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
Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,987 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and will happily discuss those issues with her, but with the proposals that the Government have set out—including the transitional arrangements for those cohorts in health and education, given our reliance on foreign labour in those two sectors and the Migration Advisory Committee’s specific treatment of them—I think that we have found a fair resolution for everyone.
The list does not include prison officers, because the transitional arrangements apply to those cohorts of workers that the Migration Advisory Committee recognises on national pay scales in health and education for the purposes of the immigration rules. The right hon. Lady will know that it is a very small number of prison officers who will settle at 10 years, but let me confirm to her and the House that I have been discussing these measures with the Secretary of State for Justice and I will do everything I can to make sure that the Prison Service has the labour it needs in the future.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me also say that “repent at leisure” would apply if there was, in fact, any repentance from the Conservatives.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about that specific case, he is welcome to do so. I would caution anybody about making assumptions on why a licence is revoked. I am sure that if it was a mere admin error, that will be looked at, but licence revocations have happened in record numbers because, under the approach taken by the previous Government, there was a desire to sign people up without much expectation of what standards they should meet.
The majority of visa holders who responded to the consultation were care workers, and roughly 50% of them said that once they had achieved settlement, they would look to leave the care sector. I think that that is down to a recognition that they would be able to get higher-paid jobs elsewhere. That is why colleagues across Government, including in the Department of Health and Social Care, are looking carefully at lifting standards in the care sector in such a way that people will wish to remain in the sector and we will be able to recruit other workers into the sector.
They will need to meet the terms of their visa, which is the most important measure in ensuring that people who have come here on certain terms fulfil the contribution they were supposed to make.
Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government have already closed a number of asylum hotels. We have made £1 billion-worth of savings in asylum accommodation, and we will fulfil our manifesto commitment to close all hotels in this Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman could also do with more honesty and contrition about his track record, including on the difference between some of the positions he took when he was a Minister in the Tory Government and those that he takes now. I simply say to him that the package of reforms I have announced today, as set out in the consultation document, represent a fair solution for all the cohorts that are caught by the new earned settlement proposals. We have made targeted exemptions where the circumstances justify them. It is this Government that are cleaning up the mess we inherited from the previous lot.
Many rights do accrue at the point of settlement, and that has been the policy under successive Governments over many decades. I do not wish to create a new system with a two-tier approach to what settlement means—one for historical cohorts and a new one for future cohorts—not least because some in this country, including some on the Opposition Benches, wish to rip up the status of indefinite leave to remain altogether. That would be the wrong thing to do. It would be unconscionable to throw into chaos the long-term residency arrangements of millions of people in this country, and this Government will not do that. On contribution and integration, the tests that need to be met are made clear in the consultation document. They are not subjective criteria, but detailed criteria that will be applied by caseworkers in the future.
I know what the hon. Gentleman means. Let me assure him that the situation in relation to all members of the armed forces is unchanged by the package of earned settlement measures. They have their own bespoke regime. I will meet him to discuss the matter of fee waivers.
We have already made significant progress in improving Home Office processes, as evidenced by the fact that the backlog for initial decisions after an asylum application has decreased considerably. Since this Government have been in power, we have got removals up to over 80,000, alongside many other changes. Let me assure my hon. Friend that as these changes are rolled out—they will be rolled out over a period of time, so that the systems are ready for each of the changes as they are made—I will ensure that the Home Office is equipped to make timely decisions under the new rules.
Perhaps the right hon. Member missed the bit of my statement where I set out transitional arrangements for care workers.
My hon. Friend will know that immigration policy is a reserved matter and applies UK-wide, so the rules that we have announced today apply to everyone everywhere. The Government will publish an impact assessment in the normal way, around the same time as when the immigration rules are laid.
First, it was a genuine consultation and we have listened to the unique circumstances of those who came to work in the care sector. I think it is right that we have arrangements recognising those unique circumstances. On illegal migrants, it is this Government who this year have overseen a 40% decrease in the number of people arriving by small boat. We have made a huge amount of progress, especially through our deal with the French Government and the law enforcement response, trying to go after the gangs that, in the end, put people in those boats. We will not rest until we have stopped people arriving in this country by boat in that way. I think that the settlement offer that people get when they arrive does make a material difference.
