Question
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?
Answer
I will repeat for the hon. Member an answer that I have given many times, including to the Home Affairs Committee. I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member’s point: it is a long-established principle that the rules that apply to an application are those that are in place at the point of decision, not at the point when somebody arrived in the country. I am afraid that to go down that road would render this and all future Governments unable to manage the migration system effectively. It would be the wrong step. It is not a step required of us by our legal system and courts, and we will not be taking it.
Verdict: AMBER (60/100)
The minister directly and clearly ruled out any retrospective change to the rules for people already on the pathway, and gave reasons: the rules in force at the point of decision should apply, and retrospection would limit future governments' ability to manage migration. The reply did not specifically say whether contributions from pathway holders outside care work would be disregarded or counted, so that part of the question was only indirectly touched on. A member of the public would have a clear answer on the main point but would probably need to ask again for detail on the second.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Will the Home Secretary agree that there will be no retrospective changes to the time required to achieve indefinite leave to remain for all those already on pathways to settlement, not only care workers? | Addressed | Direct | The minister clearly refuses any retrospective change, stating that the rules at the point of decision apply, that retrospection would prevent future governments managing migration, that the legal system does not require it, and that the government 'will not be taking it'. The refusal is given with reasons, which answers the question of whether there will be no retrospective change for all pathway holders. |
| Whether the contributions of people on pathways to settlement outside the care worker group are disregarded or do not count in the Government's approach to the policy. | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply's 'rules at point of decision' principle applies to everyone on pathways and implicitly means past time is assessed under current rules, but it never says whether contributions of non-care-worker pathway holders are disregarded or counted, so the specific question is only indirectly touched. |