Indefinite Leave to Remain

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 727372 and e-petition 746363 relating to indefinite leave to remain.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I open this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I am grateful to the 330,000 people who have signed these two petitions. Evidently, they have generated a lot of interest, given the high number of hon. Members in attendance.

The Government are currently consulting on changing the rules around whether, how and after how long somebody who is legally here is entitled to permanent residence in the UK, which is known as indefinite leave to remain or ILR. The first petition was started by Laurence Bansil, who is sitting in the Gallery, and it calls on the Government to protect legal migrants and scrap the proposed 10-year settlement route. The second petition was started by Pulasthi Weerasinghe, and it calls on the Government to keep the five-year route to ILR, but to restrict access to benefits to protect the public purse.

My mother once had ILR. She came from the Philippines in the 1970s on a work visa. She worked in London hospitals, got ILR and then got British citizenship. She built a life here and cared for generations of patients right to the end of their lives. One of those patients was a former member of the House of Lords and a senior judge, and I remember my mother recounting her many conversations with him about his distinguished career, as well as about my own legal studies and aspirations, which he showed a keen interest in.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for leading this very important debate. Many of my Slough constituents, especially healthcare workers, have signed these petitions about indefinite leave to remain. Many feel that the goalposts are being moved and that this policy will have a hugely detrimental impact on their lives. Does he agree that there should be no retrospective implementation of the change? That would be truly unfair on them and on the rest of us.

I do agree, and that is the exact point I was going to make.

Returning to the example I was just recounting, my mother attended this patient’s funeral, as she did for many. That shows that roles like hers are not just work; they provide a real service to the public. Her profession is extremely important during critical, vulnerable times in people’s lives. It is hard work, but vital work. However, the sector has been plagued by labour shortages for many years. After Brexit shut off the social care worker recruitment pipeline from the EU, and with a pre-existing recruitment crisis in that sector, a large vacancy problem had emerged by 2021, which led to the Home Office putting social care on the shortage occupation list. Those who came here to work have moved their entire lives here; they brought their families here as they were entitled to do. They did so when the rules said that, after five years, they could apply for settlement in the UK—that was the deal.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a compelling case. The position is particularly acute in island communities, where we need to bring people in to be part of our community. Their role is welcomed, as we cannot just ship workers in from another town or village 10, 15 or 20 miles down the road. This extended period of ILR will make it less likely that people will want to settle in communities like mine, because they will not want that extended period of uncertainty in their lives.

The situation in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is similar to that in my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe, where there has been a long-term recruitment and retention crisis. As a coastal area, workers can only go one way. There are massive problems and, as he said, they will be worsened by this proposal.

My hon. and learned Friend is making a fantastic speech, and I thank him for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. According to the Royal College of Nursing, 60% of internationally educated staff without ILR have said that it is very likely that extending this qualifying period will affect their decision to remain in the UK. That equates to 46,000 nursing staff at risk of leaving the UK. Does he agree that this policy would worsen the retention crisis? Also, does he agree that the Government ought to produce an NHS-specific impact assessment for this policy?

I completely agree, and will go on to make those very points.

That was the deal. The Government are now considering doubling the wait for settlement from five years to 10, and up to 15 years for care workers. One of the most contentious elements of the consultation is that that will apply to people who are already here. I fundamentally oppose that rule change. Migrants entered this country on a contract, and the deal was simple: if they came to work in the sectors where we needed them, obeyed the law and paid their taxes, they could stay. Changing the terms of that contract after people have spent years building a life here is not just bad policy but a breach of trust. It makes Britain look unpredictable and like a country that does not keep its word. We cannot talk about earning settlement if we keep moving the goalposts after the game has started. In my view, retrospectivity is un-British and undermines our sense of fair play. The position of the two petitioners who sit in the Public Gallery is that it should be abandoned, and I wholeheartedly agree with them.

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend’s mother is very proud of him. My constituents, a same-sex couple with a child, fled from Russia because of fear of persecution. They work here, they pay tax and their child is in a local school. They are fully integrated into the community, but have written to me to say that they are 10 months away from gaining ILR and feel that changing the rules retrospectively does not honour the commitments that were made to them when they were granted refugee status. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is very shameful for our country to row back on what was promised to my constituents when they first arrived here?

I completely agree. It is the moving of the goalposts that most colleagues in the Chamber find really problematic.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree, as a fellow lawyer, that it is rather unusual to bring retrospective legislation into effect? There have been previous cases where legislation has been made retrospective, but that has been to punish crime. We are talking about ordinary, decent people who have come to this country to better not only their own lives but our lives and those of the rest of the community. Does he agree that it is absolutely wrong to have the law applied retrospectively, and that it puts the legal system to shame?

I completely agree. The common law sets its face against retrospectivity, and that principle should preclude this change.

I want to address other elements of the consultation. The Government suggest a system of credits, for things including “social contribution”, to shorten the 10-year wait. On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but its proposed definition is dangerously narrow. It includes the police and the NHS but inexplicably, in my view, excludes care workers in the private sector. Why are we proposing a bureaucratic minefield of “volunteering credits”, which could be very difficult to verify, while ignoring the immense social value that care workers give during a 12-hour shift looking after our elderly? Their job is their contribution, and that should be the credit.

The hon. and learned Member is making a really important case. In my constituency, the care sector is one of the largest employers, but local providers tell me that the proposed changes could drive 10% to 20% of people out of it. Does he agree that, before proceeding with these changes, the Government must do a proper impact assessment on the care sector and address the fact that, if the NHS has different criteria for allowing settlement routes, that could punish the care sector, which is particularly struggling already?

Those are exactly the points made by the first petitioner, who works in the care sector and is sitting in the Public Gallery.

I am also concerned about the proposal to place lower earners, including most care workers, on the 15-year route to settlement. We have heard about the problems of recruitment, and that will certainly make the position worse. During that limbo, people cannot progress. As one of the petitioners, Mr Weerasinghe, told me, he must complete the entire qualifying period on the same job code, meaning he has to stay, essentially, in the same job. He cannot progress and move beyond the job that he originally came here for so, at the end of the 10 years, ultimately he pays less tax. That is not in the interest of the public, and it makes no sense. If we tell a care worker they must wait 15 years for security, while Australia offers it in three and Canada in five, they will simply vote with their feet. We risk becoming a training ground for economic competitors: recruiting talent, training them up and then watching them leave for jurisdictions that offer them a stable future.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for leading this very important debate. I apologise if I frightened people with my very loud voice—[Laughter.]—but I wanted to be heard.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposal is both unfair and dehumanising? The Government need to halt it immediately. More than 1,000 of my constituents signed the petition. I have met care workers in my constituency and here in Parliament and they are very frightened for their livelihoods and their futures. Does he agree that the proposal needs to be halted?

I do agree. The people already in the system who do not have stability, who do not know what will happen and who made a huge investment fear for their future, which is at stake. I want to address very briefly—

Order. Many Members want to speak in this debate. We will try to get them all in, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has to realise that every time he takes an intervention, there is less time for speeches.