I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. He is absolutely right: there is quite a lot of projection that happens when you are a brown Muslim woman in the world of politics, but I am, alas, used to it. On rebuilding public trust, as I said in my statement, solidarity is a precondition of social justice. If we are to have a system based on taxation for universal public services, people need to know that everyone is contributing into the same collective pot that we can all then rely upon when we need to. That is how we maintain social cohesion in this country. A managed system where the Government are in control—where it is not people <span id="605" class="column-number" data-column-number="605"></span>smugglers who decide who gets to come into our country, but the Government who make that choice, with the consent of the British people—is absolutely the way to ensure that we have social cohesion and strong communities all over our country.
I am already reviewing the way in which the sponsorship register works and the conditions required of companies before they can sponsor workers coming into this country, and I will report to the House on that.
I disagree with my hon. Friend, as she knows from my statement today, which has listened to the consultation responses in detail. As I have set out in answer to other hon. Members, the position for settlement applications is that the rules apply at the point at which the decision is made, not when someone has come into the country. That has been settled law and settled policy for a very long time, and it will not change.
It is absolutely fair. The hon. Gentleman will know that for people who arrived around the time my parents and grandad did, the rules often changed regularly. As I said, it has been settled policy that the rules that apply to an application are those at the point of decision, not the point when someone arrives in the country, and it is made clear to people arriving on a temporary work visa that that does not necessarily indicate that settlement rights will follow. In my statement, and in our document responding to the consultation we carried out, there is a fair resolution for all the different cohorts that are affected by earned settlement, reflecting unique circumstances where appropriate, and ensuring that the default period moves to 10 years, which has been settled policy since last summer.
The position for those who arrived on the care visa was that they needed to work within the care sector, and I think it is fair to expect those who were unable to meet the terms of that visa to have a second shot at working in the care sector again. A number of jobs are available in the care sector, not all of which require heavy lifting, and I am sure that can be taken into account. The Government will assist care workers who have been unable to meet the terms of their visa to have that second chance at finding appropriate work with a legitimate provider.
Yes, as I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone), Gurkhas will have settlement under the armed forces rules, which are entirely exempt and different from earned settlement.
Those in the health and education sectors on below degree-level jobs with national pay scales, such as teaching assistants, will be subject to the same transitional arrangements that I have set out for care workers who have met the terms of their visa.
When applying for settlement, people will need to provide evidence that they have been working and earning within the care sector. Based on analysis of HM Revenue and Customs data, we expect that three quarters of care workers will meet the test and conditions of their visa and will be able to settle at five years.
The individuals my hon. Friend refers to will have a second chance, as they will be able to apply for a new five-year visa in the care sector. The Government will double the amount of time normally allowed so that those people can find another job with a legitimate employer, and the Government will help those individuals to be matched with legitimate employers so that they can work in the care sector.
No, the position in relation to those who enter the country unlawfully is different, not least because those who are arriving on a boat are doing so from the north of France, which is a safe country underpinned by the European convention on human rights. It is right to treat those different cohorts differently because their method of entry into the country is different, and it is right that the Government are able to incentivise the behaviour we wish to see and disincentivise those who pay people smugglers and who risk their lives in the channel. I would have hoped that we could agree on that.
My hon. Friend raises an important point. She will know that the Home Office is not responsible for workforce planning, but Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care are working carefully on a workforce response, and I am sure that they are discussing these matters with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The point of earned settlement is to reflect and provide settlement for those who contribute to this country and who meet the new minimum requirements, which include no criminality and no debt. That is a fair deal for all concerned, not least the taxpayer, whose money underpins all the public services that we rely on.
It is absolutely right that while we should be able to bring in workers from abroad when we need to in order to fill market gaps in this country, of course we have to ensure that we are always providing opportunities for domestic workers, not least the 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training. We have an obligation to them too and it is important that we strike the right balance. I believe the earned settlement reforms strike the right balance for migrant workers and British taxpayers. I assure my hon. Friend that I am talking to colleagues across Government. Immigration is not the only part of the answer—skills and training here at home are also necessary.
