Question
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?
Answer
I disagree with my hon. Friend, as she knows from my statement today, which has listened to the consultation responses in detail. As I have set out in answer to other hon. Members, the position for settlement applications is that the rules apply at the point at which the decision is made, not when someone has come into the country. That has been settled law and settled policy for a very long time, and it will not change.
Verdict: AMBER (42/100)
The reply clearly answers the first part of the question: it declines to reconsider the retrospective application of the settlement rules, explaining that the rules apply at the point of decision and have been settled policy for a long time. It does not address the second part, which asked about skills, contribution and wages, so the asker would need to follow up on that point. Overall the exchange is only partly answered.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Will the Home Secretary reconsider the retrospective application of the proposed changes, in light of the consultation? | Addressed | Direct | The reply clearly declines to reconsider the retrospective application, stating that settlement rules apply at the point of decision, that this has been settled law and policy for a long time, and that it will not change, which gives a stated reason for refusing. |
| Will the Home Secretary reconsider the proposals, in light of the consultation, insofar as they treat skills and contribution as a basis for differentiation in a labour market where those factors do not correlate with wages? | Not Addressed | Generic | Nothing in the reply engages with skills, contribution, or the correlation (or lack of it) between those factors and wages; the only related statement is the generic claim that the consultation responses were listened to in detail, which does not address the differentiation question. |