The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I will repeat a Statement on the Government’s policy of earned settlement.
“A little over a month ago, at Labour Party conference, the Home Secretary promised 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.
It is the responsibility of the Home Secretary to ensure that our migration system lives up to that ideal. 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 I also know that there is an expectation of those who do that they will play their part, contribute to their community and become part of our national life. 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 immigration system demands reform to settlement—the ability to live in this country for ever. Settlement confers some of the most valuable rights that this country can offer. At settlement, a migrant receives the right to free education, our NHS and, should they fall upon 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 this represents true fairness. Instead, I believe these 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 someone must live in this country before they settle is determined by the contribution they have made. That 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: the non-negotiable expectations that we make of anyone who seeks to live here permanently.
For those who clear these bars, settlement then varies based on the contribution made rather than simply time served. This contribution is judged, crucially, not just financially but in terms of public service. A five-year path will remain open to all higher earners on salaries over £50,000 and those who have contributed in healthcare and education, in professions such as doctors, nurses and teachers. For those who make an exceptional contribution, even faster routes will be 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. 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 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 on the state before they make their application. A number of groups will see their path to settlement remain as 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 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 dependents 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 themselves came here knowing there was no job they could fill.
A fair solution must address both sides of this, recognising the service of those who cared for our sick and elderly at a time of immense national need and 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 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 a 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 about a quarter of those who came between 2022 and 2025 or switched into that route. We will offer them a second chance to make the contribution 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 now help workers to find a new position with a legitimate provider, and we will give them a longer period of time 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, these 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: that settlement must be linked to contribution. The same transitional arrangements 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 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. This position is long established in this country and 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 in 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 part in this.
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. This is as fast a path as 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. This means 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, at the same time, 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. As a result, 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 for ever must now be earned; it will no longer be automatic. It is a fair settlement for all, so I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for bringing the Statement to the House. He will know only too well how difficult and complicated issues around migration are, and I certainly saw that during deliberations on a report on immigration being put together by the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee, which I have the honour to chair. Certainly, not all members agreed with all our final recommendations, but we were of course unanimous, as we are on these Benches, on wanting more action to tackle small boat crossings and the criminal gangs behind them, so we welcome the plans for more safe and legal routes.
On these Benches, and among many members of the committee, one of the greatest concerns about the original proposals from the Government was around plans to retrospectively change the rules for those already in the country. So we welcome some of the announcements about retrospection in the Statement, which row back from earlier plans. Whether they were brought about by our committee’s report or by rebellions on the Back Benches of the Labour Party or within the Cabinet, I suppose we will never know.
It is welcome that some social care workers—those earning £25,000 a year—BNO visa holders, members of the Armed Forces, the Windrush cohort and others will now have no change to the time taken to get to ILR. Other parts of the Statement are welcome: taking family income in the round into account rather than individual incomes, as the committee proposed; taking maternity leave into account so that a dropped income during that period does not lengthen the time to ILR; and allowing children to claim ILR with no rule changes. But there is nevertheless much to be concerned about.
Can the Minister confirm that around half a million people will get settled later than planned—later than they were originally told and promised? Does the Minister accept that many migrants have made significant long-term decisions—about housing, jobs, children’s education and so on—with the expectation of acquiring ILR after five years? Is extending their time retrospectively not a huge broken promise, and one that will make it much harder for people to settle and integrate if their certainty has been removed?
The Select Committee pointed out that the planned income thresholds, which earn a reduction in qualifying time to ILR, are not linked to migrants’ net fiscal impact but instead set at the higher and upper income tax rate thresholds. As a result, some migrants who are net contributors to public finances would still be required to wait 10 years to acquire ILR. We argue that proposals should focus less on income and more on making a positive contribution, and that the income levels that lead to a reduction in ILR pathways should be set not according to income tax thresholds but on the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee. Can the Minister explain why the Select Committee’s advice was ignored? Does he not recognise that sticking with tax thresholds means that somebody in London and somebody in Gateshead can be doing exactly the same job, but one can be on a five-year route and one on a 10-year route? Does the Minister really think that is fair?
There are other concerns about increasing the length to achieve ILR. First, would somebody facing a much longer ILR wait, not least those facing 30 years, do anything other than drop out into the shadow economy and simply stay out of touch with the Home Office? Secondly, what incentives are there to make efforts to integrate into our society? The Statement is absolutely silent about crucial issues around integration. Requiring a higher standard of English is all well and good, and we support it, but what are the Government doing to boost provision of English language tuition, which is in very short supply at the current time? What are they doing about changing the frankly appalling Life in the UK Test of people’s understanding about our country, when its questions in the past have included things such as: what is the height of the London Eye?
