The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Thursday 20 November.
“With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement on a fairer pathway to settlement for migrants.
The story of migration in this country is woven through my own. My father came here in the early ’70s, my mother a little less than a decade later. Both came to seek a better life, and they found one here. In time, while always proud Kashmiris, they became British citizens themselves—Brummies, too—and brought up four children just as proud as them to be a part of this country and that great city. This is not just my story; it is the story of many of my constituents in Birmingham Ladywood, and of many millions more across this country.
Like so many others like me, I am a patriot. Mine is a love of a country that is for ever changing, while something essential about us always endures. It is a patriotism that finds room for those who trace their roots back many generations and for those who, like me, do not. However, I worry that for some, that broad patriotism is narrowing, and that a vision of a greater Britain is giving way to that of a littler England, as anger turns to hate. Some will choose to scorn this analysis; they would rather that we simply wished it away, but those who look like me do not have that luxury. Our lives and those of our families are more dangerous in a country that turns inwards, so we have no choice but to ask what the cause of our division is, and how this country might be united.
As I said earlier this week, the pace and scale of migration in this country has been destabilising. I spoke on Monday of the 400,000 people who have claimed asylum since 2021, but that figure pales in comparison with the net migration figure for the same period. In that time, 2.6 million more people moved to Britain than left. To place that in perspective, around one in every 30 people in this country arrived in those four years. This is the result of the extraordinary open- border experiment conducted by the last Conservative Government.
In that period, now sometimes called the Boriswave, immigration controls were drastically lifted. This was most notable in the case of the health and care visa, for which minimum salary requirements were dropped. An attempt to fill between 6,000 and 40,000 jobs led to the arrival of 616,000 individuals between 2022 and 2024. Over half of those individuals were not even filling jobs in the sector—rather, they were dependants of those who were—and as any Member of Parliament could tell us, abuse was rife.
I would have thought that my support for migration did not need to be stated, but after some of the questions I faced on Monday, I think I had better do so. Migrant communities have been woven into the tapestry of British life for generations. While I will never believe in assimilating communities, we have achieved cohesion because different communities have integrated, retaining their distinction within a single, pluralistic whole. This makes demands of those who are already here to remain open to new arrivals, but more than that, it demands something of those arriving. To settle in this country for ever is not a right, but a privilege, and it must be earned. Today, that is not the case; settlement, or indefinite leave to remain, comes almost automatically after five years’ residence in this country. At that point, a migrant gains access to many of the rights of a British citizen, including to benefits.
As a result of the unprecedented levels of migration in recent years, 1.6 million people are now forecast to settle between 2026 and 2030, with a peak of 450,000 in 2028—around four times higher than the recent average. That will now change. As this Government announced in their immigration White Paper, the starting point for settlement will move from five years to 10. To ensure that this is earned, new criteria will be added, which will act as a disqualifying bar for those who do not meet them. First, the applicant must have a clean criminal record; secondly, they must speak English to A-level standard; thirdly, they must have made sustained national insurance contributions; and finally, they must have no debt in this country.
While these criteria set the bar that everyone must meet, there are a series of other tests, which today have been published for consultation. These either add to, or subtract from, the 10-year qualifying period. To recognise the particular value to society they play, the Government propose that those who speak English to a degree-level standard could qualify for a nine-year path to settlement; those paying the higher rate of tax could qualify at five years; and those on the top rate could qualify after three, the same as those on global talent visas. Those who work in a public service, including doctors, teachers and nurses, would qualify after five years, while those who volunteer—subject to this consultation—could qualify at between five and seven years. Not subject to consultation, the partners of British citizens will continue to qualify at five years, as is the case today. This is also true of British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, who will qualify at five years in honour of our unique responsibilities to them. All grants under the Windrush and EU settlement schemes will also remain unchanged.
