion in this country. A managed system where the Government are in control—where it is not people smugglers who decide who gets to come into our country, but the Government who make that choice, with the consent of the British people—is absolutely the way to ensure that we have social cohesion and strong communities all over our country.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am aware that businesses not offering high-quality employment, such as mini-marts, barber shops, vape shops and nail bars, are still able to get sponsorship licences. Will the Home Secretary commit to reviewing the types of businesses that can access those licences and stop these people being able to exploit people who are not high-quality employees?
Shabana Mahmood
I am already reviewing the way in which the sponsorship register works and the conditions required of companies before they can sponsor workers coming into this country, and I will report to the House on that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will read the detail in the consultation, but I am concerned about retrospective changes because our word should be our bond to people coming here. Also, in an economy where skills and contribution do not correlate with wages, I find the Home Secretary’s proposals prejudicial on that basis. Will she look at that again in the light of the consultation, so that we can put fairness at the heart of this?
Shabana Mahmood
I disagree with my hon. Friend, as she knows from my statement today, which has listened to the consultation responses in detail. As I have set out in answer to other hon. Members, the position for settlement applications is that the rules apply at the point at which the decision is made, not when someone has come into the country. That has been settled law and settled policy for a very long time, and it will not change.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
In her statement, the Home Secretary used the word “fair”, or different iterations of it, 20 times. She said that her own parents left a place where “power was often arbitrary,” and the “dice were always loaded”, and they came here because they would be “treated fairly.” Now, a worker earning £40,000, who came here legally, paid their taxes and played their part, has been moved from five to 10 years, halfway through. Is changing the rules mid-game fair, or is that exactly what loaded dice look like?
Shabana Mahmood
It is absolutely fair. The hon. Gentleman will know that for people who arrived around the time my parents and grandad did, the rules often changed regularly. As I said, it has been settled policy that the rules that apply to an application are those at the point of decision, not the point when someone arrives in the country, and it is made clear to people arriving on a temporary work visa that that does not necessarily indicate that settlement rights will follow. In my statement, and in our document responding to the consultation we carried out, there is a fair resolution for all the different cohorts that are affected by earned settlement, reflecting unique circumstances where appropriate, and ensuring that the default period moves to 10 years, which has been settled policy since last summer.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I welcome the change for care workers, but may I ask more about those whose five years have not worked out, for one reason or another? The Home Secretary says there will be another five-year route, but I met a care worker the other day who has injured her back because her employer did not respect health and safety rules, and she now cannot do that job. She has a master’s degree in financial management and is a specialist in AI. She knows that she has to work as a care worker, but will she really have to start again once her back has healed?
Shabana Mahmood
The position for those who arrived on the care visa was that they needed to work within the care sector, and I think it is fair to expect those who were unable to meet the terms of that visa to have a second shot at working in the care sector again. A number of jobs are available in the care sector, not all of which require heavy lifting, and I am sure that can be taken into account. The Government will assist care workers who have been unable to meet the terms of their visa to have that second chance at finding appropriate work with a legitimate provider.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The 2009 Gurkha justice campaign, spearheaded by Joanna Lumley, achieved settlement rights for British Army Gurkha veterans, and my understanding is that many progressed to settlement here by virtue of the access to indefinite leave to remain. Will the Home Secretary reassure the House that none of these changes will adversely affect the ability of those heroes to settle in the UK when they retire?
Shabana Mahmood
Yes, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone), Gurkhas will have settlement under the armed forces rules, which are entirely exempt and different from earned settlement.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I welcome the principle of earned settlement, whereby contribution to our society is rewarded, and it is right that we reward our care workers. In our schools, our teachers need the support of their assistants. Will the Home Secretary say what support there will be for our teaching assistants?
Shabana Mahmood
Those in the health and education sectors on below degree-level jobs with national pay scales, such as teaching assistants, will be subject to the same transitional arrangements that I have set out for care workers who have met the terms of their visa.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
In August last year the Government admitted that they had no idea how many people who came in on care worker visas were still working in the care sector. How can the Home Secretary make an informed decision on their earned settlement when she has no idea whether they are still here doing the jobs they came in to do?
Shabana Mahmood
When applying for settlement, people will need to provide evidence that they have been working and earning within the care sector. Based on analysis of HM Revenue and Customs data, we expect that three quarters of care workers will meet the test and conditions of their visa and will be able to settle at five years.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, particularly the provision for care workers to obtain settlement on their existing five-year route. What support and provision are being offered to those who came here on a care visa and are tied to exploitative sponsors, or those who have been unable to continue working as care workers because of exploitative sponsors?
