Pam Cox
Main Page: Pam Cox (Labour - Colchester)Department Debates - View all Pam Cox's debates with the Home Office
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Like many colleagues, I believe we need a migration system that is robust and fair. It must be robust because, like any sovereign state, the UK needs to be able to exert control over its borders. However, it also needs to be fair, because we are a state that defends and cherishes a rights-based order.
I wanted to speak in today’s debate because I have concerns about the unfairness of some of the proposed changes to the current settlement system. I do not dispute the fact that some changes are necessary. For example, I strongly agree that we need a complete overhaul of the way in which we issue visas to those coming to the UK to work in the health and social care sector, as many colleagues have already alluded to. Unison’s proposal for a sector-wide visa system to replace the current one in which individual employers issue individual visas is a very good one, and I am pleased to welcome Unison members from Colchester to the Public Gallery this afternoon. That change would do a great deal to safeguard the rights of all those who work in that vital sector.
However, other proposed changes to settlement routes give me and others cause for concern. The extension to the settlement qualifying period and the raising of income thresholds will impact much more heavily on the vital public sector workers who we have heard about today—workers on whom we all rely—than on others. I encourage the Minister to consider extending the exemptions to the proposals, and I also add my voice to the argument that these changes should not apply retrospectively.
The Justice Committee, on which I sit, recently had a productive exchange with the Justice Secretary on the matter of exemptions. He assured us that those who have come to the UK to work as prison officers will be exempt from the proposed income thresholds. I understand that parliamentary colleagues who previously worked in the allied health professions—in physical therapy, occupational therapy, pharmacy and social work—have also made a similar case for income threshold exemptions in those vital sectors, so I encourage a very close look at that.
As well as being robust and fair, our migration system needs to be in step with other aspects of Government policy. It needs to offer migrant workers and their families the kinds of protections that we seek to offer to citizens across the country through our Employment Rights Act 2025, child poverty strategy, violence against women and girls strategy, gender equality strategy and homelessness strategy. If I may, I will write to the Minister separately to set out my concerns about what I see as a poor alignment of the current proposal with those elements of our mission as a Government.