[Graham Stuart in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of improving the UK visa system. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Immigration is one of the defining policy challenges of our time. It determines who our neighbours are and with whom we share our country, our culture, our values, our communities and our public services. Britain is operating an immigration system based on a high level of trust that the gangs who ruthlessly tear through our borders in the English channel will stop before thinking to exploit loopholes in our visa system. As a consequence, Britain is now an outlier in the world of self-interest, and our immigration system must reflect that. It must be robust enough to attract the best and the brightest from around the world, who can enrich our communities and boost our economy, but it must slam shut the back door to migrants who do not benefit our country and who burden our public services. The simple truth is that immigration has been unsustainable for a long time. In a little under two years, more than 1.3 million people have come to live, work and study in the UK. That is more than the total population of Birmingham, leading to strain on our public services, competition for jobs and increasing pressure in our housing market. Although some migrants will have brought talent and experience, far too many have not. This has been facilitated by a visa system that is too generous and too vulnerable to exploitation. It cannot continue. Last year I began researching the UK’s visa system, and what my team and I found was shocking. Glaring loopholes in compliance must be closed—for example, by requiring visa holders to provide an up-to-date home address during the visa period and not just at renewal or settlement, and by matching national insurance records with visa status so that illegal working can be identified and enforced in near to real time. This is legal compliance 101, and there is no excuse to keep the back doors to Britain open. Around 140,000 organisations are eligible to sponsor work visas. The vast majority are small and medium-sized enterprises, and some of them are tiny. Nearly 17,000 have five or fewer employees. More than 3,000 have just one employee, with so-called skilled workers sponsored to work in vape shops, convenience stores and takeaways. To those looking to exploit the UK visa system, Britain is sending an open invitation to set up a bogus company and sell pretend jobs that give people the right to live in the UK. None of this is hypothetical. During my research, I read an investigative report by The Times that uncovered visa agents selling fake jobs with companies that hold Home Office sponsorship licences. It is a lucrative business model for fraudsters who cheat our visa system, and for migrants who are desperate enough to do the same. Back in January, I asked the Minister on the Floor of the House how we could be sure that tiny companies sponsoring visas were not bogus. He promised to look at it and come back to me. He responded to me only yesterday, presumably as he was preparing for today’s debate. That is not good enough, because these are serious and urgent issues for all our constituents. We must draw a line at the smallest of organisations being able to sponsor visas, and we must set clear limits on the proportion of an organisation’s workforce that can be made up of people on work visas. For that to be possible, the Home Office must publish the relevant data, rather than fobbing off MPs by saying that it can only be collected at a disproportionate cost. The real cost is in turning a blind eye to loopholes in our visa system. Inspections need to be regular and transparent, so that the British public can see the system working for them. The Home Office has claimed that it regularly reviews the organisations eligible to sponsor visas, but just a cursory check finds organisations that are long defunct. The former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy remains on the list, despite being abolished in February 2023. If Government are not joined up enough to remove historical Departments, how can there be any faith in the adequacy of checks on tens of thousands of smaller organisations across the country? Employees who break the rules get a slap on the wrist, and repeat offenders are allowed to get back their licence to sponsor visas in as little as two years. We must be tougher. Bans on sponsoring visas should be incurred after one failed action plan following a B rating. Those bans should be permanent, with penalties for directors to stop them moving on to sponsor visas at their next rogue outfit. In addition, too many public bodies have come to rely on immigration to fill job roles. That is ludicrous at a time when 1.1 million young British people are not in employment, education or training. The public sector should lead from the front and only sponsor visas in cases where candidates bring genuinely world-class expertise. Astonishingly, thousands of visas are also being issued for religious and charity work to those who meet pathetically low financial requirements. Would you believe that £2,270 in the bank is enough for a religious minister to bring in a family of five for three years? A robust visa system would scrap those routes entirely. The hard truth is that they are being used to take advantage of Britain’s good will, and that must stop. Work is not the only area where there is a problem. If someone has a high-paid, skilled job in the UK and their passport is from all but one country, they can bring their non-British spouse to the UK on a five-year dependent visa for around £1,500 in application fees. However, if a British citizen is bringing their non-British spouse to the UK for five years, that will set them back over £3,200 in fees and require two family visas. That is madness. What possible justification can there be for it to be more expensive and more difficult for British citizens to bring a non-British spouse to the UK? Even the family visa is not exclusive to citizens. Settled individuals have the same right to sponsor family visas that British citizens do. That is not fair to British citizens. On student visas, our universities have a commercial incentive to fill lecture halls with international students, and the UK’s visa policy hands international student graduates the right to live and work in any job they like through the graduate visa. As a result, the UK takes the second largest number of international students of any country in the world—750,000 in the past couple of years. Far from attracting the best and the brightest, the visa system fails to distinguish between the quality of students.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. International students have always come to the UK and it is not because of the visa system; it is because we have fantastic universities. The hon. Gentleman will know that our very best universities do not actually rely on the graduate visa scheme.