It was clear from the response to the consultation that the position of care workers was unique. They came at a specific moment post-covid, when there were very real challenges in the care sector, and it is right to reflect that and provide a five-year path to settlement for those who met the terms of their visa.
I was not aware of those arrangements in the Lake district. My hon. Friend is right about the broader point; it is incumbent on all Government Departments to think about these issues in the round and to strike a fair balance. All the conversations that I have had with my colleagues in Cabinet reflect that, as the Government position.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know that those who are already in the country on lower salaries were given an exemption by the previous Government, and so can extend their visa on the same salary. We have agreed that we will extend that further to 2035, to enable those people to achieve settlement. More broadly, she will know that some of the changes in the Budget reflect advice from the Migration Advisory Committee on regional pay.
My hon. Friend will know that there is a specific transitional arrangement for teaching assistants, because they are defined by the Migration Advisory Committee as being in the health and education sector, on national pay scales. They will have a five-year path if they arrived before May 2025.
Let me reiterate to my hon. Friend that the transitional arrangement agreed for care workers reflects the unique circumstances of that cohort. Those who have met the terms of their visa will be able to settle at five years, and those who have not will get a second chance to make the contribution that they originally came to make.
My hon. Friend tempts me, but he knows that the OBR is independent. I am sure that it has heard his point about how the contribution of migrants is measured, for the purposes of its forecasts and the scoring decisions that it makes ahead of fiscal events. He will know that the Home Office’s approach is to look at settlement as a lifetime benefit, so we have considered lifetime cost, as well as unique circumstances of particular cohorts. He mentions the BNOs; he will know that they are exempt from any of these income changes. That reflects our long-standing commitment to them, but they have to meet the new minimum requirements.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These workers have been making a contribution. Given their unique circumstances, and the fact that many of them have met the terms of their visas, they will be able to settle at five years.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Fairness to all is what underpins these reforms—not just to those who arrived here lawfully to work, but to those who are already here, and who pay for the systems we all depend on.
As I have said, the Government will assist people who have been with a rogue employer in the care sector to get legitimate work in that sector for the renewal of their five-year care visa. The Home Office will, of course, amend sponsorship regimes, following changes made by the Health Secretary and her team. They are looking carefully at what the minimum conditions and standards in this sector should be, and I have already undertaken that we will follow those changes, once they are made.
My hon. Friend is right that migration is down under this Government, and we are taking steps to make sure that we bring coherence and rationality to the migration system and fix the mess left behind by the previous Government. On his point about illegal migration, that is why there is an additional waiting period of 10 years for those who enter illegally; we consulted on this matter, and there was a plurality of support for that measure. It reflects the fact that in the end, the Government and their people have to be in control of our migration system, not people-smuggling gangs. Bill Presented Animal Shelters (Licensing) Bill <em>Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. </em><em>57</em><em>)</em> Mr Richard Holden, supported by Rebecca Harris, Mr Mark Francois, John Lamont, Dan Carden, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Simon Hoare, Dr Peter Prinsley, John Glen, Mims Davies, Greg Smith and Dr Neil Hudson, presented a Bill to make provision for the licensing of animal shelters; and for connected purposes. <em>Bill</em><em> read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027</em><em>, </em><em>and to be printed (Bill 168).</em>
My hon. and learned Friend is giving a powerful exposition on the arguments. He mentioned Australia, which has prompted a number of colleagues, including me, to sign a letter to the Government saying that five essential things, including age-verification, are needed to avoid the mistakes and perils that Australia has experienced. We also need parental involvement, privacy by design, and companies to be accountable by default. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that any effective ban must include some of those steps?
I welcome the news last week that local government reorganisation will finally take place in Oxfordshire and that the Thames valley will have devolution. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention that these new authorities will all be in place by the end of this Parliament?
Hyndburn has incredibly high levels of houses in multiple occupation. That is driving up rents, taking family homes off the market <span id="578" class="column-number" data-column-number="578"></span>and increasing the number of vulnerable people moving to our community. How are the Government acting to enable councils such as Hyndburn borough council to reduce HMOs in their areas?