PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Family and Work Visas - 13 November 2024 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered eligibility for family and work visas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to have the opportunity to highlight the impact of some changes introduced earlier this year by the previous Government, and how they are landing with public services and the economy in Northern Ireland. As with any set of rules, I appreciate that there will be winners and losers, but these changes have had a negative impact in many areas, and it is important to ensure that the specific consequences for our region are factored into the current review. Flexibility in understanding regional differences is important to ensure that we build a system that allows businesses to grow and wages to rise, while hopefully the Stormont Executive and the UK Government’s missions get a grip on our skills shortages.

Let me say from the outset that I appreciate that for many the issue of immigration is vexed and politically contested—certainly here—and I do not propose that we spend this hour talking about it in generalities. For what it is worth, I will say that the Social Democratic and Labour party, which I represent, is internationalist, pro-worker and pragmatic, and we want to see a fair immigration system that enriches our society and economy and allows talented people to come here and build a life, as many Irish people have done around the world for many generations.

We also appreciate that people see challenges for infrastructure and services—housing shortages are often cited—but we contend that the problem is that the proven value and economic impact of overseas workers in the UK economy has not in the past been properly directed and spent in health, housing and transport. Overall, the statistics bear out the fact that this aspect of immigration has washed its own face economically, and we are quite determined that decent and essential workers do not carry the can of years of failure to invest those gains properly. It is also a fact that our economic reliance on immigration is in part a consequence of inadequate skills investment, and I firmly support the aim of training and properly rewarding a local workforce. However, the rules and changes that will hopefully come have to deal with the economy that we have, not just the economy that we want to create.

Although the scope and parameters of immigration are a legitimate subject of debate, and I respect the right of any Government to devise policy, the current framework is detrimental to our local economy and services. I will focus specifically on the five-point plan that the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) announced in December 2023, which came into effect earlier this year, in the hope that the Government will reform aspects of the changes. Like many, I believe that those changes were electorally motivated; they were a last roll of the dice for a Government on their way out—from the minds who brought us the Rwanda scheme and other things—and they did not necessarily fit in with economic needs. The changes are: the prohibition on dependants of social care workers; the increase in the baseline minimum salary for a skilled worker visa; the shortening of the list of eligible roles on the immigration salary list; the increase in the threshold for a partner visa to £29,000, with proposals to increase that further next year; and the changes to the graduate visa, which the Migration Advisory Committee found no significant abuse of and recommended maintaining.

I will briefly set the context of the Northern Ireland economy. Overall, wages are lower in Northern Ireland, with a median full-time average of around £32,900 versus about £35,000 for the UK generally. From the get-go, that differential impacts businesses in different ways. We, of course, share a land border with the rest of Ireland, and while Brexit has made labour mobility more complicated than it was, there is a lot of such movement, with thousands of people crossing the border for work every day. That means that there is competition for talent.

With an open and dynamic economy, the Republic of Ireland has consistently invested in skills and education, even through the crash years, and created real opportunities to attract talent. That has not been the case in the north. By comparison, many northern businesses struggle —as, increasingly, do public services, with growing numbers of healthcare workers fleeing our truly broken system for the opportunity to work down south with better standards of care and better rates of pay.

Sadly, one of Northern Ireland’s top exports continues to be our young people. We invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in their primary and post-primary education, with many then feeling the need to move to Britain or to the Republic in search of university places, which we artificially cap, better career opportunities, or—for many—a more stable and tolerant society. That is the real immigration problem that Northern Ireland needs to grapple with. I appreciate that not all of that is within the Minister’s remit, but it was important for me to set out the environment in which local Northern Irish businesses are operating, and therefore the context of the further squeezes that the visa changes are applying.

The changes were not designed to support our economy or public services, and the negative impact is felt both economically and in terms of the myths they propagate. Just last week, a small child in my constituency was injured by broken glass caused by masonry being thrown through the window of their family home, which they share with a health worker parent. That was due to race hate, which reached a crescendo in many places, including my constituency, in August; that was in very large part due to hype coming from the media and at times from this Parliament.

