Parliament debates potential 10-year ILR rule for Skilled Workers – key takeaways

This afternoon, MPs debated two major e-petitions in Westminster Hall on the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR).

1. Skilled Worker visas: Proposals to extend the ILR route from five years to ten years.

2. Hong Kong BN(O) visas: Calls to preserve the existing five-year route.

The debate in Westminster Hall was triggered by two e-petitions signed by more than 270,000 people: one calling to preserve the five-year ILR route for Skilled Workers, the other to maintain it for Hong Kong British National (Overseas) (BN(O)) status holders.

MPs have urged the Government not to extend the qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) from five years to ten for Skilled Worker visa holders already in the UK, warning that changing the rules mid-journey would be unfair, harm recruitment and expose workers to exploitation.

Why it matters

The Immigration White Paper, published in May, proposed increasing the qualifying period for settlement from five to ten years under an “earned settlement and citizenship” model. Since then, questions have grown:

Who will be exempt?

How will “meaningful contribution” be defined?

Would changes apply retrospectively?

For Skilled Workers, doubling the wait could derail life plans for families who are already years into the process. For employers, it risks deterring talent at a time when the NHS, social care and other sectors face acute staff shortages.

What MPs said

• Fairness and certainty. Families had built their futures around a five-year pathway. One MP compared the proposals to “running a marathon and halfway through realising the rules have changed.” Others warned that retrospective changes would be “cruel” and “counterproductive.”

• Impact on services. Workforce shortages were highlighted, with the British Medical Association estimating England is short of 12,000 hospital doctors and more than 50,000 nurses and midwives. MPs warned that lengthening ILR would destabilise an already stretched system.

• Risk of exploitation. Extending the route could increase workers’ dependence on sponsoring employers, particularly in social care, where thousands already face precarious conditions.

• Economic consequences. Several MPs described a ten-year pathway as “a whole generation,” arguing it would deter global talent and undermine businesses planning for growth.

• Contributions without support. MPs stressed that Skilled Workers already pay taxes and the £1,000 annual immigration health surcharge while being excluded from public funds.

• Clarity on new model. MPs pressed for details on how the proposed earned settlement points system would work and called for transitional protections to avoid penalising current visa holders.

Minister’s response

Immigration Minister Alex Norris set the debate in the context of wider reforms aimed at balancing migration with domestic skills investment. He confirmed:

• Consultation ahead. A full consultation on settlement changes will take place and be open to all affected groups, though no timetable was announced.

• Acknowledgement of anxiety. He accepted that uncertainty was already causing distress and said Skilled Workers “must be treated with dignity” while policy is shaped.

• Impact assessments later. Economic and equality impact assessments will be carried out once proposals are finalised.

• BN(O) distinction. He stressed that the Hong Kong BN(O) route would be treated differently from the Skilled Worker route, reflecting its unique historic and diplomatic basis.

Outcome

• No immediate policy change was announced. The five-year ILR route for Skilled Workers and BN(O)s remains in place today.

• The Government consultation will be the key next step, with scope and timing still unclear.

• Whether any extension to ten years will apply retrospectively to current visa holders remains unresolved.

Why this debate matters

Tens of thousands of Skilled Workers are close to completing five years in the UK. Extending settlement could prolong uncertainty for families, disrupt education and housing plans, and hinder staff retention in shortage sectors.

MPs warned that the lack of clarity is already discouraging skilled professionals and unsettling employers.

Full debate details here