PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Migration: Settlement Pathway - 20 November 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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 forever 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 forever 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.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

As always, I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. She has had a busy week. I wonder whether this burst of hyperactivity has anything to do with her leadership bid. As her shadow, I will say this: I am rooting for her in her tussle with the Health Secretary as to who gets to replace the Prime Minister, although I fear my endorsement may not be entirely helpful to her!

Immigration under successive Governments has been far too high. That has included illegal immigration across the channel, which has surged since the general election, with 10,000 illegal immigrants crossing just in the 75 days that the Home Secretary has been in post. Last year—the first year of a Labour Government—there were a record number of new asylum claims. The number of illegal immigrants accommodated in hotels has gone up under this Labour Government, even though they promised they would reduce numbers.

Besides illegal immigration, on which this Government are so clearly failing, legal migration has been far too high, too, absorbing the equivalent of half the new housing supply in recent years. Allowing mass low-skilled migration is bad for the economy, not least when we have 9.5 million working-age people out of work. Mass low- skilled migration without integration has placed all kinds of pressures on society, not least because there are a million people here who do not speak English properly or at all and 10,000 foreign citizens in prison. Where I suspect we and the Government agree is that very limited, high-skilled migration is a good thing, but the days of mass, low-skilled migration must come to an end.

There is much in this statement that I support, not least because so much of it is so familiar. The idea of a 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain is something that we proposed in amendments to the Government’s Bill around nine months ago. Inexplicably, the Labour party voted against those measures, and now they have adopted them. We also proposed removing benefits from foreign citizens, including those on ILR who do not have British citizenship, and this consultation document now looks at doing the same thing. I am delighted to see that the Home Secretary, upon arrival at 2 Marsham Street, got out her laptop and started copying and pasting Conservative policies.

I have one or two detailed and specific questions, which I ask in a spirit of constructiveness, given that the Home Secretary has adopted so many Conservative policies. Importantly, she said that these policies on ILR qualification would apply to those people here already. She is absolutely right to say that, and I support it. She mentions transitional arrangements. I just urge her to be cautious about those, lest they create loopholes. Can she give the House an estimate as to when these new measures will be implemented? I think the previous rules around legal migration took effect in January 2021, so the people who arrived under them will become eligible under present ILR rules from January 2026—just a few weeks’ time. When will these changes be implemented? I hope it is as soon as possible.

The Home Secretary also says that to qualify for ILR at 10 years, people will need to have made national insurance contributions. I have tried to get through the consultation document in the past half hour, and I think I am right in saying that the qualifying threshold is to have earned £12,570 for a period of three years. She can correct me if I have got that wrong, but that strikes me as a very low level of earnings—some £12,500 for three years would not represent a net economic contribution to this country—and I urge her seriously to consider setting the threshold a great deal higher.

The Home Secretary also mentions the possibility of volunteering meaning that people get ILR at five years, rather than 10. We know how people game the system when it comes to immigration, such as by pretending to convert to Christianity to get asylum. I urge her to draft those rules carefully and to be extremely cautious, lest she creates some loopholes.

Will the Home Secretary consider adopting one last Conservative policy, since she appears so enthusiastic about them, by introducing a binding cap on legal migration? It could be voted for by Parliament each year so that this House can democratically decide the level of inward migration. She has adopted so many of our other policies, and I strongly urge her to adopt that last one too.

I am pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition let the shadow Home Secretary have a go today. He seems overly concerned about my personal future, but he should worry about his own and that of his party. One good way to secure the future of the Conservative party would perhaps be to start with an open and honest acknowledgement of their track record in government and, dare I say it, perhaps even an apology for messing up the system so badly in the first place. Given their track record, they barely have the right to ask questions, let alone propose solutions. It is my view that, as with settlement, people have to earn the right to offer solutions. One way of earning that right would be to apologise for what the Tories did.

The shadow Home Secretary asked a specific question about when the changes will come into effect. The 12-week consultation will end in the middle of February, and we anticipate making changes and to begin the phase-out once the changes are adopted from April 2026. As he knows, the immigration rules usually change twice a year every year, and that is when we will begin making some of those changes. Some could require technical fixes and solutions that may take a little longer, but the intention is to start from April next year.

