Proposals to double settlement requirements will increase exploitation, MPs tell Home Office
Yesterday, MPs came together in a key Westminster Hall debate to press the government on its controversial plans to increase the qualifying periods migrants have to wait before acquiring settlement/indefinite leave to remain in the UK. The debate focused on the existing contributions of migrants to the UK’s economy and society, the uncertainty that the government’s plans have created for different migrant cohorts across various visa categories and ultimately the need to think again about these changes.
Following our briefing, some MPs acknowledged the potential for the changes to entrench the widespread exploitation of sponsored migrant workers that has caused hardship for many communities, not least migrant care workers who came to work in the UK on the Health and Care Worker visa.
Below, we set out some of the key remarks, the government’s response and what lies in store for the government’s proposed plans relating to settlement.
What are the government’s proposed changes to settlement?
The government’s immigration white paper in May outlined a proposed move towards a new system of “earned” settlement and citizenship. For settlement, this means the standard qualifying period for settlement will be increased from five to 10 years. The government noted that shorter periods would be available for non-UK dependants of British citizens, while other cohorts may also benefit from a shorter period depending on their (yet to be defined) “contributions to the UK economy and society”.
Instead, the government is planning to consult on the changes this coming autumn. A similar approach would be adopted for citizenship, with the government confirming that greater qualifying periods would be reduced to allow those with greater contributions to qualify for British citizenship sooner.
These plans have rightly been met with much outcry and opposition. Yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate was instigated after two e-petitions (727360 and 727356) which call on the government to maintain the current rules, both received over 100,000 signatures. As we outlined in our initial analytical response to the immigration white paper, there has been concern that the changes would make the UK’s system for settlement and citizenship more onerous than some of its key international allies.
There has been a broad consensus that, if applied retroactively, this would be unfair to migrant communities and affected businesses (which hasn’t been confirmed but has been the subject of much speculation). It was no surprise then to see the debate well-attended by MPs and that it lasted for almost three hours.
Exploitation concerns are a key issue for MPs and for workers
We were encouraged to see members acknowledge the intersection between the government’s plans and the fight against exploitation in the work sponsorship system. The sponsorship system creates a power imbalance between employers and migrant workers who are tied to them and have limited flexibility to leave. This system has facilitated exploitation as workers lack the confidence to raise grievances and employers threaten to revoke people’s immigration status if they dare to challenge their working conditions.
“Any employment status that traps workers in those conditions has to be addressed, and the proposed extension of the ILR period from five years to 10 will potentially trap those workers in what we can only describe as long-term exploitation.”
- Neil Duncan-Jordan, Labour MP for Poole
This precarity is worsened by the risk of having a sponsor lose their licence. Whether as a consequence of investigations into worker exploitation or other non-compliance, if an individual’s employer loses their licence, or the worker loses their job, they have just 60 days to secure new employment or risk becoming undocumented.
“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?”
- Ben Goldsborough, Labour MP for South Norfolk
A number of MPs highlighted, in particular, the plight of migrant care workers, many of whom have endured years of exploitation in the care sector.
“Social care is another sector that would collapse without the support of skilled migrant labour, but it has endemic low pay and exploitation. I have heard at first hand harrowing stories from workers who were brought here on skilled worker visas, and have been threatened, exploited and frequently underpaid—or not paid at all—but because they are reliant on visa support from their employer, they are often forced to keep silent about these abuses or face having their visa removed
"To protect those migrant workers, in addition to the retention of the five-year route to ILR and a commitment not to apply retrospective changes, I also ask the Minister to consider sector-wide visa schemes in social care, enabling them to challenge bad employers without the threat of dismissal and removal. This extends beyond social care; there must also be greater protection for migrant workers in all sectors from exploitation and the strengthening of access to trade union rights.”
- Rebecca Long Bailey, Labour MP for Salford
Extending the time that workers have to wait before they are free of this situation would only embolden bad employers and potentially deepen this growing crisis. Thankfully, this worsening of exploitation was widely identified as a key issue with the plans.
