Indefinite Leave to Remain

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 727360 and 727356 relating to the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The excellent staff on the Petitions Committee have been as diligent as ever; thanks to their hard work, I have had some very informative meetings with experts and campaign groups. I want to quickly thank the Migration Observatory, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Hong Kong Watch and the Centre for Policy Studies for taking the time to discuss the policy with me. I also want to thank Darwin, the creator of the petition entitled “Keep the 5-Year ILR pathway for existing Skilled Worker visa holders”, for the fascinating and moving conversation that we had last week.

Before I turn to the detail, I want to say why today’s debate matters. It is timely because the public discourse on immigration grows louder, fuelled by the algorithms of X and Facebook. We also see those who peddle the idea that you can have your cake and eat it: lower migration, but without the consequences to our economy, our NHS, our diplomacy or our culture. They are charlatans trying to hoodwink the public with slogans on the sides of buses. They want to divide us and set the tone that all immigration is bad and, by extension, that all migrants are unwelcome.

But that is not our country. That is not who we are. The moral compass of the vast majority of Britons points firmly in the other direction. This debate is our chance to show that careful deliberation is needed. Managed migration, done well, strengthens us. It grows our economy, it enriches our culture and it gives us the diplomatic heft to punch above our weight on the world stage.

First, I want to address one specific point. Experts have raised with me multiple times the need for a clear and honest conversation about what these changes mean, and the need for a clear distinction between immigration pathways and the different types of immigration. Let us be clear at the start about what we have and have not been asked to discuss today. We are not here to debate asylum claims, the graduate route, small boats or ancestry visas. The 164,000 and 108,000 people who signed the two petitions are asking us to consider two precise things: the five-year pathway for existing skilled worker visa holders and the five-year pathway for Hong Kong British national overseas visas.

Let me turn first to skilled workers. There are three issues to get to grips with, the first of which is fairness to those who are already here. The skilled worker visa pathway was introduced only in December 2020, and many people are now close to completing their five years. Some are just months away.

I have been contacted by many constituents across Beckenham and Penge, including Lachlan from Australia, who were en route to qualifying for indefinite leave to remain but now feel uncertain about their future. Does my hon. Friend agree that clarity on the Government’s earned settlement scheme and the retrospective effect of changes to indefinite leave to remain would be warmly welcomed by hard-working constituents like Lachlan and others in Beckenham and Penge and across the country who want to make Britain their permanent home?

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which shows not only that he has probably seen my speech and knows what is coming next, but that it is a uniform measure that has been raised by those who have spoken to me, as the Member introducing the debate, and by those who have reached out to their MPs.

I am really pleased with the way my hon. Friend is presenting the debate. Many of us agree with what he says about how the immigration debate is being utilised and weaponised, but also believe that the level of legal migration is too high and support the Government in getting a grip on it. We want to ensure that those who come here are delivering, but we also recognise that some people who are already delivering will be affected and that they need to be properly considered.

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. As I said at the start, migration managed well benefits us all. That is what I understand the Government are trying to achieve, and that is one thing that we need to support.

The prospect of applying changes retrospectively has caused huge anxiety. For people who have uprooted their family, made financial sacrifices and planned their future on the basis of clear rules, it feels—as one person put it to me—like

“running a marathon and halfway through realising the rules have changed”.

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. Because this debate is so popular, Members have received many emails from constituents, as I have from my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate. They are highly skilled and are worried about the transitional arrangements, because they are existing visa holders and have spent a lot of money investing in trying to stay here. That includes those who have emailed me saying that they have already passed their “Life in the UK” test. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are changing the ILR qualifying period retrospectively, it would make sense, because of the financial hardship and distress that it is causing our constituents, to have a clear exemption for those who are already on a qualifying visa route?

That is another issue that I know the Minister, who is new to his place, will address in his remarks.

The second issue that I want to raise is exploitation. A longer route to settlement may embolden bad employers. We already know that there are 40,000 people in limbo in the social care sector because of exploitative bosses and visa sponsorship pressures. Extending the pathway risks increasing the vulnerability of workers who are already contributing to our society. I therefore ask the Minister: has any assessment been carried out of the workplace impact of these proposals?