The shadow Home Secretary made a point about the qualifying threshold being around £12,000. He will know that we have used the national insurance contributions threshold specifically because it is one of the quickest ways to establish whether somebody is in work. It is designed to give an indication of the period spent in work. He will also know that there are different income thresholds for the different routes by which people can come into the country, and those are not being changed.

The shadow Home Secretary made a valid point about ensuring that the new system does not have any loopholes. I will be alive to that. As we discussed at length in the House on Monday, there is a relationship between some types of visa overstaying and coming straight into the asylum system as well. I am alive to those risks, and we will do everything we can to shut that down. In the end, this will be a whole package of reforms to clamp down on abuse and retain public confidence in running a migration system overall and in the asylum system in particular.

What can I say about a cap? The cap has had a long life in the Conservative party, and I gently suggest that they never managed it in 14 years in power. I do not think we will be pursuing that failure now.

I applaud my right hon. Friend on many points, not least for debunking the idea that a cap will solve anything or is even achievable. There is a lot of detail in this statement, but one issue is that people going through the system have to apply repeatedly to extend their discretionary leave to remain until they reach settlement status. That is costly for them, cumbersome for the Home Office and does nothing to help them integrate or work in the community. I have had the opportunity to meet a junior Minister on this issue, but can the Home Secretary give any assurance to the House that the Home Office is looking at it? We should ensure that those who are welcome here have a less burdensome system to go through. That will hopefully save money and enable the Home Office to focus on more urgent issues.

My hon. Friend brings a huge amount of personal experience to this discussion, having been a Minister herself, and she has a very august track record as a Select Committee Chair, so I will always take seriously any suggestions that she makes. I will discuss with my ministerial team the detail of what she suggests. Our principled position is that it is right that people pay fees for visa extensions, and that we move from a five-year to a 10-year qualifying period for settlement. We are not consulting on whether we move from five years to 10 years, which is already decided policy. What is set out in the consultation are some of the other questions that sit underneath that. I will happily discuss that with her, because I know she has much experience in the area of Home Office capacity and how we build a system that can work effectively, not only in being delivered by the state but in providing certainty for the people who ultimately want to make their lives in this country.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I begin, I beg your forgiveness for taking a few extra seconds to reflect on the exchanges in this Chamber on Monday. I would like to use this opportunity to put on the record my utter contempt for those who abuse the Home Secretary and anybody else who is abused based on the colour of their skin or their religion. That is not what Britain stands for.

The Home Secretary will, of course, choose the language that she wants to use in this debate, and I will choose my language too. The constructive and moderate tone of voice that I and the Liberal Democrats will use in discussions about immigration will remain, as will our attempts to help offer feedback as and when the Government bring forward proposals. The number of Liberal Democrats present today shows that we are not ignoring this issue; indeed, we have as many in the Chamber as there are Reform Members—and none of them is here.

Like others, we are aware of the issues facing communities up and down the country, and immigrants who live here too. We agree with the Home Secretary that faith must be restored in the immigration and asylum system, as I stated on Monday, and we agree that that requires changes to policy. Of course, most of what we are discussing today is distinct from some of the discussions we had on Monday about desperate refugees and asylum seekers.

We also believe that it must be acknowledged that prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration and asylum. The Conservative party is responsible. We think 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, and we believe that discussions about regaining control must also come with a proper discussion about the opportunities that that provides and the potential risks.

Changes to pathways to settlement must be done with regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect that some changes could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation, not least because of Brexit. The cost of a five-year global talent visa to Britain is £6,000 per person—around 20 times more expensive than comparable visas in our competitor countries, where similar schemes typically cost a few hundred pounds. It is no surprise that so few researchers come to Britain on these visas every year. Cancer Research UK alone spends £900,000 annually—money that could be better spent on setting up research labs instead.

The Government must also be careful about the effect that their rhetoric and policy will have on our public services. The NHS is heavily reliant on nurses and staff who are not British nationals. Has the Home Secretary made an assessment of the risk that some will leave, and what steps are this Government taking to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector?

