Statement ← Statements

Immigration: Earned Settlement

the Home Department · 02 November 2026 · Hansard transcript

Questions

• AMBER (37/100) Chris Philp 20% point-scoring

  I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. It took a year for the Home Secretary to build her reputation as tough on immigration, but what took a year to build she has just dismantled in 12 short minutes. I do not judge her by the actions we think she should take; I judge her by what she herself has previously said. She made announcements from the Government Dispatch Box on 20 November last year, and doubled down in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 5 March this year. She repeatedly singled out social care workers as a particular problem. She said on 5 March that fraud in the social care sector was “rife”, with bogus sponsors. She said from the Government Dispatch Box that it was right that “more stringent” restrictions should be applied to social care workers. Now, she stands there and says the exact opposite. A Home Office document that the Home Secretary published on 5 March said that social care workers alone, because they work on low wages and have brought in many dependants, will cost the taxpayer £10 billion. Those are her figures about social care workers that…

  Show more
• AMBER (55/100) Ms Diane Abbott 25% point-scoring 25% vibes

  It is extraordinary that the Opposition see migration issues as some kind of political football. We are talking about people’s lives, and whatever idea one has about policy and programmes, I think people’s lives deserve more seriousness. It is right that care workers are exempted from the new arrangements for ILR, but for the rest of the workforce, the retrospective nature of those new arrangements still seems unfair. People can come in legally and work legally, and then have their residency rights turned upside down. How can that be fair? May I ask the Home Secretary whether she has read the 276-page “lessons learned review” on the Windrush scandal, published by the Home Office in 2018? If she had read it, she would realise that she is in danger of finding herself in the same position as Home Secretaries who were in office at the time of that scandal. I have heard Members of this House talk about people coming here just to claim welfare. I have heard Members of this House say that people are not making a contribution. I have heard Members of this House say that we have to look at the rights of British nationals as…

  Show more
• RED (22/100) Max Wilkinson

  It is a year since the Home Secretary’s initial statement on her immigration reforms, and we still disagree with the Government and with the official Opposition. Just as we predicted, the Government’s immigration reforms are unravelling. By prioritising tough rhetoric rather than a system that works, the Home Secretary has apparently split her party and the Cabinet, and has alienated people on all sides. Viewing immigration simply as a matter of raw numbers and images of small boat arrivals is degrading the nation’s ability to engage in the informed national discussion that we need. Immigration reforms must of course bring greater control, and they must prevent small boat crossings too, but, crucially, they must also serve our economy and public services. The Home Secretary previously claimed that ILR for care workers will cost us £10 billion. The shadow Home Secretary made much of that today, yet the IPPR, using the same methodology, estimates that the net benefit of skilled migrants settling in the UK under the current rules is £115 billion. Will the Home Secretary publish the full economic impact of the changes that she is suggesting? As the Prime Minister has acknowledged, being an EU member brought more order…

  Show more
• GREEN (88/100) Dr Peter Prinsley 100% vibes

  I welcome this statement and its greatly imaginative measures. I particularly welcome the fact that care workers will have a second opportunity to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Does the Home Secretary agree that the care workers whom we welcome to this country are every bit as valuable as the highly paid doctors, entrepreneurs and industrialists who come here with high salaries?

• AMBER (35/100) Sir Edward Leigh

  The Home Secretary is right to say that government is about a social contract, and I can see where she is coming from. Some of us do not have amnesia. Many of us were putting this to our then Government in that period in 2023, and anybody who was serving as a Home Office Minister at that time should wear sackcloth and ashes. Frankly, as a party, we will never move on until we accept that—although there was a very difficult situation after covid. I still worry about a couple of things. I am still not entirely clear why, apart from political pressure, the Home Secretary is watering down her proposals from last time, if she is. I can see what she is trying to get at with care workers earning their right, but surely we should establish the firm principle that people have to have come here honestly to work in the care system and go on working. My last point is that I agree with her that, if people come here illegally, they should not be allowed to claim an indefinite right to stay until after 20 years, but are we going to have people in hotels for…

  Show more
• AMBER (62/100) Dame Meg Hillier

  I welcome the Home Secretary’s focus on fairness. People know that this country has a set of rules, and we all should adhere to them, whether we arrive in this country or are born here. The Home Secretary raised the matter of English language. Many people have settled already, and some have come in as spouses, without good English. This is a very gendered issue, with many women in particular trapped because they do not have access to English. Is she working with colleagues across Government and society generally to make sure that better English language teaching is available, so that people are not excluded and are able to participate fully?