While some people will be able to qualify for settlement earlier than 10 years, others will be forced to wait longer. Once again, these proposals are subject to consultation, but the Government propose that those who have received benefits for less than 12 months would not qualify for settlement until 15 years after arrival. For those who have claimed benefits for more than 12 months, the duration would rise to 20 years, and to encourage the use of legal routes into this country, those who arrive illegally could see settlement take up to 30 years. As has already been set out, refugees on core protection will qualify for settlement after 20 years, although those who move to a work and study visa could earn settlement earlier, and those arriving by a safe and legal route would earn settlement at 10 years. This consultation is open regarding settlement rights for some cohorts of special interest, including children, members of the armed forces and victims of certain crimes.
As well as considering the responsibilities that are expected of those who seek a permanent life in this country, the consultation also raises the question of the rights that will be provided. Specifically, it proposes that benefits might not be available to those who have settled status, reserving them instead for those who have earned British citizenship. Finally, the consultation addresses the question of the so-called Boriswave, specifically the cohort of lower-qualified workers who—along with their dependants—entered the country through the health and care visa, and some of whom are never expected to be net economic contributors. It is right that we apply more stringent controls for this group. For that reason, we propose they should wait 15 years before they can earn settlement. Crucially, for these people and for every other group mentioned, we propose that these changes apply to everyone in the country today who has not yet received indefinite leave to remain, although we are seeking views on whether some transitional arrangements should be available.
May I make one thing absolutely clear, though? We will not change the rules for those with settled status today. These are people who have been in our country for years, or even decades. They have families here—wives, husbands and children. They have worked in our hospitals and taught in our schools, and have been contributing to our society for years. Fairness is the most fundamental of British values. We made a promise when we gave those people settlement, and we do not break our promises.
The Reform Party—whose Members, I note, are not in the Chamber today—has said that it will do this most un-British of things. The Tories have said that they will, but then said that they will not; I am left in as much of a muddle about their policy as they are, although perhaps the shadow Home Secretary might enlighten the House today. But I can be clear that this Government will not change the rules for those with settled status.
As this consultation shows, we listen to the British public, and I encourage all those interested to make their voices heard. Today I have set out what we propose and, perhaps more importantly, why. I love this country, which opened its arms to my parents around 50 years ago, but I am concerned by the division I see now, fuelled by a pace and scale of change that is placing immense pressure on local communities. For those who believe that migration is part of modern Britain’s story and should always continue to be, we must prove that it can still work, with those who come here contributing, playing their part and enriching our national life. While each will always retain something of who they were and where they came from, they become a part of the greatest multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy in the world. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, this is the second set of changes to immigration policy announced this year, on top of the Bill we have just passed, and the changes to the asylum system; it is fair to say the Government are feeling the pressure. But, as with the asylum Statement last week, I welcome many of these measures announced by the Home Secretary.
The Government are proposing a scheme whereby the default length of time for settlement is 10 years and, depending upon a person’s situation and circumstances, time will be either added or subtracted from those 10 years, meaning some people will qualify for indefinite leave to remain much sooner, and some much later. I am particularly supportive of those who receive benefits for more than 12 months having to wait for 20 years before qualifying for settlement. But this does raise the question of the degree to which foreign nationals are able to access public funds. It would be useful for the Minister to specify how this particular route would work. Surely, where a person is on a settlement route but not yet received settlement, they should not be able to receive any public funds.
I am interested in understanding how the Government have made the decision on the number of years they propose for each settlement pathway, as some seem to be rather odd. For example, the proposal is for a person who can speak English to degree level to be offered a nine-year path to settlement, while those who volunteer will be able to qualify between five and seven years. I understand that the volunteering pathway is subject to consultation, but what reasoning do the Government have for requiring a person who has degree-level English to wait for longer than a person who has done some volunteering? Furthermore, how will the Government ensure that the volunteering pathway does not lead to abuses of the system?
One concern I have about these proposals is about the settlement periods for illegal migrants. The consultation document states that illegal entry will add “up to 20 years” to the baseline qualifying period. It then says:
My Lords, we recognise the issues facing communities and immigrants across the country, and we agree that faith must be restored to the immigration and asylum system, which requires changes to policy. We appreciate the commitment to maintaining the five-year pathway to settlement for partners of British citizens and British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, honouring our unique responsibilities to them. However, we are concerned that this overhaul overlooks key failures of past Governments.
Prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration. It is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy.
Changes to settlement must be made giving due regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect this policy and rhetoric could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation. However, and moreover, the NHS is heavily reliant on non-British national staff.
The policy statement sets out that debt would limit an individual’s eligibility for settlement. What does that mean? Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Does it include credit cards or a mortgage? When consideration is being given to preventing access to public funds for those with settlement? What is the position of the state pension, which an individual would have contributed to over the years that they have been in the UK? If you take your pension, does that mean that you would no longer be eligible for that final route?
The Statement explicitly targets the cohort of lower-qualified workers who entered via the health and care visa, proposing they should wait 15 years before earning settlement, extending the pathway beyond the new 10-year baseline. Would that lead to a situation where care workers would be incentivised to volunteer in their community rather than work extra hours as a care worker? This proposal unfairly targets low earners and our carers. Why are carers not to be considered public service workers? What are we saying about the value of care? Care is a fundamental need in our society, especially as we are an ageing population.
I am grateful for the opportunity to answer questions in this House on the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Let me start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the Government are not feeling the pressure on this issue. The Government are responding, as any sensible Government would, to some of the challenges we have inherited after 14 years of his Government. There was a large build-up in a range of asylum issues, and they did not tackle the issue of earned settlement that we are looking at now. The last change on earned settlement was in 2006, and this is the most fundamental change in over 40 years. Settlement is a privilege, not a right. We are trying to have a discussion, so I would welcome formal consultation from both noble Lords on the points they have made. We are trying to solve some of the problems and challenges for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about issues to do with the different years of earned entitlement, up and down. We have made judgments on that, but it is open to consultation. He can make representations, if he thinks any of the decisions that we have come to in the initial document are wrong. We will look at his representations on those issues. We have settled on degree-level English as being an important benchmark. For the core narrative and the four main criteria, the English requirement is A-level standard, which is the B2 test of the common European framework. I think that is reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned illegal entry. We have set very high bars on the punitive elements of additional years before any consideration can be given. Again, that is open to consultation. There may be circumstances where somebody has arrived illegally who we wish to examine, and that is part of the reason for the discussion. All the areas the noble Lord has mentioned are subject to consultation, and I would certainly welcome his views.
7:04 pm
20 of 34 shown
“We are consulting on whether this should be 5, 10, 15 or as high as 20 years”.
I ask the Minister why the Government need to consult on this. Why can they not make a decision themselves? Are the Government considering allowing scope for discretion?
On this, it somewhat beggars belief that the Home Office is actually considering permitting those who arrive illegally to still be able to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. I know I have made this point before, but I will keep making it until the Government absorb it and listen: there should be absolutely no route to settlement for those who enter illegally. Any person who commits a criminal offence by entering the UK without valid leave to enter and remain should be deported and never permitted to receive settlement. I look forward very much to what the Minister has to say in response.
Further, these proposals raise serious questions about those who are most vulnerable. The Government have committed to keeping some immediate short-route pathways for victims of domestic violence and abuse. Will the Minister explicitly reassure the House and survivors that these changes will not have the adverse, and perhaps unintended, impact of locking those survivors into abusive relationships?
The care sector in the UK is facing chronic staffing shortages, putting immense pressure on families and the wider social care system. Given that the Home Secretary has proposed that public service workers could qualify after five years, what assessment has been made of the risk that some essential public service workers will leave the UK? That was shared by the nurses’ union. What credible plan are the Government making to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector, especially in the short timescale that is available to them?
The Ukrainian people continue to resist Russia’s war of aggression, and many families who have sought refuge in the UK face further uncertainty over their visa status, causing significant instability. Will the Home Office and the Minister consider establishing a pathway to indefinite leave to remain for Ukrainians who have integrated into life in the UK and wish to remain long-term?