I agree that we have a thriving university sector, and we must maintain it. However, the reality is that many students arriving in the UK are doing so to attend poorly performing universities, and not just the best ones. That is doing long-term harm to our country and our economy. We must close down that route by establishing a minimum academic standard for incoming students and setting a cap on institutions, based on the quality of educational provision. Eligibility for graduate visas should also be linked to academic performance, to keep the best and the brightest while slamming closed this back-door route for low-skilled migrants. Universities should be stripped of their power to assess English language skills for incoming students, which allows them to bypass the official secure English language testing system. Those with a commercial incentive to bring in as many students as possible should not be allowed to mark their own homework. That has created an unacceptable loophole, one that trashes rules designed to ensure that the most basic of requirements is satisfied—that those who come to the UK can speak our language. On English language testing, the Government are acting without sense and rationale. The Home Office is pressing ahead with plans to move official English language testing to a fully remote model, despite serious security concerns. Having initially ruled out remote testing, the Government U-turned after being lobbied by Peter Manderson’s firm, Global Counsel, on behalf of Duolingo. That US tech firm is now expected to win the £816 million contract, after a consortium of leading British firms withdrew from the application process, warning that the proposal exposes the UK’s immigration system to weaker security. Remote tests are extremely vulnerable to organised criminal gangs and cheats who, as I have seen at first hand, can easily overcome safeguards with technological workarounds, some of which use cheap equipment readily available on Amazon. The Government have repeatedly promised to smash the gangs, yet they are opening a new back door to Britain for organised criminals to exploit. In a further insult to the British public, the Government initially denied meeting with Duolingo, yet a recent response to a freedom of information request shows that the Minister for Investment met Duolingo in September 2025 to discuss its offer on English language testing. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that and apologise to the British public. All that raises serious questions about the Government’s seriousness on UK border security. There are also questions to answer about whether the £816 million contract is good value for money. The Department will have received a letter from the Public Accounts Committee, on which I serve, inviting officials to brief the Committee, and I hope the offer will be taken up. It is clear from a YouGov poll that the majority of adults from across every political party, gender and socioeconomic group oppose a move to remote-only testing for an English visa application, so why on earth would the Home Office pursue that course? In answer to my written parliamentary questions, the Minister alluded to the changes delivering a “net positive” financial benefit for the Department. In plain English, that means that the Home Office are looking to trade the security of high-stakes English language testing for cash for the Department. I would appreciate a response from the Minister on that point. What other reason could there be for the Government’s diverging from our Australian and Canadian allies, who have both recently rejected proposals to move testing online? We do not permit remote-only testing for driving theory tests, “Life in the UK” tests or GCSEs, so how can we, with a clear conscience, permit it for the test that decides who makes the UK their home? Has the Home Office consulted the National Cyber Security Centre on the threat model for fully remote testing? The reality is clear for all to see: a fully remote model cannot match the security of in-person supervised testing. Are Ministers so naive that they cannot see the disaster coming down the tracks? I hope that much of my speech will not come as a surprise to the Minister—I have asked him enough questions on this topic, and I have been told that my “Backdoors to Britain” report, which I published in March, has been read. I am grateful for the responses to it that I received from the Department. However, given the inadequacy of the Government’s response so far, I am not satisfied that they have listened to my concerns and those of many in the country. I hope that the Minister’s response will reflect on the seriousness of these issues and demonstrate that the Government understand the problem. The British people do not want a blame game; this problem is too important for point scoring. I recognise that the responsibility for the problems in our visa system lies with both the current and with previous Governments, but the responsibility to act now lies with current Ministers. They need to be ambitious and brave but also thorough and serious. It is crucial that we improve the visa rules and the compliance and enforcement system. More than almost any other system, it defines who we are as a nation and what it means to be part of our community. The conversation about how we get our visa system to work in the national interest must involve all of us, regardless of our politics. I look forward to hearing contributions from colleagues from right across the political divide.