The parent of that child is one of 12,000 immigrant workers in the Northern Ireland health and social care system—and thank God for them. Many are nurses, doctors and social care workers. The average wage for a care worker is £11.58 per hour. That is pennies above the minimum wage, lower than many retail or hospitality jobs, and the care sector understandably has a higher turnover. With tens of thousands of vacancies in that sector across the UK, it seemed bizarre that the Government made it even less attractive by legislating to separate workers from their families should they come from overseas. The general secretary of Unison put it well when she said that the Government were

“playing roulette with essential services just to placate its backbenchers”.

Far from being a concern for just the public sector, these changes have been raised with me by numerous individual businesses and representatives of sectors including manufacturing, hospitality, transport, fishing and parts of agriculture, some of which, it is fair to say, are dominated by entry-level and casual work. I support all the efforts to organise and support workers within those sectors.

One sector that has been strangled by lack of access to workers—exacerbated by these changes—is the mushroom industry in Northern Ireland. Mushroom workers are still limited to seasonal agricultural worker visas, which restrict workers who come through that route to a six-month stay. But with a training window of several months to get to the required levels of skill and productivity, the industry does not feel that that scheme meets the needs of a year-round crop. Those challenges are exacerbated by the proximity of the industry to the border, and the night and day difference between how farms in the south—

The hon. Lady is highlighting some of the issues with the seasonal agricultural worker scheme. Does she agree that one of the challenges of the scheme, in recent years and going forward, is that it is being extended on only an annual basis? If we want farmers to invest in technology and equipment, we need to give them a proper window to do so.

Absolutely, and that reflects the feedback I have received from the people who are trying to increase productivity and modernise. Such arbitrary frameworks do not help.

As I have said, the challenges for northern mushroom farms are exacerbated by the differential in investment in similar farming businesses in the south, where a bespoke visa is available for the mushroom sector that permits workers from across the globe to remain for two years. Given those additional subsidies and things like energy costs—it is a high-energy business—how can we expect to achieve the goal that we all share of locally grown food with a low-carbon footprint and profitability? A key aspect of supporting a thriving industry lies in the Government’s hands, and they must ensure that it has access to labour.

Fishing is similarly impacted. My colleague and constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), will touch on the plight of the fishing sector. We worked together consistently on this issue under the previous mandate, as it affects a lot of rural and coastal communities, which depend very much on fishing. The recent paper from the sectoral body, Seafish, assessed the impact of the skilled worker visa changes, and gave a fairly comprehensive breakdown of reliance on overseas crews, along with the sector’s operating losses and reduced profits, which suggests that there are only a few months of viability for a lot of those vessels.

It is not just the food supply that is at risk but infrastructure. Ferries are essential trade routes, as well as moving tens of thousands of people between our islands weekly. Since Brexit, non-national seafarers have no automatic right to work on GB-NI routes, which has impacted companies like Stena Line, which operates crucial routes into Belfast and Warrenpoint. It has augmented its UK and Irish crews using frontier working permits, but those are not being issued any more, which poses a serious risk to service levels. Those seafaring jobs are highly skilled and well renumerated, but the workforce are traditionally global and there has been less of a defined merchant navy pipeline in recent years. This is another industry that has a solution ready to go, and it suggests—similar to the 2022 offshore well boat workers—a targeted and potentially even timebound ferry worker concession that could avert disruption to the passenger and trade lifeline, with almost no cost or impact on the taxpayer, which would buy the industry time to adjust to all the post-Brexit frameworks and skills deficits.

I will turn briefly to the nearly 50% uplift in the skilled worker visa salary. Silotank is a Belfast-based manufacturing business that, among other things, is helping Northern Ireland Water to update its antiquated infrastructure safely and sustainably. Across Northern Ireland, development has come to a halt. Thousands of houses in planning have been delayed for the want of modern drainage. That business is investing heavily in decarbonising its products, with alternative energy sources to its west Belfast plant, but growth is limited by a lack of access to qualified technicians, with no adequate engineering pipeline in Northern Ireland.

Manufacturing NI, the sectoral body, has highlighted a perfect storm for its members: rapid expansion in manufacturing is one of our success stories, I am pleased to say, but we are not making it easy for the industry in many ways, as that is accompanied by a low skill pool and low net migration. Manufacturing NI says that some 80% of its members have low confidence in their ability to fill skilled roles. We lament our sluggish productivity, but it is hard to invest in an economy with labour shortages. The organisation advocates resurrecting a sector-based scheme from the last time Labour was in government, as that would allow temporary 12-month opportunities with a plausible £26,200 minimum salary.

