Tracy Gilbert
Main Page: Tracy Gilbert (Labour - Edinburgh North and Leith)Department Debates - View all Tracy Gilbert'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
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
I start by thanking the hundreds of my constituents who took the time to sign the petition, and who have spoken to me about this issue. It is essential to have a serious discussion about the positive impact on society and the economic benefits that immigration brings for the prosperity of our country. In my constituency, we see those benefits every day. Whether they are a Nigerian carer, a Spanish cleaner or an Indian doctor, they play a vital role, and they are valued. Many of them are working in sectors where we have a skills shortage, so things would quite literally not move or progress without them.
Skilled people come into our country to work in the UK and make financial contributions to the state. As workers with a form of temporary leave to remain, they will have paid thousands of pounds in fees to be in the UK, and that is before taking into account any taxes they pay. Many of my constituents who have made Edinburgh their home have been in touch with me to express the uncertainty that they now face.
The situation is unfair. That is not just my view but the view expressed in court. In its 2008 judgment on R (HSMP Forum Ltd) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, the High Court considered changes to what was then the highly skilled migrant programme. The changes would have retrospectively extended the qualifying period for any person to apply for indefinite leave to remain. In its ruling, the High Court said that applying new rules retrospectively was unfair and unlawful, and that migrants had a legitimate expectation that the rules that they were initially granted would continue to apply. If the changes proposed by the Government are enacted on a retrospective basis, it is likely that the High Court will take a similar view on applying the changes as it did in 2008.
Established practice, backed up by the High Court, has always protected those who are already in the system from the effects of any new rules. I urge the Government to uphold that principle. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that those who entered the UK under the five-year indefinite leave to remain framework will remain eligible to apply after five years of lawful residence, in line with the visa conditions that they were originally granted, and that any new policy will not be applied retrospectively.