Indefinite Leave to Remain

Chris Murray Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the support that my office receives from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I want to make a couple of points today, but I also want to pick up on the point that all Members have made about the enormous contribution that both these groups of migrants have made to British society. Nowhere is that more true than in my constituency of Edinburgh East and Musselburgh.

As we are talking about indefinite leave to remain, I think it is important that we recognise that the British immigration system in this country does not really draw a distinction between indefinite leave to remain and citizenship. Almost all the main rights of migrants are accessed at the stage of indefinite leave to remain, but citizenship is important. Madeleine Albright was first a refugee in the UK before she was a refugee in America. She commented that when she came to Britain, people said, “You’re a refugee. You’re welcome here. How long until you leave?”, but in America they said, “You’re a refugee. You’re welcome here. How long until you become a citizen?” It is important that we reflect on whether the Government should be agnostic about someone actually taking that step and becoming a citizen—or is it something that we should incentivise and make meaningful?

My second point is that not only are the Government agnostic on whether migrants gain citizenship or stay with indefinite leave to remain, but they are impassive and uninterested—this is an inherited system—in the path that migrants take to get there. Some migrants make enormous contributions to our countries. They volunteer, stand up for their communities, pay taxes, work hard and follow the rules. However, let us be honest: some do not, and the system is not very strenuous in distinguishing between them. As long as they wait long enough, pay a fee and pass the “Life in the UK” test, which is ridiculously bad, then they get ILR.

We have precious few levers to influence behaviour and precious few opportunities to foster social cohesion and integration. Shouldn’t we be thinking more creatively about that? If we are going to have a distinction between indefinite leave to remain and citizenship, and if the pathway is going to extend from five to 10 years, can the Government not think more creatively about how we build a migration system that works for migrants and for the communities where they settle?

My third point is that the immigration system has to be realistic. About a couple of years ago, under the Conservative Government, net migration came up to almost a million a year. That means that a big group of people will soon become eligible for indefinite leave to remain, and that means they become eligible for benefits and for social housing. In her remarks at the end of the debate, I hope the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), will accept responsibility and apologise for the complete lack of grip that the Conservatives left on the immigration system. We have to be realistic that there is a large group of people who will become eligible for benefits and for social housing that is currently unavailable because we have not built it yet.

We have to address public concerns about immigration; people who support immigration understand that. We need to think more creatively about how the immigration system works. If we do not give people indefinite leave to remain, that means they do not become eligible for benefits. If we extend that period, that happens too. Can we think more creatively, and will the Minister look at taking steps to address some of the points that have been made in the debate? For example, access to pensions, home fee status and difficulty travelling are things that can be addressed with those two groups while still taking account of the reality of the system that we inherited from the Conservatives.

My argument is this: if there is no substantive distinction between citizenship and indefinite leave to remain; if the challenge is that a large number of immigrants will become eligible for benefits and housing when they get indefinite leave to remain; if there is no mechanism to account for the contribution that people make or to incentivise their integration into our communities; if the system is blunt, uncreative, impassive and rigid; and if we want people to take the step of becoming one of us and a British citizen, then surely reform of both indefinite leave to remain and citizenship is needed.

I recognise the enormous contributions of both those on skilled worker visas and British national overseas visas, but I have a contention with the premise of the petition: the proposals have implications for fairness and the perceptions of fairness because they suggest that some groups should get a carve-out based on the route through which they entered, not what they have done while they are here.

My view is that the system should look at the contributions that migrants have made in the UK and not the visa that they came in on. I ask the Minister to look with clarity, a proper consultation, creativity and a view to a migrant’s contribution to the UK as these proposals are rolled out.