Another recent change was the rise in the minimum salary for sponsoring a spouse or partner, which has gone up to £29,000 and is set to increase. The Migration Observatory called that the most restrictive family reunion policy of any high-income country, citing the existence of thousands of Skype families who are unable to be together because of these rules.

Before the changes, family reunion accounted for some 60,000 people. By definition, those people were joining established and earning family units. Having such a high threshold—if it continues to go up, it will be much higher than average earnings—is forcing many people to choose between their families and their career, which will have a disproportionate impact on women and create an environment in which only the wealthy can choose who they fall in love with.

Those examples across sectors are the top-line problems. There are fixes and willing partners in industry, including some low-hanging administrative fixes as the Government work through new policies. Unlike the current policies, however, those new policies need to be based in the economic reality of the world we live in, as well as the environment in which businesses are operating in Northern Ireland, which is qualitatively different to England in many ways.

Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s latest quarterly economic survey confirms that access to skills is a challenge for local businesses across sectors, with three quarters reporting difficulty recruiting and nearly 40% highlighting a negative impact from the changes. Workers face barriers to sustaining and progressing in their employment, and sometimes face less-than-decent treatment at work. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland highlights that migrant workers are over-represented in low-paid jobs, certainly in their early years. Too much change and a tightening of the rules has created uncertainty, which is a deterrent for some employers who are unsure of the legal framework, and real difficulties for many in changing jobs.

On a separate issue—before I finish and while I have the opportunity—the reform of work-related visas should finally address the unreasonable delay in the right to work for those trapped in a chaotic asylum system. I appreciate that that is a different matter entirely, but we know that it delays integration, increases the cost to the public purse of supporting those people in that time, deprives that person of the dignity of work, and deprives our economy of often incredibly skilled and entrepreneurial people, whom we could absolutely do with.

That reform is in line with the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendation. It would help to address labour market gaps and would surely give people the right start to a needed new life. I thank you, Mr Pritchard, and the Minister for facilitating this debate, which is brought in the spirit of constructive feedback and hopefully fairer and more pragmatic rules in future.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on securing this debate. She spoke very eloquently and with a lot of knowledge and passion, as well as a real grasp of the issues at hand. I thank her for the way in which she introduced the topic.

The problem affects local families not just in Northern Ireland but right across the UK. In my constituency of Ilford South, immigration and visa issues are among the most common that people raise with me, and my office has had over 15 cases this week. As the hon. Member said, it is having an impact on our economy and the fabric of our society, and it is tearing families apart.

People choose to make the United Kingdom home for many reasons, often due to close family ties, historical links and pressing needs, and of course for a better way of life, to which I can attest—my family came here 50-odd years ago for a better life. I would like to think that we have contributed to society here. Unfortunately, as has been highlighted, many people face a needlessly hostile system that is rigged with barriers, which in the worst cases quite literally tear families apart.

I will share the story of a family in Ilford South. My constituent, Dr Siddiqui, is a fully qualified medical doctor, who not only had cared for people in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia but had brought his talents and much-needed skills here to the UK. This chap spent his whole life helping people, but he was put in an impossible situation by a system that is rigged against some of the talent that we are trying to attract. Dr Siddiqui’s wife, who is also a fully qualified doctor, had to make the heartbreaking decision to leave her husband in the UK to look after their severely disabled daughter because the daughter’s visa was turned down.

We were at risk of losing two fully qualified medical doctors. Thankfully, following an intervention, the Home Office reviewed the decision and the Siddiqui family were reunited in Ilford South, but not before they had endured incredible hardship trying to work through an unknown, often challenging and entirely unnecessary system.

The Siddiqui family’s story thankfully has a happy ending, but sadly many other families have not been so fortunate and remain separated by the complicated and inaccessible visa system. If Dr Siddiqui had been a social worker—another essential and desperately needed profession—neither his wife nor his disabled daughter would have been eligible to join him here in the UK, and we need to look at how we can change that system. We must always remember that, with the changes to the eligibility criteria, there are have significant human costs, as well as the economic loss to this great nation. We risk the economic growth of our country, which is desperately needed, in addition to the very fabric of our society, which will be much poorer if we do not address the issues raised by the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down.