Order. A Member has come in rather late and did not apply to speak in the debate, so I suggest that he does not speak. I call Daniel Zeichner.

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on introducing this important debate. He will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with everything that he said. The city I represent, Cambridge, has fantastic universities that rely strongly on international students, who we are very proud of. We rely on a functioning visa system to make the city prosper, but my constituency office deals daily with a steady flow of immigration and nationality cases from across a range of routes, including skilled worker visas, dependant visas, and family reunification, settlement and naturalisation applications. I suspect we will hear the same story from other Members. A city like Cambridge probably has a disproportionate number of such cases. A consistent theme across them is delays in the system and, I have to say, sometimes limited communication with the Home Office. It is hardly a new problem. I have been an MP for 11 years and it has always been the case. In many ways it may be improving, but it is still not good enough.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way so early in his speech. He hits on the issue that communication with the Home Office is challenging. I would go so far as to say that there is a cultural problem in the Home Office, whether for visa applications or naturalisation applications. A family in my constituency applied for citizenship in 2022, and after months—years—of me and them chasing, and being pushed back and told by the Home Office, “These things take a long time; please be patient,” it transpired that there was an administrative error in the Home Office. It was noticed after three years, and four years later the family finally got naturalisation. Does the hon. Member agree that the culture at the Home Office needs to change?

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I remember notorious problems with the system based in Croydon from when I was a teenager living there, so the issue goes back 50 or 60 years. The issue is important because it creates such uncertainty for so many people, with knock-on effects for employment, housing and family life. We are seeing cases where constituents are seeking to reunite with family members through refugee family reunion routes, including applications made, exactly as has been suggested, prior to recent changes in the immigration rules. That includes cases where people are trying to be with seriously ill relatives, but still facing delays even when urgent expedition routes exist. Importantly, those routes prioritise only case consideration; they do not guarantee that a faster decision will be made. Frankly, in many cases, I have found constituents unable to take up confirmed job offers or proceed with planned family relocations because applications remain unresolved or there is insufficient clarity around timelines. Alongside the delays themselves, a recurring concern is the difficulty that constituents face in obtaining any information—again, exactly as has been pointed out—which leaves them unable to plan with confidence or understand their position within the system. I think that point will be repeated throughout the debate. My second point refers to a time when I was fisheries Minister. Last summer, late in my occupation of that post, I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I was alerted to problems in the Northern Ireland fishing industry, where a relatively small number of visas are essential to its continuation. I wrote to the Minister with some suggestions for working with the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. I gently say that that offer stands if he wishes to take it up. My final issue refers to the points made by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire about language testing. The Cambridge University Press & Assessment, a major employer in Cambridge, is one of the players that bid and then withdrew its bid because of concerns about the changes to online testing. It asked me a number of questions that I will put to the Minister today, echoing the points that have already been made. Is he really satisfied that a fully remote model can match the security of in-person, supervised testing? These are high-stakes tests because the number of people coming to our country depends on their accuracy. I echo the point calling for an explanation of why are we diverging from Australia and Canada, which have rejected this approach, and I ask whether the Home Office will publish the risk assessment underpinning the move to remote-by-default testing, including its assessment of fraud, impersonation, AI-enabled cheating, hidden devices and organised malpractice. Could the Minister also tell us whether the Home Office has consulted the National Cyber Security Centre on the threat model for fully remote English language testing, including AI-enabled cheating, impersonation, organised fraud and cross-border cyber-risks? Perhaps he could explain why the Government are moving towards remote-by-default testing when other high-stakes assessment bodies are moving in the opposite direction. For example, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants is ending remote invigilation, and the Law School Admission Council, which runs the law school admission test for US schools, is returning to in-person testing to protect security and integrity. Could he tell us whether the Home Office English language testing system will be independently regulated to the same standard as the current secure English language tests, and whether Ofqual will have a formal role? What fall-back arrangements are in place if security, reliability or integrity problems emerge after the contract is awarded, including whether the Home Office could realistically switch provider or return to higher-assurance in-person provision? I appreciate that the Minister and his colleagues inherited a system that was buckling under the strain, and I also appreciate the hard work of the many civil servants trying to make it work, but I would appreciate any answers that the Minister can give.