How does this policy relate to the family unit? It would seem that we could have a situation where people within the same family unit are on different routes to settlement because of their individual salaries on the one hand and caring responsibilities on the other —for example, a husband on a three-year route and a wife on a 10-year route. How might this disproportionately impact women, who often work less as a result of childcare?
The Home Secretary stated in the other place that fairness is central to these immigration changes. Is it fair to change the rules for an individual who has come to the UK on a legal route, with certain expectations, and move the goalposts midway through their route to settlement? While no one disputes that people coming to the UK should integrate, how will the Home Secretary and the Home Office ensure that the new mandatory measures, such as making sustained national insurance contributions above the personal allowance threshold and demonstrating English language proficiency to A-level standard or more, do not impose unworkable red tape on people who have come here legally?
Finally, how will these arrangements and changes be implemented? Will some of it be in primary legislation? Will some of it be in secondary legislation? Will some of it just be changes to the Immigration Rules? I understand that it is a tricky and detailed answer that I am expecting from the Minister, but if he cannot give me the exact details now about the legislative route for these proposals, perhaps he might like to write to me on these matters. I appreciate that I have asked a significant number of questions, but I hope that I can get answers to some of them.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord German, that the anticipation is that most of this will be done via the Immigration Rules. The process, as set out in the Statement that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made on 20 November, is that a consultation will be open until 12 February 2026, and we would hope to try to make some changes with effect from the next financial year, in April. Again, that will be subject to consultation and parliamentary consideration.
The noble Lord mentioned what the debt would look like for individuals. The three types of debt that we are looking at in the consultation are any outstanding litigation debt, tax debt or National Health Service debt. It would not be debt on a personal basis; effectively, we will be examining state debts. Whether pensions would be included is for the consultation. We are looking at issues such as jobseeker’s allowance and child benefit, but it would be open to discussion. I would welcome the noble Lord’s contribution to that.
The noble Lord mentioned the situation with health and care visas. There is considerable growth in this area, arguably because people are living longer and require more care. In 2028, we anticipate an additional 210,000 care workers coming to the UK, with the potential for long-term settlement. We are trying to ensure that we raise the level of training and are looking into recruiting UK-based citizens into that work. There will always be a need to examine that route, which is why we will maintain it, but there is a much longer period for final settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned Ukraine. We would not have anticipated the Ukraine scheme four or five years ago, but it is in place because we responded to a humanitarian need in what I and the Ukrainian Government hope is a temporary circumstance. The Ukraine route has never been a route to permanent settlement. It has now been further extended for around 18 months. We will keep it under review. Self-evidently, Russia is still present in Ukraine and bloodshed is still going on. The Ukrainian Government have our support in dealing with that, which is why we have maintained and extended the scheme into the future. The Ukrainian Government do not wish this to be a permanent route, so it will be kept under review. It is a separate scheme for Ukrainian citizens who have come to the United Kingdom for the moment.
The noble Lord mentioned family routes and the potential for different family timescales. That area is potentially subject to consultation. We want to look at it so that we do not necessarily disadvantage families. I cannot read my writing, but I have written “transitional”. I will examine the noble Lord’s comments in Hansard and write to him shortly, because I have forgotten exactly why I have written it down.
We are taking this measure because there are currently 70 routes, 40 of them leading to settlement. Between 2026 and 2030, we estimate that between 1.3 million and 2.2 million citizens, under the current scheme, will be able to have a period of settlement. We need to take action. The immigration White Paper published in May 2025 set out that we will increase the default qualifying period for settlement from five to 10 years. We have put down some core criteria: the lack of a criminal record, the ability to speak English to A-level standard, three to five years of national insurance contributions and having no debt, as I defined to the noble Lord a moment ago. We wish to put those core issues as a base but, on top of that, we have put positives and negatives in terms of earned entitlement. We are doing that to ensure that citizenship is part of a commitment and is focused on no recourse to public funds, speaking English to degree level and other matters that I have outlined to the House.
I hope the House will not just look at the two Statements but participate in the consultation. At the end of that consultation in February, we will undoubtedly bring to both Houses a package that will be subject to parliamentary approval and that this House and the House of Commons can examine and question in detail.