I remind hon. Members that this is a 60-minute debate. There is no formal time limit right now, but I encourage everybody to stick to around four minutes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on securing this important debate.

I am proud to represent as part of my constituency the diverse town of Keighley, where a third of residents are of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage. A high volume of the constituency casework that comes into my office is related to visas or immigration, and that is what my contribution will focus on, because what is most important to me and, indeed, my constituents is that the system is fair. Recently, my office has seen a rise in the use of an immigration loophole through spouse visas that not only makes a mockery of the proper procedure for obtaining indefinite leave to remain, but puts an additional cost on the taxpayer. I will explore some of the challenges that I am seeing in my casework.

Under the standard procedure, individuals brought to the UK on a spouse visa are granted an initial 2.5 years’ right to remain. The spouse must then apply and pay for that to be extended for a further 2.5 years. Assuming the relationship does not break down in that period, the individual may then apply for settled status, again at their own cost, which we would all agree is appropriate. But if the relationship breaks down, the visa is void and the individual returns to their country of origin.

If the spouse reports that they have experienced domestic abuse by their British partner, however, not only are they allowed to seek settled status immediately, but the costs are borne by the British taxpayer for the process. Let me quickly say that I am in no way suggesting that honest claimants of domestic abuse should be ignored by the authorities or should not be assisted by the police. Of course, anyone found to have perpetrated domestic abuse should feel the full force of the law, and victims should receive as much support as necessary. Of the nine cases brought to my office in recent months where domestic abuse had been reported, however, none has received any further action by the police.

I will give an example from one mother whose son’s spouse came across to reside with them. A complaint of domestic abuse was made against not only the son, but the wider family. The police explored it, and it resulted in them taking no further action, but it caused a huge amount of stress for the family.

Indeed, some claims of domestic abuse are now being made as early as a few weeks into the claimants’ arrival in the UK, both by men and women. I fear that even in loving relationships, a claim of domestic abuse is being used by certain individuals to accelerate getting settled status or to avoid the costs that must be paid to apply for settled status or for visa extension. That is wrong, not only for my constituents who go through the system properly and fairly, but for the wider UK taxpayer, who is funding a system that encourages the cheapening of the experience of genuine domestic abuse cases that are pursued by the police and authorities. It is a loophole that exists to try to enable people to save money.

In my view, if a relationship is terminated on the grounds of domestic abuse, the spouse should be returned to their country of origin once the police have carried out sufficient investigation or any immediate safety concerns have been addressed. The closing of the loophole has wide-ranging support across my constituency, including in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. We all fear that the system, which most people use honestly, is being abused by a small minority. I bring that issue to the Minister’s attention, as it has been raised by many of my constituents, and I hope that she will address it her closing remarks.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) on securing this important debate. I will limit my remarks to a few key points.

I argue that the current system for family work visas is arbitrary and does not work for anybody. We have shortages in hospitality, care work, medicine and, indeed, dentistry, as I discussed with the Scottish Government this morning—to name just a few areas. I understand that dealing with the domestic skills gap is a priority, but I cannot turn around to my local businesses struggling to keep a full rota, or to the families on a waiting list for social care, and tell them that they just need to wait.

I, too, was contacted by constituents distressed at the increase in the earnings threshold for family visas when it was introduced earlier this year. One constituent wrote to say that his son effectively had to emigrate to live with his partner elsewhere, because as recent graduates they would not be meeting the threshold for years. That is the brain drain playing out right in front of us.

I will make some points in relation to family reunion visas. I would be grateful if the Minister could look into the long delayed application of my constituent, who was granted asylum in March this year and immediately in April applied for his wife and two children to join him. He has not seen them for years and misses them, but he is also deeply worried for their safety. My team first contacted the Home Office about it in August and we were advised that the 24-week turnaround time meant that my constituent could expect a response in October. The Minister can observe that we are now well into November; if I pass on the details of the case, will she look at what can be done to expedite it and ensure that my constituent’s family can be brought back together?

My second point on family reunion is about stage 2 of pathway 1 of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. As the Minister will know, it opened in the summer after much delay, and was welcomed and appreciated by Afghans, but there are still issues with it that I hope the Minister can respond to today, or return to her Department and write to me later about. That particular route refers to the separated family members of those who were evacuated under stage 1 of the pathway: those who were identified for evacuation from Afghanistan immediately prior to and following the fall of Kabul.