Shabana Mahmood
The individuals my hon. Friend refers to will have a second chance, as they will be able to apply for a new five-year visa in the care sector. The Government will double the amount of time normally allowed so that those people can find another job with a legitimate employer, and the Government will help those individuals to be matched with legitimate employers so that they can work in the care sector.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Everybody I have met and spoken to in my constituency opposes any kind of illegal immigration into our country. However, many people are in desperate need of help and they are forced to come via illegal routes. Just as there is a workaround providing a dispensation for care workers who have been exploited to have a second chance at getting earned status, will genuine refugees who came here in the absence of safe and legal routes be offered the same?
Shabana Mahmood
No, the position in relation to those who enter the country unlawfully is different, not least because those who are arriving on a boat are doing so from the north of France, which is a safe country underpinned by the European convention on human rights. It is right to treat those different cohorts differently because their method of entry into the country is different, and it is right that the Government are able to incentivise the behaviour we wish to see and disincentivise those who pay people smugglers and who risk their lives in the channel. I would have hoped that we could agree on that.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
We continue to have acute workforce pressures in social care in Scotland, which often leaves people stranded in hospital when they are fit to go home. What conversations has the Home Secretary had with the Scottish Government about the need for robust workforce planning, which has been absent for so long, to ensure that existing skills gaps are not exacerbated by these changes?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. She will know that the Home Office is not responsible for workforce planning, but Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care are working carefully on a workforce response, and I am sure that they are discussing these matters with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I broadly welcome the principle that permanent residency in our United Kingdom must be properly earned. The Home Secretary has rightly drawn a differential between those who immigrate, pay their taxes and national insurance and make a contribution, and those usually very healthy economic migrants who jump in a rubber raft at Calais and come across. Our public services, particularly the health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, rely heavily on dedicated international workers who pay their taxes and play by the rules. Will she reassure my constituents that the policy will firmly reward legal, working contribution, while cracking down on those who jump the queue?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The point of earned settlement is to reflect and provide settlement for those who contribute to this country and who meet the new minimum requirements, which include no criminality and no debt. That is a fair deal for all concerned, not least the taxpayer, whose money underpins all the public services that we rely on.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I look forward to chewing through the details of what the Home Secretary has published today, but it is good to hear her talk about the role of societal contribution as a route to residency and about the allowances for care workers. Some 4.2 million economic migrants came to this country under the previous Government, while we have hundreds of thousands of British young people not in education, employment or training. What conversations is she having across Government so that our immigration intake marries up to what we need in our labour market and economy?
Shabana Mahmood
It is absolutely right that while we should be able to bring in workers from abroad when we need to in order to fill market gaps in this country, of course we have to ensure that we are always providing opportunities for domestic workers, not least the 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training. We have an obligation to them too and it is important that we strike the right balance. I believe the earned settlement reforms strike the right balance for migrant workers and British taxpayers. I assure my hon. Friend that I am talking to colleagues across Government. Immigration is not the only part of the answer—skills and training here at home are also necessary.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s recognition of the crucial work done by overseas care workers. Does she agree not only that this approach is needed not just practically, but that it is the right thing to do in principle to ensure that those who contribute the most in the most under-served professions in our country are rewarded?
Shabana Mahmood
It was clear from the response to the consultation that the position of care workers was unique. They came at a specific moment post-covid, when there were very real challenges in the care sector, and it is right to reflect that and provide a five-year path to settlement for those who met the terms of their visa.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her leadership on this issue. In the Lake district, due to housing shortages, there is a long-established policy of social housing being subject to local occupancy restrictions; only those with a local link—for example, local employment—are eligible for housing. Looking beyond the Home Office, does she agree that her Cabinet colleagues—not least those responsible for the fairness of housing policy—also have the power and a responsibility to reduce immigration pull factors?
