Question

Asked by Iqbal Mohamed to the Home Department on 02 November 2026 — tabled under the Andy Burnham government

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?

Answer

Answered by Shabana Mahmood (Labour)

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.
17% point-scoring

Verdict: GREEN (90/100)

The reply directly answers the question: it states clearly that earned settlement will not be offered to refugees who arrived without safe and legal routes. It gives a committed reason, namely that people arriving by different routes are treated differently to encourage lawful entry and deter people smuggling. Some surrounding background is included but is not needed for the answer, so the question is fully covered.

How we got there

Question itemCoverageSpecificityRationale
Will the Government offer genuine refugees who arrived in the absence of safe and legal routes the same opportunity to obtain earned settlement that has been offered to exploited care workers? Addressed Direct The reply gives a clear 'No' to offering earned settlement to refugees who arrived without safe and legal routes, and states the reason: their method of entry differs, so the cohorts are treated differently to incentivise lawful behaviour and deter smuggling. Statements 2 and 3 add context but are not needed for the answer, and statement 6 is rhetorical.

Feedback on this grading

Think this verdict is wrong, or that the question and answer have been mismatched? Let us know.

Submitting this needs Google reCAPTCHA to block spam, which sets cookies from google.com on your device — see our Cookies policy for details. Accept these cookies to show the form.