Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Migration Levels: Indefinite Leave to Remain

Monday 13 January 2025 · 1 question

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 1 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Ministerial Questions took place on 2025-01-13 regarding migration levels and indefinite leave to remain.
  • Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con) questioned the financial impact of importing low-skilled workers and asked for changes to the qualifying period or criteria for indefinite leave to remain.
  • The Minister responded by noting the Government values legal migration and its contributions to the country, suggesting overseas recruitment has its place but should not be the default option.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Context

The MP questioned the financial impact of low-skilled workers entering the UK, citing a potential cost of £61 billion. He referenced the mass import of these workers as a concern.

Question

Mr Rankin noted that the mass import of low-skilled workers could cost the taxpayer more than £61 billion—a financial ticking time bomb. Will the Minister commit here and now to extending the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain or bringing in new qualifying criteria?

Answer from The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)

The hon. Gentleman would do well to hold his own side to account for their record on net migration. The Government recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country. There is always a place for overseas recruitment for firms looking to grow, but it must not be the first port of call, and we must ensure that our migration system is controlled, managed and fair.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Commitment to extend qualifying period or introduce new criteria was not provided.

How: Holding Opposition Accountable, Acknowledging Value Of Legal Migration

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email