The first issue is the time limit. Although Afghans were identified for evacuation in a relatively short period, between 13 and 28 August, many were unable to access evacuation flights at that time. We can all remember—certainly those of us who were in the House, and even those who were not—the chaos unfolding as the Taliban came closer and closer to the airport. It took until March the following year for all those identified for evacuation to reach the UK. The ability for them to be reunited with their family, however, is based on being evacuated in that limited August period, not just identified for evacuation. I assume that it must be an oversight to leave families out of the scheme for those people who happened to come a few days, weeks or months later through no fault of their own.

My second question for the Minister is whether she will look into the take-up of the scheme. The application window was open for only a short time—from 30 July to 30 October. The forms are lengthy and the evidence required is, rightly, substantial. Has support been provided to Afghans here and families elsewhere? How is the Home Office responding when families struggle to provide the necessary documentation? That is particularly difficult for families who have fled to Pakistan and may not have access to documentation such as bank statements, marriage certificates and medical records. Will the Home Office consider reopening the application window if it comes to light that the process has not worked, and that families, many of whom served and worked with the UK when we were in Afghanistan, remain separated due to the short timeframe and difficulties in meeting those requirements?

This debate is wide. It is about many things, many people and many places, but at its heart is whether the Home Office is set up to make the processes involved transparent, efficient and effective.

It is an honour to serve under your guidance, Mr Pritchard. I give my serious thanks to the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for bringing an important issue to this place. Britain should control our borders and regulate migration effectively, and we should do it humanely and in our own interests, yet so often we do not do that at all. We obsess about the shallow politics of it all and we ignore practicalities for the people involved and for businesses in Britain and the wider economy.

There are two areas to cover. The first is family visas and the minimum income requirement. I ask the Minister to ensure that the driving principle is about what people need to earn in order to support a family, not a ham-fisted way of limiting numbers. The current income floor is £29,000—up from £18,600 under the Conservatives. The plan to take it to £38,700 will absolutely divide families. I ask the Minister to consider the impact upon child poverty, child development and family welfare. Will she assess the impact of splitting up children from one or both of their parents, which has happened in my constituency? I have been talking to constituents near Grange-over-Sands recently. I also spoke to a gentleman in Oxenholme, and he and his wife would not qualify under the rules even as they are. Will the Minister look carefully at the policy and ensure that it does not destroy families by splitting children from their parents, or parents from one another? That would be a deeply unpleasant thing for this Government to do, the scheme having been designed by the previous Government.

Because of time, I will move on to skilled work visas. The threshold is moot and is being discussed. In a letter to me just a few days ago, the Minister said:

“Raising the salary criteria is designed to ensure that resident workers’ wages cannot be undercut and ensures that the Skilled Worker route is not used as a source of low-cost labour.”

Yes, I completely agree, but will she accept that things are different in some parts of our country? I will give a quick run-through. The Lake district is the most populated national park in the country. Some 80% of the working-age population in the lakes already work in hospitality and tourism. There is no reservoir of talent for us to delve into. What we desperately need to do is control the excessive numbers of second homes and holiday lets, and build genuinely affordable homes for local people so that we can build our workforce that way. We also need to upskill our young people and stop them leaving our communities, so that they can remain and contribute to the workforce.

There is no doubt whatever that a smallish population, serving the biggest visitor destination in the country outside London, will always need to import labour, so we desperately need consideration. The chief of Cumbria Tourism, which serves our community so well and represents businesses right across our area, said:

“Without legal migration Cumbria (in particular central Lakes) will suffer in terms of labour shortages. We don’t have enough chefs, we don’t have enough experienced Managers and we don’t have enough people in customer service roles. All roles that we didn’t struggle to fill when...overseas workers were able to take up jobs more freely.”

To finish, I will give a picture of what this issue means on a macro level for our economy. Some 66% of hospitality and tourism businesses in the lakes and dales are operating below capacity because they do not have enough staff. It is good to control our borders, but let us do so humanely. Let us control our borders in a way that works for Britain, rather than damaging our economy.

I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing the debate. She and I may have some constitutional and political differences, but this is a unifying issue for us both and for the community that we represent.

