Indefinite Leave to Remain

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 727372 and e-petition 746363 relating to indefinite leave to remain.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I open this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I am grateful to the 330,000 people who have signed these two petitions. Evidently, they have generated a lot of interest, given the high number of hon. Members in attendance.

The Government are currently consulting on changing the rules around whether, how and after how long somebody who is legally here is entitled to permanent residence in the UK, which is known as indefinite leave to remain or ILR. The first petition was started by Laurence Bansil, who is sitting in the Gallery, and it calls on the Government to protect legal migrants and scrap the proposed 10-year settlement route. The second petition was started by Pulasthi Weerasinghe, and it calls on the Government to keep the five-year route to ILR, but to restrict access to benefits to protect the public purse.

My mother once had ILR. She came from the Philippines in the 1970s on a work visa. She worked in London hospitals, got ILR and then got British citizenship. She built a life here and cared for generations of patients right to the end of their lives. One of those patients was a former member of the House of Lords and a senior judge, and I remember my mother recounting her many conversations with him about his distinguished career, as well as about my own legal studies and aspirations, which he showed a keen interest in.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for leading this very important debate. Many of my Slough constituents, especially healthcare workers, have signed these petitions about indefinite leave to remain. Many feel that the goalposts are being moved and that this policy will have a hugely detrimental impact on their lives. Does he agree that there should be no retrospective implementation of the change? That would be truly unfair on them and on the rest of us.

[Tony Vaughan]

I do agree, and that is the exact point I was going to make.

Returning to the example I was just recounting, my mother attended this patient’s funeral, as she did for many. That shows that roles like hers are not just work; they provide a real service to the public. Her profession is extremely important during critical, vulnerable times in people’s lives. It is hard work, but vital work. However, the sector has been plagued by labour shortages for many years. After Brexit shut off the social care worker recruitment pipeline from the EU, and with a pre-existing recruitment crisis in that sector, a large vacancy problem had emerged by 2021, which led to the Home Office putting social care on the shortage occupation list. Those who came here to work have moved their entire lives here; they brought their families here as they were entitled to do. They did so when the rules said that, after five years, they could apply for settlement in the UK—that was the deal.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a compelling case. The position is particularly acute in island communities, where we need to bring people in to be part of our community. Their role is welcomed, as we cannot just ship workers in from another town or village 10, 15 or 20 miles down the road. This extended period of ILR will make it less likely that people will want to settle in communities like mine, because they will not want that extended period of uncertainty in their lives.

[Tony Vaughan]

The situation in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is similar to that in my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe, where there has been a long-term recruitment and retention crisis. As a coastal area, workers can only go one way. There are massive problems and, as he said, they will be worsened by this proposal.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making a fantastic speech, and I thank him for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. According to the Royal College of Nursing, 60% of internationally educated staff without ILR have said that it is very likely that extending this qualifying period will affect their decision to remain in the UK. That equates to 46,000 nursing staff at risk of leaving the UK. Does he agree that this policy would worsen the retention crisis? Also, does he agree that the Government ought to produce an NHS-specific impact assessment for this policy?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree, and will go on to make those very points.

That was the deal. The Government are now considering doubling the wait for settlement from five years to 10, and up to 15 years for care workers. One of the most contentious elements of the consultation is that that will apply to people who are already here. I fundamentally oppose that rule change. Migrants entered this country on a contract, and the deal was simple: if they came to work in the sectors where we needed them, obeyed the law and paid their taxes, they could stay. Changing the terms of that contract after people have spent years building a life here is not just bad policy but a breach of trust. It makes Britain look unpredictable and like a country that does not keep its word. We cannot talk about earning settlement if we keep moving the goalposts after the game has started. In my view, retrospectivity is un-British and undermines our sense of fair play. The position of the two petitioners who sit in the Public Gallery is that it should be abandoned, and I wholeheartedly agree with them.