I do not propose to revisit the detail of our exchanges on Monday, but I will always listen to constructive contributions, wherever they come from in this House, and I will reflect on the points that the Liberal Democrats make in order to be constructive. One thing on which we will perhaps continue to disagree is just how important it is that we acknowledge that there is concern across our country. It is not made up, and it does demand answers of politicians. I hope that that is now a point of agreement between us.

I think the hon. Gentleman made a point in relation to the asylum system. I did not pick it up directly, so if I do not address it now, he is welcome to write to me. Again, I do not propose to go into the details that we discussed on Monday during the asylum policy statement, but one thing that I made very clear is that the number of those arriving on small boats in this country is almost exactly the same as the number of people who overstay visas. There is a relationship between legal migration and illegal migration in the overall migration system: when people overstay and then come straight into the asylum system, and particularly into asylum accommodation, at the point at which a visa ends, it is a very real problem, and a significant number of people are doing that. It is incumbent on us to resolve that, which is what the totality of all these reforms is designed to do.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government has made huge strides in resetting our relationship with the European Union, and these are matters that we discuss very closely with our counterparts in Europe. The progress made since the EU reset has been considerable, and we will continue to build on that. Once again, though, I do not propose to revisit old debates. We live in a new reality, and we are forging a new path ahead.

Of course, we want to give certainty to people who are already in this country. That is what we are doing through the consultation that we have set, and I have given certainty to British citizens who wish to bring their dependants over and to those from Hong Kong. Those arrangements will not change, and we have also given certainty through Windrush grants and EU settlement grants, none of which is affected by the consultation. Since the Government published our immigration White Paper, people have known that the qualifying period will move from five years to 10.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about fairness to individuals. I agree with him, because giving fairness and certainty to those who have come here to work and make a contribution to our economy is absolutely important. However, our reforms are also designed to give fairness to those who are already here, and to build public confidence in the system overall.

The hon. Gentleman made some points on the national health service. I know that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care takes very seriously future labour market reforms and ensuring that there is a pipeline of the required labour so that our NHS keeps going. We absolutely value the contribution that those from overseas who have come to work in our national health service have made, are making and will always continue to make.

I have a constituent, born and bred in Llanelli, who is unable to bring in his foreign spouse because of the current earnings limit of £29,000. The Home Secretary will be aware that the Government’s family financial requirements review notes that a threshold in the region of £23,000 to £25,000 would allow most British workers in full-time minimum wage jobs to qualify. When will she consider this review and look again at the fairness of the current earnings thresholds?

We always keep those thresholds under review, and we will continue to do so in relation to family and to bringing dependants over.

The Home Secretary loves our country and I love her efforts, frankly, because it is not just the fate of this Government that depends on her success, but good community relations, saving dozens of lives at sea and, let us be frank, probably our political fate. Will she undertake to be judged not just by the strength of this announcement and words spoken in the House of Commons but by results, so that we actually make a real contribution towards stopping the boats? Is she prepared to constantly ratchet up the pressure so that if someone is sitting in France, they think, “Is it worth the risk? I’ve got virtually no chance of being allowed to stay in Britain forever. I will have my case reviewed regularly—every two years. I will be sent back to where I came from when it is safe; otherwise, I will go back to a return hub.”? Can we not all agree on that?

Results are all that matters. It is incumbent on me to think about the way that we have to reform the system, to make a public argument for it, to win that argument, to persuade people and then to get this done. What I care about now is ensuring that we can deliver these proposals, and we will do so. Then I need to ensure that the Home Office is in a position to run a system properly, administratively and fairly in the future. That is what matters. This is a low-trust environment for the public—all of us involved in politics know that. In the end, the public have heard a lot of rhetoric from a lot of people, but this Government intend to get on and deliver and to win the trust of the British people.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, particularly what she said about the more than 75,000 nurses working in our NHS who have arrived in this country since 2021. Those nurses and other healthcare professionals were actively encouraged to come here to fill the gaps left by the previous Government’s failure to do NHS workforce planning. Since they arrived, they have served our communities and cared for our citizens with distinction. I welcome what she said about maintaining a five-year route for those who are engaged in public service. Could she confirm that that will apply to NHS staff, such as those I have mentioned, and could she explain how she will continue discussions with DHSC colleagues to ensure that there will be no unexpected reduction in NHS workforce staffing in the months ahead?