Connectivity across the UK is a subject that I have raised on multiple occasions over the past number of weeks, and the reason is clear: the lifeblood of Northern Ireland is our ability to trade skills and products with the mainland UK on a reciprocal basis. The ferry system is as vital to that ability as oxygen is to the very lungs with which we breathe in this Chamber. The current situation is concerning. It needs not simply a debate in this place, but action by the Government. We very much look to the Minister for assurance that the needs are heard and will receive attention and action.

Ferry routes across the Irish sea are vital to national infrastructure. They ensure that trade, tourism and essential services flow; without them, Northern Ireland cannot exist in this modern world. We need that movement, as the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down outlined. The insidious Northern Ireland protocol, with its difficulties for the haulage companies and delays in transport, has highlighted the nature of Northern Ireland and shown that, within days of delayed shipping, shelves were empty. That is a fact of where we are. Our trade is important, and Stena Line in particular, which carries the bulk of trade, economy and tourism across the water, is very important. Clearly, the ferry routes must be protected and prioritised as vital infrastructure.

I therefore ask for a commitment by the Government, and the Minister in particular, to engage with Stena and its parent company to find a solution, perhaps using—I offer this as a solution—the offshore well boat concession as a template to solve the problem. There has been an understandable focus on the politics and the paperwork of the Windsor framework, but an offshoot of that has been that insufficient thought has gone into ensuring that we have the people with the necessary skills on the seafaring routes to ensure that there is no disruption to trade across the Irish sea. Their vital role must be protected. If the ferry routes are not able to operate in the future because we do not have qualified seafarers, that could lead to empty shop shelves, lack of certain medical supplies and certain difficulties for my constituents.

The hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down mentioned the fishermen. My understanding is that last week, the Government made concessions for horticulture and farming, including for those in mushrooms, vegetables and potatoes; but they have not made those concessions for the fishermen, although they could have done. Fishermen’s work is not only skilled but seasonal.

Last Saturday I was in the advice centre at Portavogie. Fishermen came to see me and underlined the issues clearly: they need a seasonal work system, so that they can bring people in for eight or nine months a year. Last week, the fish producer organisations met the Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—a very constructive meeting—and I spoke to him before a debate. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs was hoping to speak to the Minister who is in her place today. I suggest that more such contacts should be made, because I believe there will be a way forward. I make a plea for some help for the fishing sector.

The hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down and I did not agree on Brexit—I just say such things—and we did not agree on the protocol or on many other Northern Ireland issues, but I can tell hon. Members this: the visa programme is a clear uniting issue. That so often happens—that there are things that bring us together. I like to focus on the things that bring us together, and the hon. Lady likes to do so as well. We need those crews to operate, and they must be able to continue as they are, or Northern Ireland might well come to a standstill.

I look to the Minister again for consideration and action. I am happy, if necessary, to facilitate a meeting between the fishermen, Stena Line, the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down and me to make that happen.

We now come to the Front Benchers—five minutes each for the two in opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, particularly in my first response to a debate in my new position. I know that the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) has been campaigning on this issue for some time. Although we may not agree on it, I applaud her for securing this debate.

Today we have heard much from hon. Members about the impact of eligibility criteria. Although we will not always agree, some points were well made. Ultimately, I believe that there is broad agreement across the House, and definitely across the country, that we need a system that prioritises skills and talent. People are happy to see migration that helps our economy grow and supports our NHS, while encouraging investment in and protecting our resident workforce. That is why we now have the highest number of nurses ever, and we were able to increase the number of GP appointments from 2019 to 2023 by 50 million.

We want a system that rewards those who come to the UK and contribute, while ensuring that those who already live here are not negatively impacted. What is paramount is that people feel the system is fair. We must be comfortable with migration policies on visa eligibility that provide robust controls to limit migration and prioritise the economic welfare of the UK. To achieve that, we previously took a number of steps to strengthen the rules. The success of those measures has already been demonstrated: we have seen decreases in applications, with 15,200 applications recorded between April and September 2024 following our changes, which was a reduction of 83% compared with the six months before.

