Indefinite Leave to Remain

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

Although 116 people in my constituency have signed the petitions, the story of one constituent—I will call her Jill—stuck with me. It is a story of anxiety and uncertainty for Jill, who works in social care on a health and social care visa. She described the reality that many face: low pay, unsafe workloads and a fear that speaking up about conditions at work could put her visa at risk. She made the point that those pressures have been pushing people to breaking point across the country for years. She captured exactly why this issue matters.

People like Jill moved here in good faith. They brought their families. They got jobs in health and social care roles, filling the critical gaps that we have in the workforce. They are contributing to society and dutifully paying their tax. Now the goalposts are potentially being moved. Will the Minister commit to protecting those already on the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain from retrospective changes? For workers like Jill, settlement is not just a petition or debate; it is whether they can plan a future in the country for which they are helping to care, whether they will have to uproot their families and leave the homes where they have created connections and communities, whether they can speak up about unsafe conditions without fear and whether their financial and emotional sacrifices will ever lead to the security they were promised.

Many on this route organised their lives around the existing five-year pathway.

[James Naish]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

In the interests of time, I will not.

Those people budgeted for visa fees, planned family life and made long-term decisions on the understanding that after five years they could apply for settlement. Extending that to 10 years means five more years of uncertainty and thousands of pounds in additional costs. For families, it means children growing up with prolonged insecurity and uncertainty. For workers, it means remaining tied to temporary status for a decade, severely limiting their bargaining power at work. For our public services, it risks driving away exactly the people we can least afford to lose.

I am not arguing that immigration policy can never change; I think most people here agree that it can and must change. However, there is a fundamental issue of fairness when changes are applied to people who are already here, already contributing to local and national economies and our public services and already well along a pathway that was clearly set out to them. We should not and must not pull the rug from under them now.

Violence against Women and Girls: Pornography Prostitution

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joani Reid]

I completely agree. I hope—and this is a point that I am sure the Minister will respond to later in the debate—that there is a section within the strategy to address these issues. That could possibly be advanced as a result of collaboration between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

I was talking about the abuse that women who are involved in online pornography have suffered: 56% were physically assaulted as a result of their online pornography, and 65% raped. No other industry in Britain would be allowed to operate with those statistics. Meanwhile, OnlyFans executives pay themselves handsomely and its owner reportedly takes home £1.3 million a day. That is the price of women’s pain. But the harm extends well beyond women directly exploited. Its cultural impact is shaping the attitudes and behaviours of an entire generation.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does she agree that the normalisation of violent porn can mean that these horrors come out of the screen and into real life, particularly when defence counsels argue that consent was given to crimes of strangulation? Does she welcome, as I do, the Government’s steps to make strangulation an aggravating factor when sentencing for murder?

[Joani Reid]

Again, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I am delighted that the Government have brought forward plans to ban strangulation in pornography, but there is a whole host of behaviours within pornography that we know affect real-life abuse.

Prostitution and Sex Trafficking: Demand

Kirsteen Sullivan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tracy Gilbert]

I will come to that later, and yes, I do agree with those comments.

The most recent research into the scale of paying for sex found that 3.6% of men in the UK report having paid for sex in the previous five years. Men who are most likely to have paid for sex are single, aged from 25 to 34, in managerial or professional occupations, and report high numbers of sexual partners. Shockingly, but not surprisingly, it was revealed last month that multiple members of the Scottish Parliament have paid for sex. We can only predict that Members or former Members of this House have too.

Demand is not inevitable, and the law plays a pivotal role in whether this minority of men choose to pay for sex. In one UK study, researchers asked over 1,200 sex buyers whether they would change their behaviour if a law was introduced that made paying for sex a crime. Over half said that they would definitely, probably or possibly change their behaviour. While sex buyers are driven by male sexual entitlement, ultimately, they do it because they can. The law is not just failing to stop these men; it is making it easy. Not only is paying for sex legal in England, Wales and Scotland, so are the pimping websites advertising thousands of women each day for sex buyers to choose from.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward this debate. Does she agree that pimping websites are facilitating sex trafficking of women, making it easier for traffickers and organised crime groups to profit from the dehumanising, violence, exploitation and trade of vulnerable women?