Indefinite Leave to Remain

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Goldsborough]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. As I said at the start, migration managed well benefits us all. That is what I understand the Government are trying to achieve, and that is one thing that we need to support.

The prospect of applying changes retrospectively has caused huge anxiety. For people who have uprooted their family, made financial sacrifices and planned their future on the basis of clear rules, it feels—as one person put it to me—like

“running a marathon and halfway through realising the rules have changed”.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. Because this debate is so popular, Members have received many emails from constituents, as I have from my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate. They are highly skilled and are worried about the transitional arrangements, because they are existing visa holders and have spent a lot of money investing in trying to stay here. That includes those who have emailed me saying that they have already passed their “Life in the UK” test. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are changing the ILR qualifying period retrospectively, it would make sense, because of the financial hardship and distress that it is causing our constituents, to have a clear exemption for those who are already on a qualifying visa route?

[Ben Goldsborough]

That is another issue that I know the Minister, who is new to his place, will address in his remarks.

The second issue that I want to raise is exploitation. A longer route to settlement may embolden bad employers. We already know that there are 40,000 people in limbo in the social care sector because of exploitative bosses and visa sponsorship pressures. Extending the pathway risks increasing the vulnerability of workers who are already contributing to our society. I therefore ask the Minister: has any assessment been carried out of the workplace impact of these proposals?

The third issue is contribution. These are skilled workers; we invited them here because we need their skills. They are in work, paying tax, helping our economy, staffing our hospitals, caring for our elderly and carrying out world-leading research. In my constituency of South Norfolk, skilled workers at the Norwich research park are engaged in science that could revolutionise food security and tackle the climate crisis. At Norfolk and Norwich University hospital, I saw a board listing dozens of nationalities represented in the workforce—it looked like a roll-call of the United Nations—and yet these staff, who are giving so much, have no access to public funds. They pay the immigration health surcharge of £1,000 a year and support our economy, but carry their own costs. That is the reality that we must recognise. My question to the Minister is whether the Government have conducted an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes to the skilled worker pathway.