What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
11,987 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
<Question HRSContentId="{609F3421-3599-4063-9CC6-B67C2B1721BB}">1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{CDA6AA5E-2E24-47A4-A7E1-437C427DDDC7}">What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the co-ordination of fire and search and rescue services.</QuestionText> </Question>
I draw the attention of the House to my role as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for volunteer rescue services. These people are out there on call—on land, sea and mountains—to help the public. The Secretary of State’s statement is very welcome. As recent events, like the wildfires, have shown, these volunteers are a key part of our emergency response and resilience. Does she agree that there should be a dedicated point of contact for volunteer rescue organisations in Government, and that Ministers ought to consider bringing forward a volunteers charter, using the template of the veterans charter, to recognise and acknowledge the contribution of volunteers, their families and their employers in our fourth emergency service?
I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 757233 relating to the proposed ban on social media for under 16s. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I declare an interest as the parent of a 15-year-old and an 11-year-old. These are issues that we, as a family, are dealing with, so this is a timely debate. I thank Leo Rhodes from Thirsk and Malton, who started this petition, as well as the 217,682 who signed it, including 267 in Folkestone and Hythe. I also pay tribute to the Smartphone Free Childhood group in my constituency for its tireless organising and campaigning on this issue, as well as the headteachers, students, parents and others in my constituency who have engaged with me on this issue and driven change in our schools. In June, the previous Prime Minister announced that social media companies would be prohibited from offering their services to under-16s. Because of this Labour Government, the power now exists under section 214A of the Online Safety Act 2023. Regulations are due before the end of the year, and the first rules are expected to apply from spring next year. The published model uses a banned list of platforms, similar to the measures in Australia. Leo, the petitioner, does not support a ban. He believes that, “for many young people social media is how they communicate with their friends. Some…view social media as a lifeline. A community, a supportive network.” He is making a serious argument about friendship, belonging and self-expression. Barnardo’s makes a point that all adults need to hear: the online world has become a vital civic space for young people partly because real-world spaces have been eroded over decades, made worse by austerity. Think about the closures of libraries, youth centres and grassroots sports facilities, which this Government are seeking to address. That is all true, but does it mean that we should allow these companies to provide their products on whatever terms they choose, especially when their products are made to be addictive, create so many dangers and cause so many harms that these companies are not addressing—all while raking in huge profits? Here is the interesting thing: groups that have disagreed in public about a ban have all signed one joint statement. That includes Smartphone Free Childhood, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Molly Rose Foundation, People vs Big Tech and FlippGen, which is a Gen Z-led organisation. They all say that “a binary debate between banning children from social media or not can oversimplify what is a complex issue.” Their position is that companies’ access to children should be made “conditional on their ability to demonstrate that they are safe.”
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is key that the young people affected by this have a seat at the table, so that their views are heard and taken into account by Ministers when the position on the ban and how companies might escape it is being finalised. I agree that it is fundamental that they feel included.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot have cliff edges. We have to build young people’s skills to be able to navigate this online world so that, when that point comes, there is not a cliff edge. And support should be available because, let us face it, young people rely on these technologies for all sorts of support. Those organisations are clear that companies must earn the right to offer services to under-16s by meeting strict safety standards. That means fixing the design, not just taking down the odd post. It means removing contact by strangers, disappearing messages, live location sharing, endless scrolling, autoplay, harmful algorithmic feeds, streaks and notifications. There must be mechanisms to catch new features that put children at risk, and the consequences must be ones that companies cannot simply absorb as the cost of doing business. At the Labour conference, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said that there will be a way for companies, if they want to innovate and change, to get themselves off the ban list, but that it is up to them. She also said it is a sign of failure that we have got to the point of taking children off social media altogether. I respectfully agree, so I ask the Minister whether the regulations to be laid later this year will create that route off the list? Will the ban come first and the route later? Let us take questions that young people are actually asking me about a ban, because they are good ones. First: “Won’t we just get around a ban?” That is a fair question, and the Australian figures are sobering. The Australian <span id="265WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="265WH"></span>e-safety regulator found that, between March and April this year, 12% of children used make-up to look older or used someone else’s ID to circumvent the ban.
