Indefinite Leave to Remain

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing this important matter to Parliament, and to the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for leading the debate.

The Government are right to say that settlement should be earned through contribution—few would dispute that principle. The consultation documents point to a system that contradicts those stated goals. I am sure the Minister will say that no final decisions have been made, but the direction of travel is clear. A 10-year baseline for most routes—15 years for care workers, as many Members have mentioned—with complex reductions based largely on salary, fundamentally misunderstands what settlement is for.

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about salaries and how income levels are not necessarily a good predictor of usefulness to society and economic contribution. We have heard that point made clearly about social workers, but does he agree that in high-tech sectors such as space, biotech and robotics, we need global talent and that only by pooling that talent will we succeed, which is why we should not be putting in place these barriers to indefinite leave to remain?

[Ian Sollom]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and will shortly cite an example of that from my constituency. The key distinction to make is between selection and settlement. Our visa system is the selection mechanism; we judge whether someone has the skills we need, meets the thresholds, and fills a genuine vacancy. Settlement is about whether people can actually plan a future here and commit to staying. Five years of working, paying taxes, learning English and staying out of trouble is earning it. Extending it to 10 or 15 years does not raise standards; it just makes Britain unattractive to exactly the people our visa system should be welcoming.

I will give a concrete example. I have a constituent who came in on the high potential individual visa, which is a route explicitly designed to attract the world’s best talent. He is a skilled engineer; he chose the UK based on the clear five-year pathway. He tells me that had a 10-year route been the policy, he would never have come. That is the reality when we are competing for talent.

The Government also claim that the changes will improve integration, but uncertainty is the enemy of integration. Someone who knows they can settle after five years will invest fully in their future here; someone facing 10 to 15 years of uncertainty will keep their options open elsewhere. Another constituent who has been in touch is an orthopaedic surgeon, a professional serving our NHS. He has three children in British schools. He tells me that if the rules change, he cannot wait for another six years. He will leave, and our NHS and our country will lose him and his talent.

The moral stakes are clearest when I hear from Hongkongers in my constituency. While they may be exempted from the extension to 10 years, the consultation leaves unclear what “earned settlement” actually means for them—higher English requirements, income thresholds, whether any exemption is permanent. That is for people who fled political persecution based on our word to them. When we create uncertainty for people who follow the rules and contribute, it damages trust in British commitments.

By all means, use the visa system for selection—we can have many separate debates on that—but settlement terms should enable the people we decided to welcome to commit to staying. The current direction undermines both our economic interests and our reputation for fairness, and I urge the Government to change course.

Huntingdon Train Attack

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

We should all take confidence from the speed of the emergency services’ response to the attack, which has drawn justified wide praise from across the House. The speed of the response meant that the attack was brought to an end as quickly as possible, and many lives, I believe, were saved as a result of that response. While the incident is deeply shocking, and I can fully understand that people who use the service regularly will feel shaken by the news, we should all take confidence and pride in the fact that our emergency services were able to respond so quickly. The British Transport police has increased the police presence across the network to provide more reassurance to people. Thankfully, in this country, incidents of this nature across our transport network are very rare, and everyone in this House will want to work together to ensure that remains the case.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I join the Home Secretary and my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), in sending my thoughts to the victims and their families. I pay tribute to Cambridgeshire police, Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service, the East of England ambulance service, the staff at Addenbrooke’s hospital, the train crew and the passengers for their response on Saturday evening. While respecting the ongoing investigation and the Independent Office for Police Conduct process, will she assure the House that the extraordinary bravery and professionalism demonstrated by all those involved in containing the incident and providing lifesaving care will be properly recognised in due course?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree with everything that the hon. Member said in praise of all those who responded to the attack. Once we are through the court proceedings and the full facts of the incident are known, I will ensure that there will be a moment to thank all our emergency services and the brave passengers in an appropriate way, when the time is right.