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

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend’s mother is very proud of him. My constituents, a same-sex couple with a child, fled from Russia because of fear of persecution. They work here, they pay tax and their child is in a local school. They are fully integrated into the community, but have written to me to say that they are 10 months away from gaining ILR and feel that changing the rules retrospectively does not honour the commitments that were made to them when they were granted refugee status. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is very shameful for our country to row back on what was promised to my constituents when they first arrived here?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree. It is the moving of the goalposts that most colleagues in the Chamber find really problematic.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree, as a fellow lawyer, that it is rather unusual to bring retrospective legislation into effect? There have been previous cases where legislation has been made retrospective, but that has been to punish crime. We are talking about ordinary, decent people who have come to this country to better not only their own lives but our lives and those of the rest of the community. Does he agree that it is absolutely wrong to have the law applied retrospectively, and that it puts the legal system to shame?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree. The common law sets its face against retrospectivity, and that principle should preclude this change.

I want to address other elements of the consultation. The Government suggest a system of credits, for things including “social contribution”, to shorten the 10-year wait. On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but its proposed definition is dangerously narrow. It includes the police and the NHS but inexplicably, in my view, excludes care workers in the private sector. Why are we proposing a bureaucratic minefield of “volunteering credits”, which could be very difficult to verify, while ignoring the immense social value that care workers give during a 12-hour shift looking after our elderly? Their job is their contribution, and that should be the credit.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

The hon. and learned Member is making a really important case. In my constituency, the care sector is one of the largest employers, but local providers tell me that the proposed changes could drive 10% to 20% of people out of it. Does he agree that, before proceeding with these changes, the Government must do a proper impact assessment on the care sector and address the fact that, if the NHS has different criteria for allowing settlement routes, that could punish the care sector, which is particularly struggling already?

[Tony Vaughan]

Those are exactly the points made by the first petitioner, who works in the care sector and is sitting in the Public Gallery.

I am also concerned about the proposal to place lower earners, including most care workers, on the 15-year route to settlement. We have heard about the problems of recruitment, and that will certainly make the position worse. During that limbo, people cannot progress. As one of the petitioners, Mr Weerasinghe, told me, he must complete the entire qualifying period on the same job code, meaning he has to stay, essentially, in the same job. He cannot progress and move beyond the job that he originally came here for so, at the end of the 10 years, ultimately he pays less tax. That is not in the interest of the public, and it makes no sense. If we tell a care worker they must wait 15 years for security, while Australia offers it in three and Canada in five, they will simply vote with their feet. We risk becoming a training ground for economic competitors: recruiting talent, training them up and then watching them leave for jurisdictions that offer them a stable future.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for leading this very important debate. I apologise if I frightened people with my very loud voice—[Laughter.]—but I wanted to be heard.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposal is both unfair and dehumanising? The Government need to halt it immediately. More than 1,000 of my constituents signed the petition. I have met care workers in my constituency and here in Parliament and they are very frightened for their livelihoods and their futures. Does he agree that the proposal needs to be halted?

[Tony Vaughan]

I do agree. The people already in the system who do not have stability, who do not know what will happen and who made a huge investment fear for their future, which is at stake. I want to address very briefly—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Many Members want to speak in this debate. We will try to get them all in, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has to realise that every time he takes an intervention, there is less time for speeches.

[Tony Vaughan]

I will press on quickly to the end. I just want to address very quickly public funds and integration. Mr Weerasinghe’s petition does advocate for restricting benefits for new ILR holders, but in my view that is a political choice, not an economic inevitability. If we raise core care worker pay by around £4,000 a year, that is a step towards the sector-wide fair pay agreement that Unison is calling for. Then we could bring a single care worker up to the level where they are a net contributor in tax, reducing churn in the sector and finally rewarding people who hold our health and care system together.

Under the no recourse to public funds system, many migrant families are just one crisis away from disaster. Depriving migrant families of benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled contradicts the Government’s own child poverty strategy. If we want sound public finances, we need integration. Integrated families are stable—they are renters, homeowners and taxpayers. We do not build stability by keeping people on the edge of destitution for over a decade.