The hon. Gentleman raises a very interesting point, and Ofcom has recognised various different methods of age-verification. We must not exclude people based on whether they have one or other particular document. The Australian e-safety survey found that in 11% of cases a parent had helped a child to get around the ban. Those are sobering statistics that have to be taken into account, but most children in Australia who were still on restricted platforms did not actually need to get around anything. Around three in five said that the platform had simply taken no action on their existing accounts. The technology did not fail in their situation; the companies just did not use it. We are in a different place. As I understand it, Australia asks the platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent access by children. The UK position is that we require highly effective age assurance, and last week Ofcom confirmed that four methods of age verification could be used to meet the test at 16. My question to the Government is whether they foresee using any or all of the methods set out in the Ofcom report as a mechanism to police a ban.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those mechanisms—those tests—are all key in deciding whether a ban can be implemented and can work.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to make sure that we are dealing not just with lists, but with functionality. We are laying down the <span id="266WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="266WH"></span>gauntlet to stop children’s access. The next question is: if these companies want to have access, how do we allow that safely? If that cannot be proved, they should not have access to children, as far as I am concerned. I want to address the issue of virtual private networks. Some people say, “Look, children are just going to get around a ban”, but most children who get around age checks do it in simpler ways. In Australia, only one in 20 had used a VPN. Platforms already know a great deal about where their users are. There must be a duty on them to understand where their users are and to prevent children from gaining access. Barnardo’s goes further and wants VPNs to be age-gated. My understanding is that the Government have ruled that out for now, so what evidence would make them think again? It is an important point where the evidence is key. The second question that young people often ask me is, “Won’t we just move somewhere worse if a ban comes into place?” Young people in Australia report using messaging apps and gaming platforms more following the ban. Australia’s e-safety regulator did a three-month evaluation of 803 children aged 10 to 15 before the ban came into force and again in March to April this year, and the share using messaging apps daily or more rose from 40.5% to 52%. The share playing video games online every day rose from 26% to 29%, which is also significant. That is why the rules must follow the features wherever they appear, including gaming, messaging, AI and app stores. A third question is, “If something goes wrong, can I still tell somebody?” Research for the Molly Rose Foundation found that girls’ confidence to tell a teacher falls from 55% to 36% if they are still on a banned app. The message to that cohort must be that it is the platform that broke the rules in that situation, not them. These are not sanctions on individuals; they are duties on the companies. A fourth question, which an hon. Member mentioned, is, “What about my support network?” For LGBT, neurodivergent and isolated young people especially, we need a transition plan so that they know how to retain access to confidential advice networks and safe online support before restrictions take effect, alongside investment in welcoming local youth services. A fifth question is, “Where is the proof that a ban would work?” The long-term studies are not yet in, but last week Ofcom published its first report on content harmful to children. It concluded that there had been no significant change in the proportion of children encountering harmful content nine months after the children’s safety duties came into force, and that in a four-week period 14% of 11 to 17-year-olds saw suicide or self-harm content, 23% saw content promoting eating disorders and 61% saw bullying content, most often through their personalised feeds.
I agree. There is a plethora of sources of harm on the internet, and such chatbots are one example. Another example that somebody was telling me about is suicide forums, which encourage all sorts of awful views and behaviours. It is perhaps not directly part of this debate, but the Government having the ability to stop that stuff, in addition to the social media debate, is absolutely key. As I understand it, more powers may be needed to go that far, but I agree that it is necessary. Tragically, we cannot even rely on the companies’ own numbers. Ofcom stated in its report that its exposure data “only account for content detected by service providers.” In other words, the companies count what they catch and do not count what they miss. Content that Parliament regards as harmful might not even be prohibited under the companies’ own rules. Ofcom says that the data are “indicative rather than direct measures.” None of that proves that a safe platform is impossible, but it does show that complying with today’s rules is no certificate of safety. Given the scale of harm we are seeing, it is clear that we should be applying the precautionary principle. It is right that the Government impose a circuit-breaker ban now, as they have promised to do. In the meantime, they are right to be working on a system for deciding how platforms can earn the right to serve under-16s by showing that they are safe, including by removing addictive and harmful features. Some say that Ofcom does not have the capability to police whether sites are safe in practice. In February 2025, I led a debate in this Chamber in which I called for a social media ban, and I asked why we cannot simply reverse the burden, so that it is not for the regulator to prove that an app is harmful, but for the company to prove that it is safe. I think that is the right question to ask; I believe that the Government agree, but I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation that that is the way they are looking at it. An off-ramp can only ever be acceptable if the burden genuinely shifts. Then, if there is incomplete data or uncertainty about safety, that must mean that there is no exemption, and not another long investigation while children remain exposed. Assuming that companies can demonstrate that they are safe, I have five questions for the Minister about this potential off-ramp. First, what exactly must a company show on harmful content—including what it misses—on contact from strangers, on addictive design and on risks to the most vulnerable children to demonstrate that its platform is safe? Secondly, who checks that evidence independently, with access to the real product rather than just the company’s own statistics? Thirdly, will the regulations expressly state that insufficient evidence means no exemption, rather than the regulator being required to prove everything, as it currently has to do, which is very difficult when it comes up against a well-resourced social media company? Fourthly, will major changes to an app or algorithm trigger a reassessment? If new evidence of harm emerges, how quickly can an exemption be suspended or withdrawn? The Molly Rose Foundation says that exemptions must be hard-earned, with stretching demands in order to keep them, and requirements reviewed and updated annually. <span id="268WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="268WH"></span>Finally, will Ofcom have the powers, expertise and resources to access the data needed to administer the system? The young people who signed the petition are right to put freedom—the freedom to express themselves and to find their community—at the heart of this debate, but that must also mean freedom from harassment, from content that damages their wellbeing and from design that makes it harder for them to put their phone down and spend time on other things that they themselves value. Those freedoms matter as well. I recognise that restrictions will limit choices. That is why the aim must be not permanent exclusion, but requiring companies to offer something that is better and—most importantly—safe. Young people should not have to choose between connection and safety, and companies should earn the right to serve them by respecting both.