Applications for dependants are also down considerably. In 2023, we got to the point where there were six dependants for every one worker seeking to come to the UK. This dramatic drop underscores the need to adapt our eligibility criteria to provide robust rules and prevent misuse of the system. The significant numbers that we saw in the past were excessive, and we had to take action to get them down. The new Government have maintained our changes to the system, and clearly we agree that the policy is working—or, perhaps, the Minister will announce that she is changing the strategy today. However, I ask her for her assessment of the reduced numbers. Will the implications of the reduction be taken into account when evaluating other visa categories?

Although it is still in the early stages of analysing the data, the Migration Advisory Committee has noted that initial indications suggest that changes to the student route will also impact on total numbers. The Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the financial requirements in the family member immigration rules and said that no further changes will be made until the advisory review is complete. Although I have full confidence in the ability of the committee to deliver a thorough review, the Government must review the urgency with which they are acting; delays are not in the best interests of the system. Past measures have shown that decisive action can deliver a significant impact on overall levels of migration. We must ensure that we maintain a fair system and reduce migration where it is too high. I therefore ask the Minister if there is a clear timetable for the review. Will she assure the House that the Government will act swiftly to implement all and any recommendations from the committee?

Although I do not want to pre-empt the remarks of the Minister, I expect that she may allude to the levels of legal migration during the tenure of the previous Government. We have been clear that we agree those numbers were too high, which is why we implemented the significant change to visa rules, and we will work co-operatively across the House with the Government on further measures in this Parliament. The changes that we made should be seen not as an end point, but as part of a longer process to reduce migration to ensure that the public have confidence that our immigration system is being managed effectively. If the process continues to reduce numbers and create a fairer, more effective system, it will have our support. Will the Minister outline if the Government are planning any further changes to our legal migration framework in the next year in either data collection or visa eligibility?

As I said at the start of the debate, legal migration bringing in skills to key sectors is not an issue. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and I would be the first to back calls for more agricultural workers to deliver the right work that we need. When I was in central Asia, I saw for myself the geopolitical benefits of bringing in people for seasonal work. In central Asia, they normally have a return rate of about 99%. They want to come, do the work and return home, and our farmers and agricultural industries want to receive their support. However, migration must be managed in a way that protects the interests of the UK and our residents, and that includes reducing the total number of migrants, which we accept has been too high in recent years.

The reforms made by the Conservatives in the last Parliament have borne fruit and been maintained by Labour. I hope that the Minister will build on them and ensure that our system is as robust and fair as possible.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing this debate. There has been thoughtful consideration of the issues by Members from across the House. I also acknowledge what the hon. Lady did and how she helped her community in August, in those very difficult circumstances. I am grateful to her and to all who have contributed. I will seek to address all the points raised, but I hope that Members will understand that that may be difficult in the time that I have. I will certainly come back in writing if there are outstanding points.

I will deal briefly with a few of the points raised before I go into more detail in my remarks on the contribution of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down. Some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) were reflected by others in terms of the quality of caseworking and the service received. As Members of Parliament, we have all experienced those cases and circumstances, so I am glad that the issue he raised has been resolved. Where there are any issues or concerns about whether the system is being fair and how cases are being dealt with, please write to me on those matters. We will certainly look at them in a way that also enables us to learn from what could be happening better and implement those systems.

The point about public confidence raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) about immigration is important, but it comes back to the point raised more broadly about having an immigration system that is fair, humane, transparent and compliant with the law, including international law. I am keen to make the broader point that it is important that we continue to have dialogue across the House on matters such as immigration, which need and want a lot of cross-party support to deal with the challenges. That is in the interest of our economy and of fairness, but is also important for our security, so we need to have open and transparent debate on such matters and take the input from colleagues across the House.

I will come back to other points that have been raised during the debate, but on net migration and some of the changes being made, I want to make it clear that the Government recognise and value the contribution of workers from overseas to our economy and our public services, including our NHS, and they would not function without them. The point has been made, and we are very clear, that the immigration system needs to be properly managed and controlled—and that is important for public confidence too.

We are clear that net migration and reliance on overseas recruitment need to come down, and in addition to bringing down levels of overall net migration, our approach will also help ensure that there are better and higher-paid jobs for those who are already resident in the UK. In April 2024, the previous Government introduced a package of changes aimed at reducing overall levels of net migration and tackling abuse in the social care sector. Those changes included requiring any employer in England wishing to recruit international care workers or senior care workers to be registered with the Care Quality Commission and to carry out regulated activity. They also included removing the ability for care workers and senior workers to apply with dependents. The package also replaced the previous shortage occupation list with the immigration salary list.

