Question
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 20 years? Surely this underlines the fact that we have to arrest people, detain them and return them, otherwise there is no deterrent.
Answer
I agree with the Father of the House: it is high time that his Front Benchers took responsibility for the reality of their Government’s time in office—something that the shadow Home Secretary once again failed to do today. On care workers in particular, this reflects the consultation responses and the recognition of the unique circumstances of that cohort—not just with what they were asked to do in the post-pandemic period, but that this route was subject to a huge amount of abuse. The Home Office has revoked the sponsor licences of over 1,800 employers, primarily from the care sector. Recognising that, if there are people in this country today who came in on this visa and have fulfilled its terms—they have their £25,000 a year earnings and are with an employer in the care sector—they will be able to settle. That is also why we are providing a second chance to make that contribution to those who have not been able to meet the terms of their visa. I think that is a fair settlement; it gives a second chance to those who were exploited, but does not create a new immediate right to settle for those who were not able to fulfil the terms of their visa. On those who have arrived in this country illegally, the Father of the House will know that, in addition to the new core protection model, which means that people cannot settle before 20 years, we will be creating the work and study route, which will allow those integrating into this country by working or studying to settle earlier. Again, I think that is the right thing to do.20% point-scoring
Verdict: AMBER (35/100)
The reply partly answered the question. It gave some reasons for the settlement change, though these focused on care workers rather than the route as a whole, and it clearly set out the conditions for settlement: entry on the care visa, the £25,000 earnings threshold, and continued care-sector employment. It did not answer the question about hotel accommodation for people who arrived illegally, instead describing settlement timelines, and it did not address arrests, detention, returns or deterrence at all. A member of the public would still need to ask again about the accommodation and enforcement points.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the reason for the Government softening or watering down its earlier proposals on the earned settlement route, if it is doing so, apart from political pressure? | Partially Addressed | Direct | The reply gives non-political reasons for the change (consultation responses, the unique circumstances of care workers, and a 'fair settlement' that gives a second chance to the exploited), but these are tied only to the care-worker cohort rather than the earned settlement route as a whole, and seq 1 is pure point-scoring. |
| Will the Government establish the principle that care workers must have entered the UK lawfully to work in the care sector and must continue working in it in order to qualify for settlement? | Addressed | Direct | The reply states that settlement is available to those who came in on the care visa, met the £25,000 earnings threshold, and remain with a care-sector employer, while those who did not meet visa terms get only a second chance rather than an immediate right, which together answer the lawful-entry and continued-employment principle. |
| What is the Government's plan to ensure that people who arrived illegally are not housed in hotels for extended periods, such as 20 years? | Not Addressed | Generic MISREADS QUESTION | The item asks about hotel accommodation for people who arrived illegally, but the reply discusses the 20-year settlement timeline under the core protection model and the work and study route, which concerns settlement rather than housing or hotel stays. |
| Will the Government arrest, detain and return people who arrive in the UK illegally, in order to create a deterrent? | Not Addressed | Generic | Nothing in the reply addresses arresting, detaining or returning people who arrive illegally or whether such measures would deter arrivals; the closest statement concerns settlement timelines. |