I do not deny that the Government’s consultation is based on the potentially legitimate aim of ensuring that the path to settlement for non-nationals is fair and serves the public interest. But on the key consultation points, I would say abandon retrospectivity, integrate those who are already here and honour the contract. Secondly, I understand the fear of so-called leakage, where care workers get ILR after five years and then immediately quit for better pay in other sectors, but a 15-year trap is not the answer—it is a charter for exploitation and modern-day slavery. Instead, let us look at time-limited, sector-specific conditions, possibly requiring people to remain in a sector for a period of time. Thirdly, we must recognise care work as a valid social contribution, and fourthly, not overcomplicate the penalty system. We already have robust good character rules; we just need to apply the rules we already have.

I urge the Minister to listen to the voices we have heard in the petition and today in this debate. Let us drop the retrospective measures and rethink the 15-year wait. Let us be a country that has sustainable economic migration rules, but remain one that always honours its debts—not just its financial ones, but its moral ones, too.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I have not in any way implied that all migrants go into social housing. My point was the increase of 2.2 million people who would have access to it, with 1.34 million already on the waiting list and our ambition to build just 1.5 million homes in that picture. That simply is not enough, and that is just on social housing.

[Tony Vaughan]

Does the Minister have evidence about how many people you think are going to switch from not claiming benefits to claiming benefits, or from not being in social housing to being in social housing, or is this just a political judgment?

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that when they say “you”, the convention is the same as in the main Chamber: they are referring to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I apologise, Ms Lewell.

[Mike Tapp]

What I am not going to do is make up facts and figures on the spot, but I do not have an absolute fact to give my hon. and learned Friend. What I can say is that around 15% of people on universal credit are not British nationals. That is a reflection on the demand that this can put on our welfare system and, of course, on housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the petitioners, the 330,000 signatories and all hon. Members who have attended to speak in this debate over the last three hours. I have been struck by the fact that every single Back-Bencher who has spoken opposes the retrospectivity of the measures for those who are already here, on the basis that they undermine basic British fairness. There is no basis at all to apply these rules, even to those who have pending applications, given that they are even closer to the point where they would otherwise benefit.

The differing impacts of different ILR qualification rules on members of the same family was mentioned by various Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). It was also said that the changes could lock victims into situations of domestic violence. That is absolutely right. I have worked on such situations in the past, and have seen that that is a very real threat.

Many hon. Members talked about the increasing settlement period, which would entrench exploitation by being tied to a single employer, including my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and the hon. Members for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and for Leicester South (Shockat Adam).

Members were also concerned that the proposals will damage our ability to attract and retain the skills our country needs in a whole range of sectors. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). Those concerns came especially from Members from the more remote parts of the country, such as my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe; the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and others.

The Minister cited the additional numbers who could qualify for ILR, but the view that that is a burden that we need to relieve ourselves of is too short term and narrow. It assumes that migrants will switch to benefits or reliance on local authority housing, and I cannot see any evidential basis for that assertion. The Minister said that 15% of those on universal credit are non-nationals, but looking at the UK population, around 20% are foreign-born, so it seems that group is less reliant on benefits than the population as a whole.

Across the Chamber today we have heard about the damage to community cohesion and integration—those are real points that must be very seriously taken into account. It is not about reducing immigration—I think it was only the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who wrongly suggested that it is. It is about settlement and who gets to belong here after they have contributed for so long.

I want to end on a point that was raised by other hon. Members. It is really important, given the strength of feeling that we have heard today, that there is an opportunity for MPs to express their views about these measures if they are to proceed in any form. I suggest that a motion passed by negative resolution is not an apt way to do that. It is important that everybody who has spoken today feeds into the consultation so the views that the Government have reflect the views of the country as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 727372 and 746363 relating to indefinite leave to remain.