Shabana Mahmood
I was not aware of those arrangements in the Lake district. My hon. Friend is right about the broader point; it is incumbent on all Government Departments to think about these issues in the round and to strike a fair balance. All the conversations that I have had with my colleagues in Cabinet reflect that, as the Government position.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Could she consider the disparity that sometimes arises across the UK in salaries? I point her to information published by the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland just last month, which indicated that those in Scotland were likely to be earning up to 9% less than their counterparts in the rest of the UK. We clearly would not want people in the immigration system to be caught out by that anomaly, too.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know that those who are already in the country on lower salaries were given an exemption by the previous Government, and so can extend their visa on the same salary. We have agreed that we will extend that further to 2035, to enable those people to achieve settlement. More broadly, she will know that some of the changes in the Budget reflect advice from the Migration Advisory Committee on regional pay.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Given that those earning more than £50,000 will have a five-year route to settled status, while those earning less than £50,000 will have a 10-year route, how will we assess whether a lawyer offers more value to our society than a teaching assistant, setting aside how much they earn?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend will know that there is a specific transitional arrangement for teaching assistants, because they are defined by the Migration Advisory Committee as being in the health and education sector, on national pay scales. They will have a five-year path if they arrived before May 2025.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and her distinction between illegal migrants and those who came legally to work and contribute. We must confront the mess left by the Conservatives, whose failure to manage our immigration system is nothing short of a national scandal. Settlement should be earned through contribution, and in Portsmouth, I have seen that at first hand from our care workers, who look after our most vulnerable. Will the Home Secretary reassure those who have already contributed so much that their contributions will be recognised, and that those who have not contributed and have tried to play the system will need to contribute to remain?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me reiterate to my hon. Friend that the transitional arrangement agreed for care workers reflects the unique circumstances of that cohort. Those who have met the terms of their visa will be able to settle at five years, and those who have not will get a second chance to make the contribution that they originally came to make.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I welcome the changes announced today, and thank the Home Secretary for the way that she reached out during the consultation. In particular, when it comes to our responsibility to BNO visa holders, she has listened. In the past, one of the challenges in seeking to move towards a contributory system has been that the Office for Budget Responsibility has struggled to model correctly the importance of contribution in our welfare system. It has made some changes, but that change should continue. Will the Home Secretary call on the OBR to continue to improve the way that it models the economics of migration?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend tempts me, but he knows that the OBR is independent. I am sure that it has heard his point about how the contribution of migrants is measured, for the purposes of its forecasts and the scoring decisions that it makes ahead of fiscal events. He will know that the Home Office’s approach is to look at settlement as a lifetime benefit, so we have considered lifetime cost, as well as unique circumstances of particular cohorts. He mentions the BNOs; he will know that they are exempt from any of these income changes. That reflects our long-standing commitment to them, but they have to meet the new minimum requirements.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
I welcome the retention of the five-year pathway for indefinite leave to remain. I have met Nigerian and Zimbabwean social care workers in Newtown and the Dee valley who will be greatly reassured and relieved by today’s statement. Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating the huge contribution that these workers make to our health and social care system every day?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These workers have been making a contribution. Given their unique circumstances, and the fact that many of them have met the terms of their visas, they will be able to settle at five years.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is absolutely right to talk about the British people’s sense of fairness; I heard about exactly that on the doorstep in Cannock Chase just this weekend. Not only did the Conservatives let millions into Britain over just a few years, but they left indefinite leave to remain at five years, regardless of someone’s contribution. Does the Home Secretary agree that these changes will introduce fairness, and that those who want to settle here will have to make a fair and positive contribution?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Fairness to all is what underpins these reforms—not just to those who arrived here lawfully to work, but to those who are already here, and who pay for the systems we all depend on.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Almost everyone in my constituency who speaks to me about immigration says that they welcome those who come to work hard in our country and play by the rules. As the Home Secretary knows, though, many of those workers across multiple sectors of the economy face significant exploitation from their visa sponsors. She referred to helping workers break away from rogue employers; will she meet those of us who are interested in introducing a certificate of common sponsorship to resolve this problem?
Shabana Mahmood
As I have said, the Government will assist people who have been with a rogue employer in the care sector to get legitimate work in that sector for the renewal of their five-year care visa. The Home Office will, of course, amend sponsorship regimes, following changes made by the Health Secretary and her team. They are looking carefully at what the minimum conditions and standards in this sector should be, and I have already undertaken that we will follow those changes, once they are made.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Framing today’s statement is the fact that under this Labour Government and this Home Secretary, net migration is down 82% from its peak under the previous Conservative Government. However, can she confirm that alongside the changes that she is making to legal migration, there will be serious consequences for settlement for those entering our country by dangerous and illegal means?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is right that migration is down under this Government, and we are taking steps to make sure that we bring coherence and rationality to the migration system and fix the mess left behind by the previous Government. On his point about illegal migration, that is why there is an additional waiting period of 10 years for those who enter illegally; we consulted on this matter, and there was a plurality of support for that measure. It reflects the fact that in the end, the Government and their people have to be in control of our migration system, not people-smuggling gangs.
Bill Presented
Animal Shelters (Licensing) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Richard Holden, supported by Rebecca Harris, Mr Mark Francois, John Lamont, Dan Carden, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Simon Hoare, Dr Peter Prinsley, John Glen, Mims Davies, Greg Smith and Dr Neil Hudson, presented a Bill to make provision for the licensing of animal shelters; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 168).