• AMBER (55/100) Dame Karen Bradley

  The Home Secretary will know that the Committee conducted a piece of deliberative democracy work, in which we worked with the public to find out their attitudes to people who are coming in on work visas. It was very clear that the public want skills training so that those in the domestic population can take vacancies. Can she confirm what work she is doing across Government to make sure there is appropriate skills training for those who are here to take the jobs available, and can she confirm when she expects the new provisions to start?

• GREEN (82/100) Navendu Mishra

  A large number of people from Hong Kong have chosen to make Stockport and Greater Manchester their home, and they make an invaluable contribution to our town and city region. Many of them have been worried over the last couple years about potential upcoming changes to indefinite leave to remain. I have met many of them over the last few months. What more can the Secretary of State say to reassure the people from the Hong Kong community who have used the British national overseas visa scheme that they are welcome in this country and that they will have a fair shot in terms of ILR?

• RED (10/100) Sir James Cleverly

  A Home Secretary clearing up the mess of her immediate predecessor—who would have thought it? When I brought through changes to the visa regime, the chorus of disapproval from the then Opposition, who now sit on the Government Benches, was deafening. She has already conceded that her proposals are not as robust as the announcement she made this time last year, so what confidence can the House or the country have that she will not further water down the proposals she has announced today as they go through the legislative process?

• AMBER (70/100) Mike Tapp

  Those who come to our country and genuinely work in our care sector, looking after our elderly and vulnerable, do our country a great service. However, some are unfortunately working in poor conditions. They are exploited and underpaid partly due to the current sponsorship system. Will the Home Secretary seriously consider looking at an umbrella sponsor system, working with the Department of Health and Social Care?

• AMBER (60/100) Mr Paul Kohler

  As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I proposed an amendment to our recent report on earned settlement that included a plea to only make changes to indefinite leave to remain for those not already embarked on the pathway to settlement. While my amendment was defeated, only three Labour MPs on the Committee voted against it, with four other Labour colleagues voting with me or abstaining. In the statement, which I applaud and welcome, the Home Secretary rightly lauds the UK’s reputation for playing fairly, so will she join the Liberal Democrats in agreeing not to make any retrospective changes to the time required to achieve indefinite leave to remain for all those already on pathways to settlement, not only care workers—or do other contributions not count?

• GREEN (88/100) John McDonnell

  Because of the nature of my constituency, I work with a large number of people who come here—often on the boats—and their families as well, and the years of waiting for security have an impact on their mental health. I would like some clarity on the third paragraph of page 4 of the Home Secretary’s statement, where she says: “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.” I have not misread that. Does it meant that earned settlement could take 30 years for some people?

• AMBER (52/100) Bradley Thomas

  One of the criteria to gain long-term settlement rights that the Home Secretary set out was no debt being owed to the state. What does that look like in reality? I have advocated for a student loan-style system for debts to be repaid. Will the Home Secretary address what steps she is taking to abolish the impact of rogue sponsors, namely chicken shops, Turkish barbers and vape shops, which all exist in plain sight and are an acute problem in the illegal immigration web?

• GREEN (90/100) Jess Phillips

  Victims of domestic abuse who have come over as dependants can currently apply for settlement immediately. Will that change under the new rules?

• AMBER (38/100) Sir Julian Lewis

  Like the Home Secretary, I come from an immigrant family that came here legally, but I fail to understand why she thinks not being able to get settled status for 20 or even 30 years will deter people from coming here illegally, provided that there is no prospect of them being removed from the country because of laws like the European convention on human rights?

• GREEN (86/100) Feryal Clark

  I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. She will be aware of my ongoing concerns with regard to Turkish businesspeople who have made their life in the UK after entering under the European communities association agreement, also known as the Ankara agreement. Will she set out how today’s announcement affects that group?

• RED (22/100) Sarah Olney

  I have constituents who are waiting on the five-year route to ILR, who have brought their spouses and children with them to this country and taken on high-skilled, high-paying roles. Their spouses will now have to apply separately and will be on a 10-year scheme. If their children reach adulthood before both spouses have achieved ILR, they will not be eligible to remain in this country, despite having been here since childhood. Can the Home Secretary give any reassurance to those families in my constituency who are deeply worried about their children being left without citizenship?

