Indefinite Leave to Remain

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This debate is necessary because it goes to the heart of fundamental fairness. The petitions before us reflect the deep sense of betrayal felt by the people who came to this country legally, followed the rules, contributed to their communities and are now being told that the goalposts are to be moved.

The Government’s proposal to double from five years to 10 years the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain is not just a technical policy change. It represents a broken promise to people who did exactly what was asked of them. We are talking about people who have come here and chosen to make our country their home. Indeed, they have been asked to come here by successive Governments to support our public services. In the city of Durham, these are our neighbours, our teachers and the care workers and NHS staff who keep vital services running, day in, day out.

Last summer, I attended a Unison migrant workers event at which care workers spoke to me directly about the uncertainty caused by the proposed changes. Migrant workers, particularly in social care, are too often trapped by sponsorship rules that tie their legal status to their employer.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I was at the same conference. There is a real issue with certificates of sponsorship because of abuse and exploitation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the certificates of sponsorship should be decoupled from employers, to avoid any exploitation by bad employers?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Yes. The meeting that my hon. Friend and I went to was fantastically informative, and I could not agree more with his intervention.

In practice, sponsorship rules mean that migrant workers and particularly care workers are living under conditions that resemble indentured labour. When settlement is pushed further away, that vulnerability is prolonged. By extending the route from five to 10 years, we are effectively handing a bad boss 10 years of leverage instead of five.

I heard directly from John, who is in the Public Gallery today. John is a care worker who lives in my constituency. For three years, he has cared for vulnerable residents in understaffed care homes, working long hours without complaint. Even when he was treated badly by his sponsor or placed in an emotionally demanding situation caring for people with advanced dementia, he carried on because he believed that there was a fair end point. John has described the shock that he felt when he learned that the route to settlement could be extended to 10 years. The change affects not just his immigration status, but his child’s stability, his family’s wellbeing and whether he actually feels wanted in the country he serves.

The Government argue that settlement is a privilege. I argue that it is a common-sense investment in a stable society. When people feel secure, they invest in their homes, put down roots, integrate and contribute more fully to their communities. I urge the Government to think again, protect the five-year route and ensure that the UK remains a country where, if someone works hard and follows the rules, they are met with fairness and compassion.