Can I just clarify something? Is the off-ramp part of the features and functions piece, which is post spring, or will that be part of the ban in the regulations that will be put before Parliament before December?
I thank Leo and all the 217,682 signatories to the petition, as well as all hon. Members who spoke today. Each speaker agreed that the Government need to be tougher on social media companies and to crack down on harmful and addictive features, which we all agree that children should not be subject to. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke powerfully about the impact of eating disorder content. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) shared <span id="299WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="299WH"></span>nine solutions, including on algorithmic feeds and other things that should be cut out. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) quoted numerous statistics about social media companies crowding out young people’s time and having awful impacts on them. We all agree that the status quo is not acceptable. The reality is that, today, under-16s across the country are subject to these platforms. The Ofcom report, which many Members referred to, acknowledges that children’s access to these platforms is not materially reducing. I support a ban, but with a possible off-ramp where, if social media companies can show that their products are safe, we should allow children to access them. I accept the premise of Leo’s petition, which is that young people should have access to social media if it is safe and can safely provide a place of connection, community and support. It is important that we as parliamentarians acknowledge that, and that young people do not feel that we are paternalistically telling them what they should be able to do. The reality, however, is that with these platforms in their current form, we cannot wait. We cannot allow our children to continue to be subject to those harms while we work out how to force social media companies to clean up their act. In fact, the ban will drive innovation. <span id="300WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="300WH"></span>If those companies ultimately want to allow children to access them, the ban will drive them to find products that are safe and suitable for children. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), and others, made the important point about regulating harms rather than platforms. I understood that the Minister ultimately agreed with that analysis.
I think we have a lot more consensus than we did at the start of the debate, and I again thank the petitioners and everyone who spoke. Let us hope that this Labour Government will deliver the change that we have all been waiting for on this issue. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em> <em>Resolved,</em> That this House has considered e-petition 757233 relating to the proposed ban on social media for under 16s.
I know that people in Worcester will be looking for two things: some let-up in the endless pressure on bills and the public services that keep letting us down, and a genuine sense that there is a plan for things to improve— that there is hope. Let me start by recognising that those two aims have been front and centre as the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have developed this Budget. I believe in politics that is focused on people, and I believe that the Budget aims to focus on people. However, the challenges that we face require a deeper shift—not just adjustments to budgets, but something far more fundamental: an approach that recognises people’s real lived experiences, and puts them at the heart of our decisions and systems. Digital technology is reshaping our world, and we need a fresh approach to digital safety. The Chancellor is right to say that we should build the data centres and artificial intelligence models that keep us secure, but we should also be insisting on safety by design for AI and online social platforms, and should be holding providers responsible. We need an answer that matches the desperate urgency of the climate crisis. The Budget starts to recognise gaps in our energy policy, but it also risks creating new ones. It is right to recognise the importance of gas, but by casting hydrogen projects into further delay and insecurity, we risk our energy future altogether. The Government have accepted new gas extraction in the North sea at Jackdaw, but it is concerning to see that they are hesitating on providing support for the most powerful technology in decarbonising gas at the same time. I was watching David Attenborough before it was cool—
Thank you! My career has been spent developing green technology systems. I urge the Secretary of State to work rapidly to resource, accelerate and provide certainty for the core hydrogen projects that the UK needs for reindustrialisation and for a viable energy future. We are competing with other countries for investment, and we are at risk of losing. If we get it right, though, the UK can not only be more energy-resilient; we can even become energy-rich, and bring about a true renewal that would see the UK selling to Europe and the world. There are other challenges across our system, and the crisis in Worcester’s A&E is stark evidence of that. I recently hosted a rough sleeping summit, bringing 30 organisations together to end rough sleeping in Worcester, and that will create new forms of joint working. However, we need this approach across the board, in health, social care, education, skills and justice, alongside the ambitious funding and goal-setting announced by the Chancellor. I welcome the Government’s provision of £163 million in the Budget to write off 90% of the debt that Worcestershire county council accumulated in making provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities—it creates the breathing room that we need to recover delivery in Worcester—but I am determined to work for deep reform of the system in our county, reform that puts families at the centre. I urge the Chancellor to work with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and members of industry, to address the shortfall in funding for hydrogen projects as a matter of urgency. However, with <span id="684" class="column-number" data-column-number="684"></span>those corrections secured, and with ambitious action taken, I believe that we will have the opportunity to not only create room to breathe, but begin a journey that will give every single person real cause to hope again.