• AMBER (35/100) Olivia Bailey

  I thank the Home Secretary for the changes she has announced today, but questions remain about the impact of these changes on children in particular. Children are not responsible for the choices of their parents, and we must ensure that they do not face greater poverty or instability as a consequence of any changes. The Home Secretary did not say much about children in her statement today. I have had a brief look through the consultation response, but I have a few specific questions. First, will she publish a child rights impact assessment ahead of implementation? Secondly, will she provide greater clarity on the situation for children, including whether the existing private—

• RED (5/100) Wendy Morton

  What a missed opportunity to strengthen the rules, strengthen the illegal immigration policy and strengthen our borders. How can the Home Secretary reasonably think this is fair to the British people?

• AMBER (42/100) Ms Abena Oppong-Asare

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As she knows, I have written to her about this matter, and I have met migrant workers in my constituency. She has mentioned that the Health Secretary will be carrying out a review looking particularly at fraudulent and exploitative companies, and I urge the Home Secretary to ensure that strong, robust action is taken against these companies to deter their behaviour. I would also like reassurance that the Home Secretary will meet migrant workers as part of this consultation and this review to ensure that their concerns are addressed.

• AMBER (58/100) Pete Wishart 50% point-scoring

  I was hoping when I turned up today that I would hear the Home Secretary say that she was abandoning all the proposals around ILR. While it is positive that she has responded to the cross-party campaign on social care workers, she still has a long way to go to address the unfairness at the heart of these proposals. The un-British retrospectivity is still in place, and those who thought they had a contract with the UK will still be let down. When is she going to be positive about immigration, including its economic benefits and the value that it brings to our communities?

• GREEN (80/100) Emily Thornberry

  I would like to ask a question on behalf of a constituent of mine who has been in touch today. He came across the world from Pakistan to Islington to work as a care worker nearly five years ago, so he is greatly relieved that he will be able to get his ILR quickly and that his family will get some security. But that family has now been joined by a little boy with a rare genetic condition. Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the family will be able to apply for additional support once dad has got his ILR, or will it be necessary for them to wait until he is actually a citizen?

• GREEN (76/100) Sir Gavin Williamson

  Restricting access to public funds to those with settlement rights will most likely require primary legislation. When will such a Bill be brought forward?

• AMBER (55/100) Ms Stella Creasy

  It is heartening to hear the Home Secretary dispel the lump of labour fallacy that people who come to this country simply take jobs. She is talking about the benefits of people coming to this country through immigration, and that is welcome, but if we are to help our constituents understand the new scheme that she is proposing, we do need some clarity. If I understand rightly, around 200,000 people who are working but do not earn more than £50,000, do not have a British spousal connection and are not working in the care sector or public sector—scientists, researchers or skilled technicians, for example—will now face a 10-year wait to get settlement in this country. She says that there is going to be an economic impact assessment. Does she expect these proposals to have a positive or negative impact on our economy?

• GREEN (80/100) Hannah Spencer

  By allowing those with more money to jump the queue and receive earned settlement status faster, these changes amount to an attack on lower-paid workers and, by extension, lower-paid British-born people too. Time and again the working classes, whatever their nationality or migration status, have been looked down on and left behind. Does the Home Secretary agree that her changes send a clear message to people who have come here or people who have been born here that they are worth less if they do not earn enough?

• AMBER (35/100) Euan Stainbank

  I welcome the fair solution for existing migrant care workers, because they did nothing but respond to a need for their labour that was caused by our care recruitment crisis, which was caused by low wages and inadequate training. What are the Government doing cross-departmentally to prevent future care recruitment crises? How will the contribution of care workers be weighted in the framework in future for those who have arrived or will arrive after May 2025?

• RED (22/100) DEFERRED Sir Alec Shelbrooke

  It is weeks since I wrote to the immigration Minister, but I have not had a response—out of generosity of spirit, I will say that the Government have been busy—so I will take this opportunity to invite the Home Secretary to come to the proposed site in Linton-on-Ouse. It is an integrated village. If the Home Secretary were to come and see it for herself, I think she would be quite shocked. I do so in the full, open spirit of working co-operatively—I do not even mind if I cannot be there on the day. I really want the Home Secretary to come to site with the Linton-on-Ouse action group and to see for herself just how inappropriate it is.

• AMBER (42/100) Will Stone

  This country owes those in the Gurkha regiment a debt of thanks for their continued service. Will the Secretary of State outline what will happen to them and their dependants with these changes?

• AMBER (35/100) Manuela Perteghella

  Does the Home Secretary believe that it is fair to change the rules retrospectively for people who are not earning in excess of £50,000 but nevertheless have built careers, raised families and paid taxes based on the settlement pathway that existed when they arrived? Does this not violate the British value of fairness and risk real damage to our economy and our social fabric?

