Indefinite Leave to Remain

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. On Saturday, I met with 200 members of the Paddock Wood Hong Kong community. You are probably wondering, Sir Edward, why 200 people would give up their early Saturday evening to see me. They did so because they were worried, for themselves and for their families. They came to voice their fear that their pathway to settlement had narrowed, and they came because the conditions under which they uprooted their lives in Hong Kong and came to Britain are being changed. I am deeply disappointed that the promise made by the British Government on which they came here is now potentially being rewritten.

Let us go into some detail. I am grateful that the Hong Kong BNO route will continue to allow settlement after five years, but there have been two changes: one on language requirements, and one on earnings thresholds. On language, many BNO families came here as three-generational units, in which there of course are quite elderly people. Obviously, it is more difficult for those people to achieve a much higher standard of English proficiency—any hon. Member who has learned a language in their life will know that it is easier to do at 20 than at 80—so what are they to do? If a person is 80 and fails a higher language requirement, would they get sent back to Hong Kong while the rest of their family remained? The Government need to look at that in more detail.

On income requirements, three-generational family units have come, as I said. Some 70% of BNO visa holders are degree educated, and they are working in jobs that are significantly below their professional level and standing.

[Olly Glover]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin]

I will not take any interventions, as so many hon. Members are seeking to get in. The combination of highly skilled individuals and three-generational families means that, quite rightly, not everyone in a family goes to work, so what about the carers, part-time workers, the elderly and students? If a person is studying at university and is not earning, do they need to meet the income threshold? There is a complete lack of clarity.

When I attended the Chinese new year celebrations in Paddock Wood last year, which were held jointly with the congregation of St Andrew’s church, I saw at first hand just how deeply the Hong Kong community enriches our community, and how the native Paddock Wood community reciprocates that. The British Government have made a promise, and they should stick to their promises. I urge them to reconsider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I will carry on.

Between 2015 and 2020, total grants of resettlement were never over 100,000. In the years either side of that—except in the last year of the previous Labour Government—they were never more than 200,000. In contrast, the Government’s own settlement consultation sets out estimates showing far greater numbers of people being granted settlement between 2026 and 2030. It projects that the peak could reach as high as 620,000 in 2028, with as many as 2.2 million receiving settlement over that period. That is simply not sustainable.

[Mike Martin]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Matt Vickers]

No.

I think we can all understand why people want to achieve settlement more quickly, but the policies we set must be based on what is right for our country. We should maintain our resolve, and ensure that changes are enacted without creating loopholes or alternative routes beyond what the Government have set out. The approach is wholly responsive to the current situation, and reflects the fact that we need much stronger policies that deliver a fair system for British citizens and those who have already legally settled in the UK.

I want to re-emphasise the points raised when the policy was announced, which include the point that the thresholds for earnings to demonstrate net contribution set out in the consultation must be sufficiently high to ensure that those who are granted settlement contribute to this country. Furthermore, the Government’s own work has highlighted some of the mechanisms people use to take advantage of existing immigration rules, so have the Government been developing strong rules to ensure that adjustments to the baseline for behaviour, such as volunteering, represent a significant contribution? If we do not have sufficiently strong criteria for what constitutes working in the community, I fear the proposals risk being undermined.

The British people care fundamentally about fairness. The British people demand stronger borders. Immigration has been far too high for far too long. Too many people refuse to accept that simple fact. As has been said, if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw ever more people on to a path that starts with anger and ends with hatred. We need an immigration system that is fair and proportionate and does not take taxpayers for a ride.

For too long the right to remain in the UK has been seen as an automatic entitlement. It has become a conveyor belt to citizenship, when UK citizenship should be a privilege that is earned through commitment and contribution to our country. The Conservatives believe that the UK is not a dormitory or a hotel, but our home. We must make changes to indefinite leave to remain, both to respond to the levels of immigration and so that we can have a fairer system for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it should be for Parliament and the Government to decide who has a right to remain in our country. As set out in our immigration White Paper, we intend to clarify these issues and the application of article 8 rights in the UK.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Less than three weeks ago, the Home Secretary whipped her Back Benchers against new clause 43 to the Crime and Policing Bill, which had cross-party support and would have criminalised the harassment of women and girls. Her Ministers promised at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere that the new clause was not necessary because the matter would be dealt with in the violence against women and girls strategy, which was meant to come out before the recess. We now hear that it is not coming out before the recess. Did Ministers misspeak at the Dispatch Box, or are they incompetent?

[Jess Phillips]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to read the National Audit Office’s report on the previous Government’s violence against women and girls strategy, he will see that the strategy was found totally wanting.

[Mike Martin]

What about your strategy?

[Jess Phillips]

I will come to it. It was also undeliverable and untested. I want to ensure that the violence against women and girls strategy that goes out in this Government’s name is the best it can possibly be.