My hon. Friend is right about the contribution that those nurses and other staff in the national health service are making. He will know that we are consulting specifically on the element of the proposals that relates to public service and to its getting people a five-year discount on the qualifying period. No doubt he will make his own responses to that consultation, and we have heard them, too. Of course, in the normal run of things, public service would include those who work in our critical public services.

I broadly welcome the changes to ILR, but I seek clarification about whether there will be revocation for those already settled who break the law. Why are the Government proposing making low-skilled workers who are net fiscal recipients wait for 15 years for ILR, instead of telling them to just leave the country?

On the broader question of immigration, the Government say that they want to get the numbers down—it is correct that the Boriswave was a disgrace—but the measures implemented so far by this Government are projected to reduce the number of people coming here by only 61,000 a year. That is before we take into account the new rules for Gaza, Afghan dependants and the schemes launched this week by the Home Secretary. In fact, that is less than the revision by the Office for National Statistics of the number coming here last year. If she does want to get the number down, when will she bring forward new policies to ensure that the number of visas issued falls by the hundreds of thousands as soon as possible?

The powers to revoke indefinite leave to remain are not going to change as a result of this. The hon. Member will know that the specific provisions for foreign national offenders will also be unaffected. Separately, we are going to review the threshold in relation to criminality. The current rules work on the basis that someone cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain if they have received a sentence of 12 months or more. However, given the changes being brought forward in the Sentencing Bill and others, we will be looking at that threshold in its entirety. He raised a point about retrospectivity, and we will be reviewing that as we review all the criminal thresholds that apply here. He had another question, but—forgive me—I missed it. [Interruption.] If he will write to me, I will come back to him, but I think he was asking about wage thresholds.

The hon. Member made a final point, which I did pick up, about the modelling—essentially, the numbers—and whether a reduction of 61,000 a year is the right number. Let me just say to him that I will be coming to this House on a regular basis to be held to account for the delivery of these reforms and those that I set out on Monday about the asylum system. It is a big package of reforms, taken together. These are the biggest changes to settlement for 40 years, and the asylum package is one of the biggest packages of modern times. The combination of the two will keep modellers and others very busy over the coming months, but I promise the House that we will be transparent on the data, the numbers and what our proposals mean in practice. That will inevitably change as we design the new system, but hon. Members will always get transparency from me in this House.

I agree with the Home Secretary that our immigration system needs reform and that people are concerned about it. I think we should also be very clear in this House that we recognise the benefits of immigration to our country—the talents, the jobs and the entrepreneurship it brings—and that nobody would ever argue that we will bring this country together by tearing families apart. On that basis, it is very welcome to hear the Home Secretary commit to a five-year pathway for partners of British citizens. Many of my constituents have been deeply concerned about that, because they would never wish the state to tell them whom they could fall in love with. However, given that some of those people are on different visas here, can she clarify how the five-year term will be calculated, so that we do not inadvertently end up penalising people who fall in love with somebody who came here on a worker visa, but has been here for five years? Love is love, and let us make sure that in this country we welcome it.

None of the rules about marriage in-country, as it were, are going to change, but if my hon. Friend wants to send me some of her constituency examples, I would be very happy to look at them. It is important to have a distinction between what citizenship unlocks as a set of rights for British citizens and what applies for those who are working here and who may not have settled status but may acquire settled status. I think it is right that we open a question in the consultation about what is unlocked from the British state and for people’s rights here at citizenship as well as at settlement. I would be very happy to discuss these matters with her in more detail, and I am sure I will do so over the next few months.

Many migrant survivors of domestic abuse apply to settle in the UK permanently if their relationship has broken down because of domestic violence or abuse, and the right hon. Lady knows just how close this issue is to my heart. Will she reassure this House and survivors of domestic abuse that they will be protected under her reforms, and that her changes to ILR will not have the adverse and perhaps unintended impact of locking those survivors into abusive relationships?