• AMBER (62/100) Dame Chi Onwurah

  I commend my right hon. Friend for consulting so widely in developing the earned settlement proposals and for listening to the representations of care workers in particular. I must express my astonishment at the refusal of Conservative Members to accept moral, social, financial or political responsibility for their failed immigration policies. These proposals will nevertheless adversely affect many. May I raise in particular early career researchers—postdocs and so on—who will not be earning £50,000 a year but will be contributing to our scientific understanding? Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the impact on our science base?

• AMBER (70/100) Liz Saville Roberts

  The list of public sector jobs eligible to apply for the five-year settlement route does not appear to include prison officers. What assessment has the Home Secretary made of the effect that these changes will have on the crisis-hit Prison Service?

• RED (20/100) Ms Julie Minns

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. The previous Conservative Government’s approach to net migration can at best be described as marrying in haste and repenting at leisure, so will the Home Secretary please assure my Carlisle constituents that the new settlement rules will ensure that future immigration is built on a long-term commitment and not on impulsive short-term fixes?

• AMBER (32/100) Ayoub Khan

  The Home Secretary has said that anyone exploiting or abusing the system must be penalised, and I suspect the whole House would agree with that. Prestige Dental Services has more than 500,000 patients across the west midlands region and sponsors more than 40 skilled dental workers. Last week, it had its licence revoked, not because of exploitation or abuse but because of an admin error in relation to three of the 40 employees. Will the Home Secretary please look into this matter urgently, so that those 500,000 patients are not put at risk?

• AMBER (48/100) Derek Twigg

  I supported the Home Secretary’s original proposals and the tougher measures she has been taking since she came into post. I am also pleased that she made the point clearly about disqualification because of a criminal record. Has any assessment been made by the Department of how many of these care workers will remain in the care sector after the qualifying period?

• RED (17/100) Dr Andrew Murrison

  Will migrants who come to this country and set up legitimate small businesses that employ people who pay taxes be advantaged under the scheme that the Home Secretary has announced for earned settlement, or will they be excluded because they are not working people, according to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s definition announced this weekend?

• AMBER (45/100) Alex McIntyre

  There was a certain irony in the shadow Home Secretary lecturing the House on who should be defined as highly skilled. He was certainly highly skilled at opening asylum hotels, including the one in my constituency. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the proposals she has made today, along with the other work she is doing in the Department, will mean that that hotel is closed by the end of this Parliament?

• RED (5/100) Robert Jenrick 100% point-scoring

  I respect the Home Secretary, but these are not the reforms that she wanted. When she said that the Boris wave was destabilising and unprecedented, and that it would cause incalculable damage, she was absolutely right. The Boris wave was the worst public policy failure of the 21st century, and now she risks locking it in for generations to come. When the last Conservative Prime Minister—my Prime Minister—ignored my advice on immigration, I resigned. Her Prime Minister has ignored her advice on immigration, and the damage is going to be disastrous for this country. Why has she not considered her position?

• AMBER (40/100) Barry Gardiner

  The Home Secretary is right to set out fairness as the guiding principle for her reforms. Does she accept that contribution and integration, which will be taken into account as a means of reducing the wait time, are subjective criteria on which caseworkers might come to different conclusions, and that that would not be fair? Does she agree that the unfairness for the British people comes from the gradual erosion of the difference between settlement and citizenship, such that all the benefits come with settlement and the only thing people get with citizenship is a blue passport and the right to return to the country after two years?

• AMBER (32/100) DEFERRED Ben Obese-Jecty

  The Home Secretary did not address the issue of the dependants of armed forces personnel. In June, the majority of Government Members voted down my amendment to the Armed Forces Bill, which included the waiving of visa fees. That has now been overturned in the House of Lords, and the Bill will be coming back here, but will she clarify exactly what will happen to the spouses and children of armed forces personnel? Will their visa fees be waived? If they earn less than £50,000 and do not work in healthcare or a professional job, will they have to find themselves—sorry, I have lost my train of thought.

• RED (20/100) Gareth Snell

  Will the Home Secretary set out what internal changes she will make in the Home Office? One complaint I often get from people waiting for their ILR decision is about the length of time it takes to get that outcome from the point of application. As part of this new package to improve the system, what will happen to reduce the waiting time for applicants?

• RED (22/100) Jeremy Corbyn

  Where is the fairness in prioritising very wealthy people and very high earners over much lower-paid care workers who are obviously doing a valuable job and helping all our communities?