Crime and Policing Bill

Mike Martin Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 43 in my name and in the name of the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), both of whom I thank for their support. It is also co-signed by 100 Members from across the House representing our entire political spectrum from almost every party, including many Members of the Labour party.

New clause 43 seeks to do something very simple: to commence the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which has already received Royal Assent. This Act simply criminalises the harassment of people in public based on their sex, but this is a crime that overwhelmingly affects women so this really is about the criminalisation of harassment of women in public.

The Act started life as a private Member’s Bill laid by my constituency predecessor, Greg Clark. He was approached by a sixth-former in our constituency who said that she had been harassed while coming home from school. One third of schoolgirls in the United Kingdom say they have been harassed in their school uniforms. We should be ashamed of that statistic, and Greg was ashamed and he took action.

The 2023 Act, as passed, creates a specific offence of harassment on account of someone’s sex. Like the new clause I rise to speak in support of, it received cross-party support, including, it must be said, from the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is now the Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls.

The Act criminalises harassing, following and shouting degrading comments and making obscene gestures at women and girls in public with the deliberate intention of causing them harm or distress, and it carries a maximum sentence of two years. So I am quite disappointed and confused by the interactions that I have had with the Government on this issue. Every time I have pressed them for an update on commencement, I have not really received a substantive answer. For example, eight months ago I asked a question in this House and received a letter from the Government telling me that the Home Office is making all the necessary arrangements and that I would be contacted when a commencement date is confirmed. As a new MP, I thought this was quite promising. Five months ago, I tabled a written question and the Government responded saying that they would publish next steps at the earliest opportunity. Then two weeks ago I received a reply from the Government to a further communication stating that an update on commencement would be provided in due course. Each communication I receive from the Government is a little vaguer, a little bit less definitive about commencement.

Yesterday, at her instigation, I met with the Minister for VAWG and I thought, “Fantastic, finally we will get some answers.” But there was nothing, I am afraid—there was nada, zip. I gently ask the Minister present now—not the Minister for VAWG—what is the point in arranging a meeting if the Government are not going to say anything new to what they have previously said?

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, a fellow member of the Select Committee on Defence, for giving way, and I am proud to put my name to new clause 43 in his name. I also pay tribute to him for taking forward Greg Clark’s previous work in a very cross-party way for the benefit of the community. Does he share my frustration and slight bewilderment at the way in which the Government appear to be blocking commencement?

[Mike Martin]

In the Government’s defence, I do not think that this is a difference in policy; it is a difference in timing, but the timing seems to be very elastic. We seek a definitive time when the Act will be commenced—perhaps the Minister can respond at the Dispatch Box.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

As somebody who was incredibly proud to work with the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor on this legislation, having worked for many, many years to recognise misogyny in our hate crime framework, let me say that it will be two years in September since this House agreed to this legislation on a cross-party basis. It will be two years in September of the work being done, in theory, to be able to commence the legislation. Many of us on the Government Benches are proud of our commitment to recognising misogyny in hate crime, so will the hon. Gentleman join me in saying that we really want to understand what the barriers might be to getting on with the job that we know across this House will keep women and girls safer on our streets?

[Mike Martin]

I can actually give the hon. Lady a very specific time: it is 21 months to the day since this Act received Royal Assent. If the Minister would be so gracious, we might have from her either a time for commencement or, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow says, a specific problem that is stopping the Act being commenced, rather than some of the more general responses we have had to date.

I am doubly disappointed that although this Act was passed in a previous Parliament—expressing the unanimous will of Parliament, as it passed without a Division—it is entirely commensurate with the Labour Government’s policy to halve violence against women and girls. Harassment and violence are on a continuum and a spectrum. One of the things we are trying to do is to change the culture of men in how they act towards women; this Act is a part of that and really does contribute to the Labour Government’s priorities and manifesto. Indeed, the Minister for VAWG sat on the Public Bill Committee for the Act in 2023 and said that the Labour party would work with the then Conservative Government to ensure that the Bill passed without a Division, and so it did.

The Government have signalled that they will vote against new clause 43, which has been selected for a vote tonight. When the new clause has cross-party support and the original Act had unanimous cross-party support, why will the Government vote against the new clause? It seems to me that they are voting against their own manifesto and their own commitments while in opposition. That is difficult to understand, because I think we all want the same thing.

I will conclude. Implementing the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act is an important step in helping the Labour Government to achieve their own manifesto commitments. Let this not be another speech without action. I urge hon. and right hon. Members to vote for new clause 43.

[Dawn Butler]

I rise to speak to new clause 47 in my name. This is a very simple new clause, in a way, about how we stop mobile phones that have been stolen from being reconnected to the cloud and sold on. If we can break that link, we can stop the proliferation of mobile phone theft, which has increased by 150%.

