Parliamentary debate highlights need for clarity and fairness on Indefinite Leave to Remain qualifying period

A recent Parliamentary debate has brought much-needed focus on a pressing concern shared by many of our clients, their employers and families: the proposed changes to the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (“ILR”) and the potential retrospective impact of these changes on people already residing in the UK under lawful visa routes.

The debate has centred on two very specific groups:

• Individuals who are already in the UK under the Skilled Worker visa route; and
• Hong Kong nationals already residing in the UK and British National (Overseas) visa holders who will arrive in the UK in the future.

The concerns were narrowly focused and supported by over 270,000 signatories across two public petitions – a clear signal of how deeply people are affected by uncertainty over their path to permanent settlement.

Focus on Skilled Workers: the case for certainty

Ben Goldsborough MP, who introduced the debate, has emphasised that many individuals who are on this route are now approaching their five-year threshold and have been working diligently towards ILR with a clear understanding of the rules that had been in place when they first arrived.

The key concern discussed at the debate was the retrospective application of any policy changes to those already on a 5-year pathway. People have made life-altering decisions — built their lives, relocated their families, invested financially and integrated socially — all based on a clear expectation of when they would be able to settle. Many MPs have voiced a belief that altering the rule mid-course, particularly with little notice, would be unfair and disruptive. It has been recognised by almost the majority in the chamber that the bar to securing ILR is already high.

Recognition across the house: migration must be managed, but fairly

Several MPs have echoed the same sentiment: while managing legal migration levels is a legitimate Government aim, doing so at the expense of those who are already here and contributing to the UK’s development and prosperity undermines both fairness and trust.

One MP summed up this balance by saying that “[w]e support the Government in getting a grip on legal migration, but those who are already delivering must be properly considered”.

A call for clear policy

Throughout the debate, there was a consistent call for the Government to provide transparent, timely communication on any proposed changes to ILR policy. Many MPs have voiced concerns that speculation and lack of clarity have already caused significant anxiety among constituents — both in personal and professional contexts.

It is worth remembering that the goal of any migration policy is to ensure that it is fair, structured and supportive of those who have played by the rules.

British National (Overseas) visa holders

The debate has seen clear cross-party consensus that this specific visa route, introduced in response to China’s actions in respect of Hong Kong, should be treated separately from other immigration categories.

Many MPs have stressed the historic responsibility the UK has towards Hong Kong citizens, particularly given the promises made to protect their freedoms. As one MP has pointed out, the BNO visa route is not simply a policy but a ‘moral commitment’ to a group of people who have trusted the UK to honour its obligations.

This route, introduced with wide parliamentary support, is still viewed as an exceptional pathway, and one that is grounded in the UK’s long-standing relationship with Hong Kong. The strong support voiced for BNO visa holders reaffirms the UK’s commitment to standing by those who have been granted sanctuary and opportunity, recognising that some immigration routes are rooted not only in economic incentives but also in moral and humanitarian responsibility.

One voice in support of stricter ILR changes

While much of the debate reflected a balanced and pragmatic approach to immigration reform — particularly in support of fairness and consistency for those already in the UK under legal immigration routes — a contribution has also been made from the opposite end of the spectrum.

One representative of the main opposition party has come out in favour of tightening the immigration system far beyond what the Government is currently proposing. In contrast to the earlier tone of empathy and practical policymaking, this contribution has struck a more ideological note. The MP has called for:

• Doubling the ILR qualifying period from five to 10 years;
• Revoking ILR status from individuals who have committed crimes, accessed state support or have been deemed unlikely to contribute more than they cost;
• Barring future ILR grants to those who do not meet certain economic criteria; and
• Applying these policies retrospectively, including to those currently holding lawful Skilled Worker visas.

These suggestions have contrasted sharply with the broader Parliamentary consensus, in which many MPs acknowledged the contributions made by skilled workers, the UK’s legal and moral obligations to those already residing here under established rules and the social disruption caused by retroactive rule changes.

What the recent debate has thrown into sharp relief is that there is an urgent call for stability, fairness and the preservation of trust in the rules by which people have lived, worked and made significant contributions to the UK economy and society for years.

How Gherson can assist

Gherson’s Immigration Team are highly experienced in advising on all UK visa matters. If you have any questions arising from this blog, please do not hesitate to contact us for advice, send us an e-mail, or, alternatively, follow us on X, Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn to stay-up-to-date.

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2025