• RED (20/100) Pamela Nash

  The Home Secretary will be well aware that the need for migrant workers varies throughout the country. What assessment has the Home Office made of the impact that these rule changes will make on areas such as mine in Lanarkshire, where the gap between the numbers of healthy working-age people and retirees is widening exponentially?

• AMBER (35/100) Sir Ashley Fox

  Although I welcome the earned progression model, it is disappointing that the Home Secretary has watered down her original proposals under pressure from Cabinet colleagues. Her plan to make illegal migrants wait 30 years for permission to remain will not deter any small boat crossings. Does she agree that the only way to stop the boats is to deport all those who arrive illegally?

• AMBER (72/100) Dan Carden

  I just want to say something that I think everybody in this House recognises, which is that the Home Secretary is probably the first person in this job for two decades or more who has really got to grips with this system, and she has achieved a great deal. She also puts up with people projecting on to her what they think her views about immigration should be. Will she say why rebuilding public confidence in the immigration system is so important for social cohesion?

• AMBER (42/100) Vikki Slade

  I am aware that businesses not offering high-quality employment, such as mini-marts, barber shops, vape shops and nail bars, are still able to get sponsorship licences. Will the Home Secretary commit to reviewing the types of businesses that can access those licences and stop these people being able to exploit people who are not high-quality employees?

• AMBER (42/100) Rachael Maskell

  I will read the detail in the consultation, but I am concerned about retrospective changes because our word should be our bond to people coming here. Also, in an economy where skills and contribution do not correlate with wages, I find the Home Secretary’s proposals prejudicial on that basis. Will she look at that again in the light of the consultation, so that we can put fairness at the heart of this?

• AMBER (70/100) Shockat Adam

  In her statement, the Home Secretary used the word “fair”, or different iterations of it, 20 times. She said that her own parents left a place where “power was often arbitrary,” and the “dice were always loaded”, and they came here because they would be “treated fairly.” Now, a worker earning £40,000, who came here legally, paid their taxes and played their part, has been moved from five to 10 years, halfway through. Is changing the rules mid-game fair, or is that exactly what loaded dice look like?

• AMBER (45/100) Kerry McCarthy

  I welcome the change for care workers, but may I ask more about those whose five years have not worked out, for one reason or another? The Home Secretary says there will be another five-year route, but I met a care worker the other day who has injured her back because her employer did not respect health and safety rules, and she now cannot do that job. She has a master’s degree in financial management and is a specialist in AI. She knows that she has to work as a care worker, but will she really have to start again once her back has healed?

• GREEN (88/100) Tessa Munt

  The 2009 Gurkha justice campaign, spearheaded by Joanna Lumley, achieved settlement rights for British Army Gurkha veterans, and my understanding is that many progressed to settlement here by virtue of the access to indefinite leave to remain. Will the Home Secretary reassure the House that none of these changes will adversely affect the ability of those heroes to settle in the UK when they retire?

• AMBER (45/100) Kevin Bonavia

  I welcome the principle of earned settlement, whereby contribution to our society is rewarded, and it is right that we reward our care workers. In our schools, our teachers need the support of their assistants. Will the Home Secretary say what support there will be for our teaching assistants?

• AMBER (48/100) Sarah Pochin

  In August last year the Government admitted that they had no idea how many people who came in on care worker visas were still working in the care sector. How can the Home Secretary make an informed decision on their earned settlement when she has no idea whether they are still here doing the jobs they came in to do?

• GREEN (88/100) Gurinder Singh Josan

  I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, particularly the provision for care workers to obtain settlement on their existing five-year route. What support and provision are being offered to those who came here on a care visa and are tied to exploitative sponsors, or those who have been unable to continue working as care workers because of exploitative sponsors?

• GREEN (90/100) Iqbal Mohamed

  Everybody I have met and spoken to in my constituency opposes any kind of illegal immigration into our country. However, many people are in desperate need of help and they are forced to come via illegal routes. Just as there is a workaround providing a dispensation for care workers who have been exploited to have a second chance at getting earned status, will genuine refugees who came here in the absence of safe and legal routes be offered the same?

• RED (18/100) Kirsteen Sullivan

  We continue to have acute workforce pressures in social care in Scotland, which often leaves people stranded in hospital when they are fit to go home. What conversations has the Home Secretary had with the Scottish Government about the need for robust workforce planning, which has been absent for so long, to ensure that existing skills gaps are not exacerbated by these changes?