Order. Given the number of speakers here, it is going to work out at about four and a half minutes each. I am not going to bring that in strictly for now, but if everybody is considerate of that, we will be able to get through.

Does the hon. Member agree that one of the worst aspects of the new system is how it treats husbands and wives separately? If a husband has gained five years of work experience but the wife has stayed at home to look after their children, she will be treated separately under the new rules such that her path to indefinite leave to remain will become much longer than his. That is having a damaging impact on families.

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be winding his speech up soon.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I want to start by welcoming the Home Secretary’s measures to get a grip on the visa system and rebuild the public’s trust in it. This is a debate that, if I am frank, my party too often shies away from. I want to be honest: I have been on the doorsteps in Makerfield and in industrial towns right across Yorkshire, and I have to admit, I often hear the same thing, even from those I speak to who are hesitant about illegal immigration. Most people have got absolutely nothing against legal migration, managed well. I want to come to this debate with some thoughts on how we can build a visa system that is based on contribution, is more place-based and has devolution at its heart, maximising British values around fairness. Let me start by saying that legal migration is a positive thing that is felt across most households in Britain, left or right. Take the NHS. The statistics tell us that, when my youngest boy, Louis, was born a year ago, on average, one of the NHS workers in that delivery room was born overseas. That is a wonderful thing and a story I will tell him in the years to come: that someone born overseas chose Britain to be their home, to deliver him into this world. We must never forget that, under Reform’s policies on ILR, the NHS would crumble overnight. Let me frame things, though, in a different way. The world cup is coming shortly, and we have a squad of incredibly talented players from right across the country—even if we can debate whether Tuchel’s final 26 was the right choice. I have no doubt that we will see Reform politicians putting on three-lion shirts, singing the national anthem and cosplaying as the football fans they never seem to be throughout the rest of the year. But many of those players’ parents were born overseas and came to the UK. Many of their family members would never have been allowed here in the first place if it were down to Reform. Just remember that when we see them wearing England shirts, and let us not forget that some of them have even boycotted games before. Patriots? Yeah, right. Moving on, one of the most heartbreaking things I have heard about from my constituents in York Outer was the case of some asylum seekers who were trying to get to a maternity appointment—unfortunately, they do need taxis to get to some appointments. I recently wrote to the Minister for Border Security and Asylum about this. We have to recognise that there are unique circumstances and take things on a case-by-case basis. If asylum seekers need urgent support to get to critical medical appointments, for example a 20-week scan, then I think a compassionate Britain says that we should support them. Around 12 years ago, the Institute for Public Policy Research published a report—one that stands the test of time—calling for a greater sense of people’s contribution in the visa system. Under what I would call something like ILR contribution-plus, community champions such as carers or nurses saving lives in the NHS should maybe, just maybe, have a faster route towards ILR. We should seriously look at that.

It is apposite that I should intervene at this point, because I believe I might have been the author of that IPPR report from 12 years ago. One of the things about contribution is that it needs to be managed. We need to be able to check whether people are contributing, obeying the rules and interacting with the labour market correctly. Only two months ago, the Government created the Fair Work Agency, under the Employment Rights Act 2025. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be critical in ensuring that we can measure the contribution to the labour market of those in the immigration system?

I can assure my hon. Friend that he does not look old enough to have written that report 12 years ago. Regarding the Fair Work Agency, there is an important deterrent effect that gangs exploiting people overseas should recognise that it is not worth their time to proceed with illegal activity. I want to touch on—

Briefly.