The third issue is contribution. These are skilled workers; we invited them here because we need their skills. They are in work, paying tax, helping our economy, staffing our hospitals, caring for our elderly and carrying out world-leading research. In my constituency of South Norfolk, skilled workers at the Norwich research park are engaged in science that could revolutionise food security and tackle the climate crisis. At Norfolk and Norwich University hospital, I saw a board listing dozens of nationalities represented in the workforce—it looked like a roll-call of the United Nations—and yet these staff, who are giving so much, have no access to public funds. They pay the immigration health surcharge of £1,000 a year and support our economy, but carry their own costs. That is the reality that we must recognise. My question to the Minister is whether the Government have conducted an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes to the skilled worker pathway.

I thank my hon. Friend for his speech, and I thank those who secured the debate. Many of my constituents are highly skilled. They often work in IT. Some do not intend to stay and may well go home, but those who have written to me have told me what it means for them. It is not just about their current job; they see themselves contributing in the long term through their skilled jobs and perhaps making a career, climbing up the career ladder and becoming managers and leaders in their field. This decision appears to make that possibility very uncertain. How do HR managers feel about this decision when they are recruiting skilled people from overseas?

I thank my hon. Friend. The important thing is not just the here and now, but the future. We always need to legislate for the future, not just for now.

I turn to the second petition, which is about the Hong Kong BNOs. The moral case is overwhelming. We must remember why this scheme exists: it was created in response to Beijing’s national security law, when freedoms and rights of Hongkongers were crushed. People fled oppression. They came here trusting Britain to keep its word. Some of those who are now living in our country have spoken out against the Chinese Government. Going back to Hong Kong is unthinkable for them.

Colleagues should be under no illusion about what people are fleeing. In mainland China, repression is systematic. We have seen the incarceration of over 1 million Uyghur Muslims, the silencing of dissent and the routine use of mass surveillance against ordinary citizens. In Hong Kong, which was once one of Asia’s freest societies, we have seen the steady erosion of rights that were guaranteed by international treaty. We have seen freedom of the press strangled, freedom of assembly banned, civil society dismantled piece by piece, journalists jailed, students arrested and opposition politicians barred from office or driven into exile—all this in a place where people used to enjoy liberties similar to our own.

Does the hon. Member agree that the Ukrainian situation is similar to the Hong Kong situation? People on Homes for Ukraine visas have now been here for more than four years. We should be considering including them in the five-year period for leave to remain in this country.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I know that the Minister will have been listening to his point.

When Hongkongers tell us that they are worried about the direction of travel, we must listen, because they have already lived it. They know what it means when promises are broken; they know what it means when the state decides to rewrite the rules halfway through the journey. That is why this debate is not just about visa terms. It is about trust and about whether Britain will stand by its word.

We in this country have always had a proud tradition of standing up to international bullies. When others looked away, Britain was often prepared to say, “No, this is not right. We will not let you trample over your people.” That tradition is written into our history, from our stance against fascism in Europe to our support for democratic movements across the world. The BNO scheme is part of that tradition. It told the people of Hong Kong, “You are not alone. Britain will stand with you.”

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way and is making excellent remarks. At the weekend, I met Sid, who is in the Gallery today, and he made many of the excellent points that my hon. Friend is making. On the issue of the BNO route, the extension from five to 10 years makes it look as though we are shifting the goalposts. Does my hon. Friend agree that that risks handing Beijing a propaganda victory and that it would deny young Hongkongers access to home fee status at our universities for a decade?

My hon. Friend’s point is extremely well made. I would say that I could not have put it better myself, but I hope I can, in the bit that is coming up.

I urge the Minister to clarify today whether BNOs will be included in the changes. What conversations has the Home Office had with the Foreign Office about the diplomatic consequences of this decision? Do the Government regard the BNO scheme as a humanitarian scheme or an economic scheme? To my mind, it is clear: it is a humanitarian scheme rooted in our duty to protect those who share our values, but whose freedoms have been taken away.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am just about to make my concluding remarks.

Both petitions speak to a single principle: fairness. People who came here on a clear set of rules deserve to know what those rules are and that they will not change halfway through. Whether those people are skilled workers staffing our hospitals or Hongkongers seeking refuge from oppression, they are already contributing enormously to our country. In all the discussions about immigration, we must start with honesty about the different types of migration and what they mean for Britain. In recent years, there has been too much heat and not enough light. Today’s debate is a chance for us to change that. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to provide that clarity.

Order. I do not need to point out that this is a very popular debate. I remind hon. Members that if they wish to be called to speak, they should please stand. To give you an indication, something like four minutes each should allow us to get everybody in, given the numbers who wish to speak, so please bear that in mind.