• AMBER (45/100) Jim Shannon

  I broadly welcome the principle that permanent residency in our United Kingdom must be properly earned. The Home Secretary has rightly drawn a differential between those who immigrate, pay their taxes and national insurance and make a contribution, and those usually very healthy economic migrants who jump in a rubber raft at Calais and come across. Our public services, particularly the health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, rely heavily on dedicated international workers who pay their taxes and play by the rules. Will she reassure my constituents that the policy will firmly reward legal, working contribution, while cracking down on those who jump the queue?

• AMBER (38/100) Jonathan Davies

  I look forward to chewing through the details of what the Home Secretary has published today, but it is good to hear her talk about the role of societal contribution as a route to residency and about the allowances for care workers. Some 4.2 million economic migrants came to this country under the previous Government, while we have hundreds of thousands of British young people not in education, employment or training. What conversations is she having across Government so that our immigration intake marries up to what we need in our labour market and economy?

• GREEN (82/100) Noah Law

  I welcome the Home Secretary’s recognition of the crucial work done by overseas care workers. Does she agree not only that this approach is needed not just practically, but that it is the right thing to do in principle to ensure that those who contribute the most in the most under-served professions in our country are rewarded?

• AMBER (38/100) Markus Campbell-Savours

  I thank the Home Secretary for her leadership on this issue. In the Lake district, due to housing shortages, there is a long-established policy of social housing being subject to local occupancy restrictions; only those with a local link—for example, local employment—are eligible for housing. Looking beyond the Home Office, does she agree that her Cabinet colleagues—not least those responsible for the fairness of housing policy—also have the power and a responsibility to reduce immigration pull factors?

• AMBER (52/100) Patricia Ferguson

  I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Could she consider the disparity that sometimes arises across the UK in salaries? I point her to information published by the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland just last month, which indicated that those in Scotland were likely to be earning up to 9% less than their counterparts in the rest of the UK. We clearly would not want people in the immigration system to be caught out by that anomaly, too.

• RED (5/100) Neil Duncan-Jordan

  Given that those earning more than £50,000 will have a five-year route to settled status, while those earning less than £50,000 will have a 10-year route, how will we assess whether a lawyer offers more value to our society than a teaching assistant, setting aside how much they earn?

• AMBER (70/100) Amanda Martin

  I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and her distinction between illegal migrants and those who came legally to work and contribute. We must confront the mess left by the Conservatives, whose failure to manage our immigration system is nothing short of a national scandal. Settlement should be earned through contribution, and in Portsmouth, I have seen that at first hand from our care workers, who look after our most vulnerable. Will the Home Secretary reassure those who have already contributed so much that their contributions will be recognised, and that those who have not contributed and have tried to play the system will need to contribute to remain?

• GREEN (78/100) Chris Curtis

  I welcome the changes announced today, and thank the Home Secretary for the way that she reached out during the consultation. In particular, when it comes to our responsibility to BNO visa holders, she has listened. In the past, one of the challenges in seeking to move towards a contributory system has been that the Office for Budget Responsibility has struggled to model correctly the importance of contribution in our welfare system. It has made some changes, but that change should continue. Will the Home Secretary call on the OBR to continue to improve the way that it models the economics of migration?

• GREEN (82/100) Steve Witherden 100% vibes

  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?

• AMBER (62/100) Josh Newbury 50% vibes

  The Home Secretary is absolutely right to talk about the British people’s sense of fairness; I heard about exactly that on the doorstep in Cannock Chase just this weekend. Not only did the Conservatives let millions into Britain over just a few years, but they left indefinite leave to remain at five years, regardless of someone’s contribution. Does the Home Secretary agree that these changes will introduce fairness, and that those who want to settle here will have to make a fair and positive contribution?

• RED (12/100) Chris Hinchliff

  Almost everyone in my constituency who speaks to me about immigration says that they welcome those who come to work hard in our country and play by the rules. As the Home Secretary knows, though, many of those workers across multiple sectors of the economy face significant exploitation from their visa sponsors. She referred to helping workers break away from rogue employers; will she meet those of us who are interested in introducing a certificate of common sponsorship to resolve this problem?

• GREEN (88/100) Connor Naismith

  Framing today’s statement is the fact that under this Labour Government and this Home Secretary, net migration is down 82% from its peak under the previous Conservative Government. However, can she confirm that alongside the changes that she is making to legal migration, there will be serious consequences for settlement for those entering our country by dangerous and illegal means?