The Home Secretary confirmed in July that the Government are retaining those changes. We acknowledge the concerns raised and welcome debates such as this one. I also think it is important, in response to some of the issues, that we lay out where we are going further and taking a different approach. We have established a new framework that will link the Migration Advisory Committee’s work with the newly formed Skills England and skills bodies across the UK, as well as the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Department for Work and Pensions, to support a more coherent approach to migration, skills and labour market issues.

I will make a broad point on the issue raised about particular routes and the appendix for domestic abuse. It is extremely important for Members across the House to ensure that we are tackling abuse on any routes. On what is an important safeguard in the system, we are clear that there has to be a high threshold of evidence and that we take steps to tackle abuse wherever we detect that and wherever that occurs. That is extremely important and a clear approach across the Home Office.

On salary requirements, for too long, immigration has been used as an alternative to tackling skills shortages and labour market issues in the UK. The salary requirements that were raised in the spring related to the median salary for occupations, ensuring people continue to be paid at a higher rate than many in the occupation. That, along with the immigration skills charge, are designed to ensure that employers look first at the resident labour market before looking at employing an international worker.

Points about the threshold were raised, and I will come back on a couple of points. For those new to the route since 4 April 2024, who must be paid £38,700 per year or the going rate for their occupation—whichever is higher—the salary floor can be reduced to just over £30,000, depending on tradeable points such as discounts for new entrants. There is some flexibility. Indeed, for those extending visas in this route or working in healthcare or education, who must be paid £29,000 per year or the going rate for their occupation, again, the salary floor can be lowered for roles on the immigration salary list. Those roles in healthcare and education are based on nationally set pay scales or by using tradeable points.

It is important to say that immigration remains a reserved matter, and we will consider the needs of the UK as a whole. Applying different immigration rules to different parts of the UK can complicate the immigration system, harm its integrity and cause difficulty for employers, who need the flexibility to deploy their staff to other parts of the UK. The independent and expert Migration Advisory Committee has repeatedly recommended that we should not operate different salary thresholds for different regions or nations across the UK.

I am aware of the concerns from the fishing industry about labour shortages. In the interests of time, I will just say that I am looking forward to meeting my counterpart in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I am certainly happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this too. On the Afghan schemes, I will be happy to write to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), but I am very pleased that we were able to open that scheme and see the positive response to it.

Finally, I will speak to family immigration rules. As colleagues will be aware, on 10 September the Home Secretary paused any further increases to the minimum incomes requirement and commissioned the MAC to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. This review will ensure that we reach the right balance and have a solid evidence base for any future changes to the minimum income requirement. We expect that conducting a full review of the financial requirements will take approximately nine months. I urge hon. Members to provide views and evidence in response to the MAC’s call for evidence, because I am sure we can all agree that a rich evidence base is essential to ensure that it can make effective recommendations and that policy is informed by evidence.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said, it is about many things, many people and many places. We all appreciate how complex this area of policy is. I appreciate that there was a lot of detail back and forth, but it is important that we are able to talk about the detail in a constructive, open way. We must push back against the myth that we are not allowed to talk about these things. It is important that we are open and honest with people about the impact it will have if we do not have workers in certain sectors.

I think the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) put it well when he said that it is important that we do not obsess over the shallow politics and that we are about the practical realities. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) is right to say that it is about finding consensus—personally that is what I am all about politically. I think it is the best way to solve this. I do not think that people are being negatively impacted, though. I appreciate that there are pockets of it, and it is about directing the economic gains where they are needed in infrastructure terms. I do not recognise all the figures—by my calculations it is about 1.2 dependants per worker, and quite often a couple comes and both of them work in social care.

The elephant in the room is probably, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) put it, the lack of a long-term skills strategy. Many of the employers I deal with would love to have the skills on the doorstep and not have to go through this complexity, but we do not have that. As I say, my intention was to ensure that the policies, when they change, reflect the economy we have and that the challenges of people who are trying to create jobs and wealth and increase productivity in my region and others are met halfway. If the Minister does not mind, I would be grateful if we could follow up on some of those specifics and see how we can facilitate those changes—