For most people in Wolverhampton and Willenhall, the real test of a Budget is simple: does it make life a <span id="673" class="column-number" data-column-number="673"></span>little easier? I hear about and absolutely understand the pressure of household bills, the cost of raising a family and the challenges facing our local businesses. That is why I will continue to raise their concerns right here in Parliament and make sure that their voices are heard at every level of Government, at every opportunity that I get. Of course, everyone would like more giveaways in a Budget, but many people also understand that the Government have a responsibility for the state of our public finances. We have seen the consequences of getting the balance wrong. The wider energy and cost of living support package during the 2022 energy crisis cost taxpayers around £51 billion net in one year alone. That required extraordinary borrowing, adding to our national debt and the interest payments that taxpayers, including future generations, will continue to carry. This Budget takes a very different approach to providing immediate support. Around 44,900 properties in Wolverhampton North East—almost 99%—are in council tax bands A to D, and that means a large number of local households will benefit from the £100 household energy payment from January. Alongside the extension of 0% VAT on electricity, which is expected to take around £50 off the annual Ofgem price cap, that means around £150 in combined support. Martin Lewis, the famous consumer champion, has highlighted that the £100 payment could broadly cover the forecast increase in energy costs for a typical household over the three winter months. I am also pleased to see the end of gas standing charges, especially for low gas usage households. Importantly, the Government are asking banks to contribute more to help to pay for that support, rather than relying on borrowing. I particularly welcome the help for our high street. Raising the small business rates relief threshold from £12,000 to £18,000 means that many more independent shops, cafés and restaurants will pay no business rates at all. For some owners, that could mean a saving of around £300 a month. Across the west midlands, around 52% of retail, hospitality and leisure properties will pay no business rates. For qualifying businesses that still have a bill, there will be a real-terms freeze in the business rates multiplier. In Wolverhampton North East, around 975 premises will benefit. I am also pleased that 10 schools in Wolverhampton North East have now secured free breakfast club funding. That means more children starting the school day with a good breakfast, ready to learn, and parents having a little more help with the pressures of family life. People are still feeling the pressure, and no one pretends otherwise, but we have to be able to afford the support that we offer and pay for it responsibly. There is more to do, and I will keep making that case in Parliament.
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?
<Question HRSContentId="{380276DF-62D1-41F9-B154-09B4FA142EF7}">10. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{5505710E-5C84-4C53-8B99-BC65AEB8A42A}">What steps she is taking to help regenerate Dudley high street.</QuestionText> </Question>
Dudley high street has enormous potential to thrive and prosper once again, yet years of inaction from the Conservative-led council has left too many empty shops and too many businesses struggling. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Labour Government are taking to revitalise the area and reverse the trend of empty shops dominating our high street?
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 <span id="584" class="column-number" data-column-number="584"></span>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 <span id="585" class="column-number" data-column-number="585"></span>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.<span id="586" class="column-number" data-column-number="586"></span> 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.
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 <span id="588" class="column-number" data-column-number="588"></span>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.
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, <span id="589" class="column-number" data-column-number="589"></span>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.
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.
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.
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 <span id="592" class="column-number" data-column-number="592"></span>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.
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.
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.<span id="593" class="column-number" data-column-number="593"></span> 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.
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.
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 <span id="594" class="column-number" data-column-number="594"></span>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%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It will not change. Victims of domestic abuse will still be able to obtain immediate settlement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think that was actually a missed opportunity to apologise, which nobody on the Opposition Benches has done.
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.
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 <span id="598" class="column-number" data-column-number="598"></span>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.