Some 200 mobile phones are snatched every single day, and there has been a marked increase in Westminster. I know that a number of MPs have had their mobile phones stolen—some of them are sat not too far away from me. The amount of money in this crime is incredible. I do not believe phone manufacturers are that keen to stop this crime, because I feel it is part of their business model: when somebody has their mobile phone stolen, they go and buy another mobile phone.

New clause 47 says that once somebody’s phone has been stolen and they report it to the police, the police must report it to Apple, Google, Samsung or whoever, which then stops that phone from being reconnected to the cloud. In effect, that phone would become inactive. If the manufacturer failed to do that within 48 hours, it would be fined £10,000. We need to ensure that the manufacturers take this issue seriously, because they are not. Here is the simple thing: if we want to stop mobile phones being stolen to order, we need to ensure that the manufacturers take the issue seriously. We need to ensure that IMEI numbers are easily accessible, and we need to ensure that thieves cannot reconnect the mobile phones.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Mike Martin Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

The final Government amendments relate to serious crime prevention orders and electronic devices. To support operational efficiency, Government amendments 6 to 11 will enable an inspector to authorise a constable to use the powers to access, examine, copy, retain or use information under clauses 20, 21 and 23 of the Bill. That is thought to be more operationally effective than the current measures in the Bill, which place that authorisation at superintendent level, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) will remember from our long discourse on these matters in Committee.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Does the Minister find it strange that in a debate on a Bill so important to Reform UK—indeed, it is the party’s raison d’être—80% of Reform UK MPs have left the Chamber and are, presumably, in the pub?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I think they probably call that campaigning, but it is up to them to justify how long they spend in the pub, or indeed in this Chamber.

Moving to serious crime prevention orders and interim serious crime prevention orders, Government amendments 14 to 19 will remove Scotland and Northern Ireland from clause 48, which allows electronic monitoring as a condition of serious crime prevention orders and interim serious crime prevention orders in terrorism-related cases. The amendments will ensure that the devolved Governments retain full legislative competence over their existing electronic monitoring regimes.

For now, I commend all the Government amendments to the House and look forward to contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members on the gargantuan group of amendments we are dealing with tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

As I said already, the plan was never started. The first plane was due to take off on 24 July, but the Labour Government cancelled it within days of coming to office. The money would have been extremely well spent had the scheme started, because the deterrent effect would have stopped the boats, meaning that we would not have tens of thousands of people in hotels costing billions and billions.

While we are on the topic of hotels, let us look at how the Labour Government’s pledge during the election to end the use of asylum hotels is going. The numbers in asylum hotels have gone up by 8,000 so far under this Labour Government. Speaking of removals deterrents, I was in Berlin four or five weeks ago talking to members of the CDU party, which is now in Government. The incoming German Government intend to implement a removals deterrent very similar in concept to the Rwanda scheme. So other Governments around the world have realised that they have to do this; it worked in Australia, and the new German Government will be doing something very similar. It is just our Government who are going headlong in the opposite direction.

[Mike Martin]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Chris Philp]

I will make some progress.

Turning to the amendments on indefinite leave to remain, new clause 11 would limit eligibility for ILR to 10 years, and new clause 17 would set various conditions on ILR. New clause 17 essentially says that to get ILR after 10 years a person has to have made an economic contribution, and cannot be a burden on other taxpayers. Those strike me as very fair measures.

I notice that in the immigration announcement by the Prime Minister this morning, he made reference to 10 years for ILR, despite the fact that the Minister and her colleagues voted against that measure just a few weeks ago. I wonder what has magically changed their minds. If they are serious about such a measure, will they support new clause 11, which would implement what the Prime Minister announced this morning, and vote for it later today?

If I understand the Prime Minister’s announcement correctly, he said that when someone reaches 10 years of residence, they automatically qualify for indefinite leave to remain under the Government’s proposals. What we propose in new clause 17 is that there should be conditionality, even after 10 years. The person should be making some kind of contribution to the country in order to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. Will the Minister take the opportunity to agree with that approach and therefore support new clause 17?

I will turn now to the two new clauses that we intend to push to a vote this evening. First, new clause 18 would establish a binding cap on immigration numbers each year, to be voted on in Parliament. It would be democratically accountable and completely transparent. It will be up to Parliament to debate what the number should be, but I would argue that it should be a lot lower than any recent number we have seen, and indeed a lot lower than the recent forecasts from the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Martin Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

In 2023, the Home Office commissioned the Fairfield review into the Independent Office for Police Conduct. It deemed the delays in the IOPC as “unacceptable”. Indeed, one of my constituents has been waiting a year after the death of her daughter to have a case officer assigned. Does the Home Secretary agree with the review, and will she comment on when she will implement its 93 recommendations?

[Yvette Cooper]

I have met the IOPC chair to talk through the issues facing that body. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to speed up the decision-making process. He will also recognise that there are considerable challenges in the system that we have inherited.