Finally, people now have a no-debt requirement, including repaying the cost of their asylum accommodation, which will be capped at £10,000. We know that of those who were employed eight years after the grant, 37% were in full-time work, with a median earning of £23,000, with internal analysis of the published Refugee Integration Outcomes database showing that 40% earned at least the minimum wage. If somebody had a £23,000 income, they could perhaps just about pay £100 a month back to the Government. I doubt that is realistic, but let us assume they could. If they could, it would take them eight years and four months to pay back the £10,000 debt—so their ILR time would be not five years but eight years and four months, and it is very easy to see how much longer it is likely to be. What is the Minister’s answer to those 60% who are not earning even at the minimum wage?
These issues are simply not fair. On these Benches we hope very much that the Government will go away and think again before the final details are published next month.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their questions and contributions. I have pointed out before that here we are addressing a mess created by the previous Government. I do not want to be too partisan about it, but that is the simple fact. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, speaks about migration, but the simple fact is that we have already cut net migration by 82%. Now we are setting out a fair solution to the so-called Boriswave: fair to those who have come here and played their part, and fair to the British citizens who are already here. I want to make that point before I address some of the other questions.
Today, the Home Secretary set out a total transformation of settlement, which is no longer automatic and based on time served; instead, it is now earned, based on contribution to this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, reminded us, we conducted a genuine consultation and we have set out a response that is fair to those people who came here and played their part and to the British citizens already here. The previous Government lost control of the migration system. Settlement for those who came in those years will now be based on contribution, not just on time served. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, pointed out, as a result of these reforms, we expect that over 500,000 will settle later. That has been an important consideration. As I said, in the Home Secretary’s Statement, a determination was made that this will come into effect when people apply; that has always been the case, so there is no retrospection.
What we have understood, and what the consultation has acknowledged, is that the people who have come here made a very necessary contribution while this country faced a pandemic. Recognition of that is important. We have designed a settlement system that rewards those who contribute and that is better and less costly than the system we inherited. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to the £10 billion figure as if all social care visas will be waived through—but this is not happening. We are setting a test that means that those most likely to claim will not get settlement at five years. As a result of our reforms, over 500,000 people will need to contribute more and wait longer before settlement.
These transitional arrangements will see care workers who are in work being able to reach settlement at five years. Those who are not in work will have to apply for another five-year visa and make the contribution they came here to make before they can apply again. Until that point, they remain with no access to social housing or any other benefit. The DWP estimates savings in the billions to the welfare bill as a result of this policy. We have taken a fair approach to care workers. Those who answered the previous Government’s call during Covid, worked in the sector and played their full part will be able to settle after five years. Those who did not will be able to apply for a new five-year visa, to make that contribution themselves before they can apply again.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, made a point about education. The Home Secretary in the other place made it clear that we are consulting with all government departments, particularly the Education Secretary, to ensure that English language education support is available. We are committed to do that. On the implementation of this programme, our response will be to work on a cross-Whitehall basis to ensure that we have a joined-up approach; we will ensure that that applies.
We have made it so that settlement will be based on contribution, not just on time served, as it was under the previous Government. We have cut net migration by 82% from its peak under them, but we will not leave young British people behind. That is why—again, following a point addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Foster—we are investing an additional £2.5 billion to support almost 1 million young people into education, employment and training. This is about getting a system that is fair and that ensures that we can have the confidence of the British people—something that, I am afraid, we did not see under the 14 years of the previous Government.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Foster, while I welcome the compromises in the Statement, I fear it will not reassure most of the migrant workers who have emailed me expressing anxiety, anguish and bitter disappointment at the retrospective measures they consider unfair, having come to this country in good faith only for the goalposts to be moved. Nor will it reassure refugees seeking asylum and sanctuary in this country. Organisations such as the Refugee Council and Coram have expressed real concern about the implications for refugees and their children. Can my noble friend the Minister say why the promised impact assessments will not be published until actual implementation? That will be too late to be of use. Can he tell me what assessment has been made of the measures’ impact on the Government’s strategies to reduce child poverty and homelessness and to strengthen integration— a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foster?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The Home Secretary in the other place addressed the latter points that my noble friend made. We are committed to work with the DWP. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out, many of those who responded to the consultation we conducted were visa holders. They were quite happy with the proposals on earned settlement; they recognised that as part of their commitment in coming to work in this country.