First, let me put on record my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his engagement.

The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous campaigner on domestic abuse issues, based on his own experiences. He and I have had many debates across this Chamber on those matters, and I very much respect the perspective he brings and the way in which he constructively engages with the debate. I can assure him that we will continue to have pathways to settlement for victims of domestic violence and for other vulnerable groups as well. In the consultation, we are inviting views and perspectives on how some of the changes might have unintended consequences, and on how we can ensure that those pathways continue to exist. I am sure he will be engaging with the consultation in that regard.

I agree with the Home Secretary that fairness must be at the heart of the immigration system, but would she say a little more about the route to settlement for the Ukrainian families to whom my generous constituents opened their doors following the horrific invasion of their country?

Nothing I have said today changes the position of those who have come to this country on the Ukrainian scheme. That is a bespoke scheme for the people who have arrived here from Ukraine. In fact, it is seen not as a refugee route, but as a temporary scheme. All its provisions were supported by us in opposition, and they continue to be supported by us in government. Nothing in the position of Ukrainians in this country will change as a result of anything in the asylum policy statement or today’s Command Paper.

As the descendant of immigrant grandparents, I have a high degree of empathy with the Home Secretary’s opening remarks about her own family. Does she agree that the reason that both main parties are facing the possibility of an electoral bloodbath is not so much the overall level of immigration, but the fraction of it—still a very large number of people—who come to this country on small boats and by other illegal means? We do not know what they believe, we do not know what values they have, and because in many cases they destroy their documents, we do not even know who they are. Can she explain how the measures she has outlined today will have an impact on deterring that sort of person from breaking into our country?

I have acknowledged that the way the system is working—or, more appropriately, not working—is causing deep unease across the country, including in my constituency and among people who are of immigrant backgrounds themselves, because of a sense of unfairness. A lot of people in my constituency regularly report overstaying to me, which they see as an abuse of visas and as a particular problem, while others are more concerned about the small boats. I acknowledge that those concerns are legitimate, real and felt deeply across the country. That is why I think it is so important that we rebuild public trust in the overall system by dealing with both illegal migration and legal migration, based on the principles of fairness and contribution, and give the public confidence that the rules we have can be maintained, enforced and followed properly.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the destruction of documents and the other ways in which people seek to frustrate our ability to remove them from this country is driving some of the discontent. That is why the reforms I set out in the asylum policy statement are designed to say to those making the calculation in the north of France, “Don’t get on a boat. It’s not worth it. That is not the way to come to this country.” As we build safe and legal routes to this country—which will clearly be a much more privileged way of entering, with a faster path to settlement at 10 years, as I have said—the reforms will show very clearly to people making that calculation which path is worth it and which one is not.

I welcome the assurance the Home Secretary has given to those who have achieved indefinite leave to remain and have settled status in this country. That certainty is really important. She will know that in my constituency I have many families from Syria and Afghanistan, who came under the Syrian programme and Operation Pitting. They have limited leave to remain and are deeply worried, from what the Home Secretary has said, as to whether they will ultimately be deported from this country. Can she give an assurance to those who are currently seeking ILR and who came on those programmes that they will be able to follow the path that was set out for them when they arrived? Will she give that assurance and ensure that this country will never do a deal with the Taliban to deport women and children from this country?

We will always have specific obligations on not returning anybody who has arrived in this country seeking asylum or who has been granted refugee status. We would not return those individuals to danger. We will abide by our international obligations, as I hope I made clear in the statement on Monday. However, our ability to have new rules that look more carefully and more regularly at whether a country is safe for citizens to be returned is important. It is a shift in the way we do things, but we will never return people to face danger. I would be happy to look at some of the examples my hon. Friend has raised today in more detail with him.

First, I apologise to the Home Secretary for missing part of her statement, but I have read it. Will she confirm whether any assessment has been carried out on the economic impact on Scotland of extending the ILR wait time to 10 years and beyond? If not, why not? Whatever the needs of Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland’s economic and workforce needs once again appear to have been ignored. Does the Home Secretary understand that such a blanket policy risks exacerbating skills shortages, threatening vital sectors and making it harder for communities to thrive? Incredibly, for a so-called Labour Government, this lurch to the right now appears to favour the wealthy over the less wealthy.