I briefly want to mention a very tough bloke at one of my surgeries, who was in tears over his wife’s visa situation. I do have concerns about applying changes to ILR from five to 10 years retrospectively. I am not convinced that is the best way forward. We should move to an ILR and visa model based on the contribution that people make to their place and communities, linking it to the devolved power of regional mayors.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this timely debate. We are here to talk about improving the UK visa system. That has to start with addressing one of the most cynical flaws in our system, which is the domestic abuse loophole. That loophole involves migrants falsely claiming to be victims of domestic abuse in order to stay in this country. That is a national issue, and a local one for me in West Yorkshire. Before I continue, let me be clear that those who are genuine victims of domestic abuse must be afforded the utmost protection by society and lawmakers, no matter their gender, the colour of their skin, the language they speak or where they come from. We cannot, however, allow that obligation to be used to allow people to con their way into this country and ultimately claim citizenship, falsely accusing those they relied on to get here of heinous crimes, potentially causing lifelong impacts for the innocent people with whom they entered a relationship. Under UK law, migrants who claim to be the victims of domestic abuse and who are on temporary visas as the partners of British citizens, can apply for permission to settle permanently if the relationship has broken down because of domestic abuse or violence. Permission to settle gives them the right to live, work and study here for as long as they like, and to apply for benefits if they are eligible. They can use that to apply for British citizenship. That rule, known as the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, was brought in to help genuine victims of abuse to secure permanent residence more quickly than through other routes, such as asylum. There is stark evidence, however, that that it is being used by male and female migrants to dupe British partners into relationships and marriage.

I am aware of that, as it resonates with some of the casework I get in my constituency in Keighley. I am also aware of people being encouraged to fabricate false allegations by so-called online legal advisers. The scale of the problem has been amplified through a freedom of information request from the BBC. It found that a total of 5,596 migrants made applications for indefinite leave to remain as victims of domestic abuse in the 12 months up to September 2025, the most recent period for which the data was available. The BBC reported one case where a British mother, who had left her male partner after reporting him for rape, was subsequently accused by him of domestic abuse. She said that was a false allegation, made so that he could stay in the country. The allegations were never proven, but the partner was able to use them to avoid having to return to Pakistan. I know from the correspondence I get through casework in my constituency that there is a noticeable increase in the issue. There was one mother whose son and spouse came to reside with her family after a marriage had been entered into. A complaint of domestic abuse was made, not only against the son but the wider family, which resulted in the mother losing her job in a local school. The police explored it, which resulted in them taking no further action, but because the claim had been made, it caused huge stress for the family. The individual who made the claim was protected by the state, through the money they were being paid to reside in a different place and by being able to claim benefits. That is wrong, and I hope the Government will look at that loophole. Let me reassure Members across the House that it is, of course, right and proper that we offer the utmost protection to victims of domestic abuse. Immigration authorities will not get it right every time, but the numbers I cited earlier and my experience from constituency casework prove that this loophole is getting traction, and is being promoted for others to utilise. What reassurance can the Minister offer me that the Government are aware of this issue, are taking it seriously and have a plan to stop it escalating further?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing the debate, but I say to him, as gently as I possibly can, that he could barely be more wrong about the emerging situation concerning immigration and what we must do to equip ourselves for the future. What he, in fact, described was a situation that is quickly vanishing and proposed solutions that can do only more harm than good. The UK is actually experiencing one of the steepest declines in net migration in recent history, which is at one of its lowest points since 2012. All we hear, from what can only be described as a Westminster consensus, is that there is a crisis around immigration and a perception that it is out of control and must be curbed. Let us have a look at what is actually going on. The latest figures from the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics show that net migration has dramatically fallen to 171,000 in the last year. That is almost half the figure for the previous year. It is more than three quarters below the post-pandemic peak of more than 900,000 in 2023, which was achieved under the Conservatives, who did not quite understand their own asylum policy. Far from migration continuing to spiral upwards, it is dramatically decreasing. Whether for work visas, study visas or family routes, it is all down. Those real figures do not seem to matter a jot to a Government and Opposition still trying to convince us, for what I can perceive only as political reasons and purposes, that immigration is out of control. British Future has done us a great favour by describing this disconnect between what is actually happening—decreasing migration—and the public’s perception of what is happening. Politicians have been so successful at garnering their arguments about immigration that the public still believe that immigration is out of control and is rising. The Home Office is happy to continue to paint a picture of escalating migration, and therefore tackling immigration is the core mission for all its activities. Again, it has been spectacularly successful. Just look at some of the figures for visas. In the year ending March 2026, work visas were down 17%, family visas were down 17%, refugee family reunion visas were down by 17%, and asylum claims were down by 12%. The sharpest and most invidious decline is in the number of visas issued to care workers, which, in effect, has collapsed after restrictions introduced by the previous Government and taken up with aplomb by the current Labour Government. Visas issued to workers in caring personal service occupations have fallen from 108,00 at their peak to just 1,400 last year. There are real-life consequences to that. Public services have been impacted. The general economy is starting to suffer. Such is the situation that in the next couple of years we might have negative net migration. Who knows, it might actually be coming this year. If they think immigration is bad, just wait until they see the consequences of immigration and population decline. Just look at one country—Japan. Ten years ago, it was No. 2 in the GDP leagues. It has been resistant to immigration for nearly all its history, and it is now going to collapse to No. 6, such are the demography issues and constraints. There are also issues across southern Europe. In Italy, houses are being sold for €1 to try to get people to come to those communities. Countries are now looking at their immigration systems to see whether they are fit for purpose. Spain is attracting immigration to try to resist some of these problems. That is the agenda that we have to get into. If Members think immigration is bad, just wait until they see what is going to happen with emigration.