We will continue to protect refugees as long as protection is needed. Those who come on the UK resettlement scheme or by sponsored safe and legal routes will qualify after five years. It is right that we seek to disincentivise illegal entry into this country, such as by small boats. The first stage of implementing the changs to the Immigration Rules will begin in December and take effect in January 2027. Further immigration rule changes will come in in 2027 and 2028. Further technical detail and a full impact assessment will be published before implementation, informed by continued engagement with affected groups and stakeholders.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, by the Government’s own admission, some 500,000 people will take longer to get indefinite leave to remain. Those are 500,000 people who will be living with uncertainty, in many cases for a very long period: up to 30 years. Can the Minister reassure us that the impact assessment will take account of that uncertainty and, in particular, its effect on social cohesion and integration into this country?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
There are two parts to that question. I believe that, as the Home Secretary made clear, settlement gives people rights. When people come here for a visa, they work and they comply with the visa’s conditions. If they wish to have settled status, what we are now saying is that it is not just simply a time-served arrangement; they have to meet those commitments. I say to the right reverend Prelate that we are committed—I spoke about this in debates last week—to seeing how we can establish safe and legal routes. We are talking today about settled status, but we have a broader policy that will address net migration into this country. We need a very clear policy about what people are expected to do when they wish to stay here permanently. I do not think that is unreasonable; I think the consultation reflected that and most people on visas understood it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question relates specifically to the refugees arriving through irregular routes, who now face a 30-year settlement time. Some of them will be women fleeing the Taliban. Some of them will be those whom I shared a room with last week as we commemorated the first anniversary of the awful massacre in El Fasher—Sudanese who share ties of history, language and family with us. When they were forced to flee, they came here, and no routes were available to them except irregular routes.
The Law Society has said that, in its judgment, this 30-year rule contravenes the 1951 refugee convention, to which we have long been signatories. Under that, the UK promised to help those coming to our country to seek protection to integrate and build a new life. If you are lucky, 30 years will be half of your adult life. How can the Government possibly justify this under the refugee convention?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I can and I will, and the Home Secretary has made it clear in the other place. Settlement for refugees will encourage safe and legal routes and promote integration, while discouraging the use of unsafe and illegal routes. The Home Secretary was right to point out that it is absolutely appalling that people, including women and children, have suffered death as a consequence of trying those illegal routes on boats. We are absolutely looking at policies that discourage that. Refugees on safe and legal routes will qualify after five years. That is the incentive side of this policy. All other refugees will qualify after 20 years, although there will be a 10-year discount for entering work or study. Again, it is about people making a contribution. Those who came by small boat will receive a 10-year additional wait, to discourage those dangerous and illegal crossings. It is not simply about saying that there will be a 30-year wait for refugees; we are adopting a policy that will secure refugees’ future properly.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Can the Minister look at that question slightly differently? Is the message to migrants arriving illegally on small boats that, if they come to the UK then they can stay here for 30 years, and not work or study, and at the end of that 30 years be given leave to remain—and in the meantime they will have been living off the generosity of the British taxpayers and the welfare system, and so on? Can the Minister clarify why that is a disincentive? Further, last year, when the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood launched her reforms—I am one of her fans—she said that migration was “unaffordable” and that it was “immoral” to carry on, and she was very clear and very firm about those reforms. She has backed down on those reforms now. Why? Is that not saying that we are now going to have to be able to afford what we cannot afford, and that somehow she has been forced to accommodate on her morality of last year?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The Home Secretary has not compromised one bit. What she announced today is a settled status that includes a range of contributions. She made it clear at the introduction of her policy that there were disqualifications to being able to earn settled status. However, the noble Baroness is conflating issues. There are people who have genuine asylum claims, which are properly assessed, and those people will have their status understood through the conventions that we are signed up to. That is the country we are; we value those things. When I had a debate last week, we were talking about Ukrainian refugees who have come here. Most of them want to return to their own country. There are many other refugees who have come here and who we have given protection to who also want to return to their country. I do not accept the idea that everyone is a freeloader. That is why the system that we are putting in place recognises their contribution, whether it be work or study.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, since there is time, I have another question referring to the other end of the scale. I was talking about refugees waiting 30 years. It is three years to settlement for the highest-rate taxpayers, who earn over £125,000 per year. I note that, before the Budget, Bloomberg reported what was a very clear trial balloon being floated, suggesting that the Government might bring back golden visas—that thoroughly discredited scheme by which money launderers, corrupt people and criminals came into the UK, as is widely acknowledged. Of course, very rich people can easily arrange to pay themselves a large sum of money over three years, and then they will have got a very fast route into the UK. What will the Government do to make sure that this is not another open door for the kind of people who we allowed into our country and who helped to give us the label of the “London Laundromat”?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Fortunately, my noble friend who is sitting next to me is the Minister for Fraud, and he has just spent a week ensuring that we collaborate internationally on addressing the issue of fraud. We talked about higher tax payers and the tax brackets. That is not the only contribution, but they make a net contribution over a period, so they earn that right for settlement. It is not about wealthy people buying visas. They come here to do very important work, whether in our sciences or in other research areas. We are not talking about oligarchs; we are talking about people who make a contribution to the United Kingdom’s economy, and that contribution, through their earnings, will be recognised in the ability to seek and earn settled status. It is not about buying it.