Really, Madam Deputy Speaker! The hon. Gentleman will know that immigration is a reserved matter. That will not change. The thing that is holding back the labour market in Scotland is skills and education policy, which is devolved. It is on the SNP to sort that out.

In 2024, in the run-up to the election, I knocked on door after door where people told me that they were absolutely sick of our broken immigration system that we inherited from the Tories. They did not trust Reform, who are not here today, to tackle it. I welcome the intervention from our Home Secretary. Does she agree that to be the open, tolerant and generous country that we know we are, we must get order and control at our borders?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is an open, tolerant and generous country. What I have acknowledged in the reforms I have set out, both today and on Monday, is that there is a condition to unlocking the full extent of that openness, tolerance and generosity. It is about having order and control at our borders and a fair, managed asylum and immigration system where the principles of fairness and contribution are at its heart. That is the way we can prove to the public that it is possible not just to have an asylum system, but one they can be proud of.

I am not sure it helps the Home Secretary’s cause for me to say that I have a great deal of respect for her and that I thought her interventions this week were very important, particularly those pointed towards members of her party on the left who will make the cause they choose to champion more difficult if the system as a whole is not brought under control. The people who support asylum and refugee processes and want them to be there in future need the system to be brought under control.

My sincere question relates to what I would describe as tinkering around the edges of the human rights laws. The Home Secretary must know that whatever she does to clarify the fringes of the rulings the ECHR has made over the years, they have created a case law that forces our judges to rule in favour of spurious claims. She cannot change that; those rulings are those rulings. Unless we are willing at the very least to have a derogation from some elements of the Court’s decisions, how does she think we can override those well-established rulings which give enormous amounts of rights to people when they are making their asylum claims?

The hon. Gentleman and I have an obvious point of difference on the European convention on human rights. This Government will not be leaving that European convention. We do not see the case for derogation or any other measures. We believe it is possible to achieve the reforms we need by legislating for the way that article 8 applies to immigration cases, by defining family life and by more tightly drawing up what is known as the public interest test. We will debate that legislation in this House in great detail, but I hope to show to everyone who is currently a sceptic of our ability to stay in the ECHR and get control of our migration system that it is possible to do both those things. The convention—the Human Rights Act brought the rights into our domestic legislation—is an important international treaty and we do not see any reason to leave it or derogate from it. I hope that Opposition Members will engage in good faith on the changes we seek to make to article 8, and the immigration rules in particular, because we think that is one of the best changes we can make to get control of our migration system.

Order. Members will notice that we have two debates after this business. I am going to finish this statement in around 10 minutes, so I ask remaining Members please to keep their questions short and the Minister to keep her answers short.

I ask, as someone who was not born in this country, whether the Home Secretary agrees that we should not stop talking about the benefits of immigration while managing migration. As she has already acknowledged, will she confirm that we will always offer sanctuary to those truly fleeing peril? Does she accept that for those people, we should be making settlement and integration into British society quicker and easier, not more difficult?

I hope my hon. Friend will reflect on how I opened my statement today and how I closed it. I see the benefits of migration. I would not be here if this country had not welcomed my parents. It is literally the story of my life and how I have managed to get from there to this Dispatch Box today, so I very much feel those benefits personally. I will always speak up for them—as I have done today, as I did on Monday and as I will always do—as I make the case out there in the country for the need for these reforms. I hope that he and others will always support me on that—I know they will. I have also made clear that we will always offer sanctuary. I want us to be a country that offers sanctuary to those who are in need. That is why it is so crucial that we get order and control back into our asylum system and open up new safe and legal routes. It is important that today I have confirmed that those safe and legal routes will have the earlier 10-year path to settlement. That is what will enable the integration we all want to see.

In the summer, I spent the morning with Anushka, a senior social care worker in Wimborne. She and her colleagues earn more than the earnings threshold and came here with their families on the understanding that they could make a new life here, contributing to society and paying their taxes. The recent hostile narrative is making her and others consider leaving for places such as New Zealand and Australia. Will the Home Secretary confirm whether Anushka and her colleagues, doing jobs that cannot be filled by British workers who will not do the work, will be considered public sector workers?