I am going to call the first Opposition spokesman at 3.28 pm, so the remaining speakers have less than four minutes each—more like three and a half minutes—if I am to get everyone in.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I want to bring a case of injustice in the visa system to the attention of the Minister. It concerns two residents in my constituency, Mary and Geoff—not their real names. My office has tried every means of finding a solution through the Home Office, but without success. We now face a very pressing time constraint. That is why, in desperation, I have taken the opportunity of this debate to raise the matter. Mary is British. Her husband, Geoff, was born in Zimbabwe but later became an Australian citizen. They now live together in Horsham. Mary relies on her British citizenship, and Geoff on a spousal visa. When Geoff’s spousal visa was approaching renewal, Mary tried to contact the Home Office for advice. It took her a month to get any kind of answer, and after she finally got through, she followed that advice and submitted what she reasonably believed was a correct visa renewal application. Unfortunately, it was not. She had been incorrectly told to apply for an e-visa, rather than a spousal renewal. That was invalid, so Geoff passed his renewal date unaware and was informed that he had overstayed. That was not a matter of carelessness or neglect; they tried to follow the rules, but the Home Office is a very difficult organisation to get to talk to, even for MPs. To resolve the issue, Mary and Geoff instructed a lawyer and submitted a fresh application, along with supporting evidence. The Home Office has since accepted that Geoff meets all the substantive conditions required for him to stay, but it again refused him on the single ground that he was declared to have overstayed—the very problem that it created itself in the first place by giving them the wrong form. This is going round in circles. It took more than six months to get that decision, and the nine-page refusal gave no recognition of their circumstances, their good faith or their deep family ties to the UK. They have been forced to appeal again, but have been told that it could take up to 12 months for a tribunal hearing. They simply cannot last that long, because they now have no income. This whole time, Geoff has been unable to work. He is a skilled mechanical engineer and a key worker in a local industry, but he is not permitted to work. His employer, very considerably, has kept his place open, but that cannot go on forever. The couple face the real prospect of losing their home, and have spent £7,000 on legal fees, but the view of the Home Office is that they should simply go back to Australia, where they have no ties and no income. Mary is not sure whether she would be able to face that, so frankly their marriage is also at stake. Members across the House agree that we need a robust immigration system with clear rules, but when well-intentioned people who have done everything in their power to comply fall foul of those rules, that cannot be a fair outcome. In all likelihood, the Home Office will find in Mary and Geoff’s favour at the appeal 12 months from now, but by that time they will not be in the country anymore. It will be too late, but there is nothing in the system that allows us to expedite the case. I hope the Minister will agree to work with me and meet me to ensure that Mary and Geoff can remain in their home, contribute to their community and continue supporting their family here in the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for highlighting this vital thread in the UK fabric. I will speak about fishing visas. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for bringing the issue forward and for his suggestions. We had a very good meeting with the Minister six weeks ago—we thank him for that—and I hope he can tell today us what progress has been made since then. I make no apologies for again speaking on behalf of the proud, resilient fishing communities of Strangford and, indeed, the whole of the Northern Ireland coastal fishing industry. For generations, men and boys from places such as Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel have braved the cold, dark waters of the Irish sea to put food on our tables. They are the lifeblood of our coastal villages, yet right at this moment their very livelihoods are anchored by a clunky, inflexible UK visa system that simply does not fit the realities of life at sea. Let me be absolutely clear about the foundation of this issue. We must never conflate the safe, legal, hard-working migrant fishermen on which our industry depends with those who illegally enter the UK. Our fishermen are the first to say that they rely on skilled, legitimate foreign workers to keep the nets down and their boats moving. What are the Government offering them? That is the big question. The skilled worker visas are proving entirely unavailable to the fishing industry post 2026. We are looking at a potential loss of up to 70% of crew members on Northern Ireland vessels, which would tie up almost 100% of the local nephrops fleet within just a few years. Just to explain the issues back home, I recently heard that a local agency put out a trawl for job vacancies, advertising across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Europe. However, out