Indefinite Leave to Remain

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to raise my concerns about plans to require skilled workers, health and social care staff and those fleeing persecution to wait 10 or even 15 years, instead of the current five, to secure indefinite leave to remain. I echo the concerns of many in the Hong Kong community in Harrow, who are concerned about their status and their route to indefinite leave to remain.

As they stand, the changes will make it more difficult to attract to the UK the key staff and talent to help grow our economy and run vital public services. Of course, we need to do more to help those born and bred in the UK to access the jobs market and to prevent abuse of the existing immigration system, but to ask those in the UK who are already here to have to wait another five years or longer would be the height of unfairness.

Multiple constituents of mine in senior roles in engineering, the tech sector and other professional services have written to me with their stories, which underline their personal commitment to the UK and the expectation that Britain—of all countries, with our respect for the rule of law—would honour the implicit promise that we would hold true to that five-year commitment. At the very least, there must be transitional protections for those on the current ILR pathway.

I am concerned that too often we shy away from recognising the economic and cultural contribution that those from outside our country make to our communities. They make the UK home. It is not Britain being exploited; we gain from the talent, imagination and hard work that migrants bring to our country.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

My constituent Aminbhai is a pharmacy dispenser—a skilled worker from India whose work is essential to our community. He raised concerns about recruitment and retention in health and social care roles. Alongside our investment in home-grown talent, does my hon. Friend agree that changes to ILR qualifying periods must not risk impacting sectors where we currently rely heavily on the talents of dedicated international workers?

[Gareth Thomas]

I very much agree, and I add that surely we have a responsibility to stand with refugees fleeing appalling conflict, including those from Ukraine, and those fleeing increasingly authoritarian regimes such as those from Hong Kong.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gareth Thomas]

Forgive me; I have taken one intervention already.

Overwhelmingly, migrants from Pakistan, the Caribbean, India, Sri Lanka and across Europe—wherever they are from—have benefited my constituency. Are we sure we want to lose those vital workers from crucial public services, such as the NHS or social care?

International students make a positive contribution to our economy and our country, too. I am certainly proud of the many Indian students who were attracted to the UK and who live in my constituency, and I do worry for our universities. The fees of international students helps to fund research. Cutting-edge universities in Britain need to attract international students, so we should not demonise those students who come here, and drive them towards other countries’ universities. I recognise that the choices before my hon. Friends in the Home Office are not easy, but I urge them none the less to recognise the particular responsibility we have to those who are already here and are already on the ILR pathway.