These will be matters for the consultation and I encourage the hon. Lady to engage with it. We have put in an element around public service, because we recognise the specific contributions made by those who fill the gaps in our labour market that we are not otherwise able to fill. On the general principle, I would say to her that settlement is not a right and that it is absolutely fair for a Government to say that it has to be earned. It is not unusual for countries to change their settlement requirements. That is quite normal. It happens all over the world, as British citizens who work abroad know all too well. The proposal to go from five years to 10 years will not change, but all the other measures I have set out today are subject to consultation. I encourage her to engage with that.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, the care and fairness with which she has crafted the proposals, and the incentives that they instil. In my work on the International Development Committee, I have seen the immense negative impact of global displacement and the loss of over $20 billion of economic activity every year from developing countries. Then, of course, there is the impact of asylum accommodation on our overseas assistance budget. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the measures might ostensibly seem harsh, there is nothing progressive about well-meaning people on the left of politics excusing a situation where thousands of people are risking their lives to cross the English channel from already safe countries?

It is immoral if we stand by and watch people make dangerous crossings, pay thousands of pounds to criminals, and put their lives and those of others at risk, while we do nothing. That would be a total dereliction of duty. It would also be a dereliction of duty for a Labour Government to continue to preside over a broken system, or to not have the mettle to go ahead and reform that system, and then watch as we lose public consent for having an asylum system at all. I think it is existential for us to have public consent for the asylum system, which is why all the changes are so necessary.

I call Bobby Dean, with a very short question.

I was clear about our responsibilities towards Hongkongers, and that the issues in relation to the Ukraine scheme are not going to change. However, the hon. Member will know that the stats on health and care visa holders, primarily those who came to work in adult social care, will be the main contributors to the settlement increase between 2027 and 2029, because they will make up nearly half of all settlement grants in 2028. The figures really do speak for themselves, so it is important that the Government move to deal with the vast number of settlements due to happen over the next few years. It is therefore right that we extend the path to settlement, and ask some questions about how we manage the situation in the future.

I entirely agree that we need control of our borders in this country. In respect of transitional arrangements, over the next 12 years there will be an 83% increase in the number of over-80s in my constituency. Health and care visa workers are currently providing critical services to many of my constituents, as well as supporting the NHS. Can the Home Secretary confirm how the transitional arrangements will ensure that this care continues to be provided to my constituents?

The Health Secretary and his Department are always reviewing and considering the arrangements. We need to ensure that we have a workforce capable of sustaining the national health service. We have an ageing population, which brings its own specific challenges. We are not talking about preventing people from working in our national health service; it is about the pathway to settlement. It is about extending the pathway from five to 10 years, and then thinking about the rules we need to bring that number down from 10 and closer to five years, or that might increase it instead. In that spirit, I encourage my hon. Friend to engage with the detail, and I would be happy to talk to her offline.

The Home Secretary announced a consultation on a five-year pathway to settlement for those who work in the public sector to recognise the particularly valuable role they play in society. Will she please put that to the vote, so that MPs can ensure that those who work in organisations that are fundamental to the public sector—such as those who work in hospices, like the amazing Woking & Sam Beare hospice in my constituency—are always included in the five-year pathway?

All the measures will be taken through in the usual way.

I am delighted to hear the Home Secretary announce that we will keep our promise to British national overseas visa holders from Hong Kong. That is something that I have worked with my constituents to lobby the Government on over the past few months, and I am delighted that the Government have listened. As well as transnational repression, Hongkongers bring other issues to me. Many of them in Leeds South West and Morley are highly skilled and have excellent qualifications, but employers in this country do not necessarily recognise those qualifications, which makes it much harder for them to get their first job. Will the Home Secretary work with other Departments to help employers in this country recognise the amazing contribution that Hongkongers can make to the UK economy?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and while it is not the direct responsibility of the Home Office, I will ensure that those conversations happen across Government and that a Minister from the Department for Business and Trade writes to him on the matter.