“By binding visas to a single employer, the system hands unscrupulous bosses extraordinary power. Doubling the settlement period will only extend that power.”
- Andy McDonald, Labour MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East
Widespread concern and uncertainty
MPs from across the political spectrum addressed the uncertainty that had spread through their constituencies as a result of the government’s vague pronouncements in the white paper. MPs had been contacted by droves of constituents, each with different stories and backgrounds, but united by the sense of unfairness and additional pressure that the new changes would cause.
“In a nation obsessed with queuing and fair play, what could be more British than a respect for the rules, standing in line and asking for one thing in return—fairness? Changing settlement requirements for those who are already in the UK risks sending a harmful message that undermines trust in legal routes: that even those who play by the rules are not guaranteed fairness in Britain.”
- Uma Kumaran, Labour MP for Stratford and Bow
Many members raised significant concerns about the prospect of the new rules applying retroactively, therefore potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of individuals already in the UK. The unexpected financial hit of such a move would be self-evident, but MPs also discussed whether such a move would actually constitute a useful way of making policy and whether it could be said to be carried out with any measure of good faith.
“It is manifestly unfair to change the rules for people who came on the basis of what they understood the rules to be. Retrospective legislation is always bad legislation. It has been done occasionally, but normally only in a state of immediate national emergency. I do not think this situation falls into that category, by any description.
"For me, being British is about knowing the laws, knowing the rules and abiding by them. That is exactly what these people have done.”
- Yasmin Qureshi, Labour MP for Bolton South and Walkden
MPs also rightly raised the point that many of those who have arrived in the UK have already been contributing to the UK through their work and skills, but were already being punished by substantial immigration fees and charges and a lack of access to public funds under the existing system. Doubling the time that they would then have to wait to acquire indefinite leave to remain status would be unduly harsh and punitive.
“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.”
- Ben Goldsborough, Labour MP for South Norfolk
A particular, noteworthy aspect of the debate was whether the changes would extend to those currently in the UK on the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) (BN(O) visa route. This visa route was opened in 2021 as a response to China’s imposition of the National Security Law on Hong Kong in June 2020. The government’s position is that this category “reflects the UK’s historic and moral commitment to those people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BN(O) status before Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997”.
It is no surprise therefore, that for many MPs, the prospect of changing the rules for this cohort would be highly prejudicial and in some eyes, amounting to a broken promise.
“Hongkongers uprooted their families on the explicit promise of a five-year pathway to indefinite leave to remain, plus one year to citizenship. To lengthen the timeline mid-journey would be seen as a breach of trust and would shake confidence in the UK’s credibility far beyond the BNO community. The numbers tell their own story, with almost 200,000 BNO Hongkongers now living in the UK.”
- James Naish, Labour MP for Rushcliffe
The government’s response
The new minister of state at the Home Office, Alex Norris MP, gave the government’s response. In the context of his recent appointment just two days prior, it was perhaps somewhat predictable that no new substantive information would be delivered.
The minister confirmed that part of the reason why the government will be consulting on the changes to settlement and citizenship is the diversity of views and experiences that migrants across the UK will have. The government wants to make sure that “any decision is rooted in evidence with fairness and based on a clear understanding of its real-world impact”.
Frustratingly, no specific timeframe was given for the consultation process and when the changes would be implemented. For now, the uncertainty for migrants and their families across the UK continues.
What next for those opposing the increase to the ILR qualifying period
Though the Westminster Hall debate won’t itself lead to any change in policy, the remarks from a number of MPs gives the government an indication of the strength of the opposition to these changes.
When the consultation process is formally announced, the Work Rights Centre will be working with colleagues to ensure that the diversity of migrant voices and experiences are represented in opposing these changes. We are certain that they will ultimately damage social and economic integration and make the fight against labour exploitation much harder.
In the meantime, use our new “Write to your MP tool” to make your voice heard with your local Member of Parliament.