of hundreds of expressions of interest, only a handful were suitable, and a mere five people actually took up the jobs. Why? Fishing is cold, wet and demanding work. Our local boys and men do not begrudge paying a fair wage, but the workforce is simply not there on our shores. The foreign crews are seafaring folk with invaluable skills and form a vital and vibrant part of our fishing culture. Just recently, we have seen restrictions such as the visa changes by the Isle of Man authorities, which directly impact Northern Ireland trawlers that have legitimately purchased permits to fish and negotiate neighbouring waters. Our fleet has been squeezed from every angle. We are not asking for a lowering of standards, and nor are we asking to open the floodgates; we are asking for common sense and flexibility. The industry has long called for an immigration route modelled on the seasonal worker visa or a dedicated, bespoke visa for fishing crews. That would protect British businesses while allowing long-term recruitment drives to bear fruit. Let us be clear: food security is national security. If we want to maintain an affordable, sustainable food supply, we must give our fishermen the tools and crew they need to get out to sea. I have repeatedly pressed the Home Office and the relevant Minister for a solution. With the greatest respect, I say to the Minister today that perhaps now is the time to give us that. The Government need to step up and listen to the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation. We need flexibility, and we need a bespoke visa. Give our fishing communities the helping hand they deserve, and let our boats get back to work.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing the debate, although the sentiment of my speech is not quite aligned with his. I was first elected in 2024, which marked 50 years since my mother came here from Malaysia, and I absolutely believe in the rich tapestry and diversity of this country. Just as we can see from my mum, who built great businesses and employed lots of people, and just as we can see from the doctor and oncologist who have helped my mum and dad through very difficult times, there is absolutely a value to the tapestry of the United Kingdom. The Liberal Democrats have always been clear that we need fair, controlled immigration. However, for Hongkongers with a British national overseas visa in my constituency, that has not been the case. I have constituents in Harpenden and Berkhamsted who moved to this country based on clear promises from the Government, including five years’ residency, B1 English and no income threshold. They have built their lives here, found employment, bought homes and contributed to our communities, just like my mum, only to be told that the goalposts have now moved. The Government’s proposed retrospective changes to the qualifying criteria for indefinite leave to remain undermine the fundamentally British values of fairness and respect, leaving those people in limbo and uncertain of their rights to be here while they invest in this country. Does the Minister agree that changing those residency requirements in this way risks damaging not only the economy but trust in the commitments this country makes to those who come here in good faith? Such changes to the UK’s visa system also risk harming businesses and economic growth. At a time when many businesses already face pressure from national insurance increases and energy prices, which keep the cost of running a business high, further uncertainty around visas can make it harder to retain skilled workers and talent. And that is not to mention the frontline staff I alluded to, whom many Members have highlighted today. From my perspective as a technology spokesperson, that talent particularly matters to this Government’s ambition on AI and quantum technology. As techUK has argued, if the UK is to remain world leading in this field, it must “remain open and attractive” to international innovators and the talent that supports them. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to reform the visa process to make Britain the obvious destination for AI companies. What is the Minister doing on these policies to support those ambitions, while also investing in home-grown skills? The previous Conservative Government got immigration badly wrong. After Brexit, they presided over a series of chaotic immigration policies that failed to deliver control, failed to meet the needs of the economy and contributed to a sharp rise in net migration. What Britain needs is a controlled, fair and responsive visa system that works for businesses, supports our public services, attracts the skills our economies need and commands public confidence. It is that balanced and compassionate approach to immigration that the Liberal Democrats believe in, and it is that approach that this country deserves.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing it. In doing so, I acknowledge the complexity of the issue and the dynamics, which many Members may agree with, or be susceptible or exposed to, in their constituencies. I do so also as the MP for Belfast South, which is a diverse and integrated constituency—it is certainly the most mixed population of people on the island of Ireland—and home to Queen’s University, one of the UK’s finest, welcoming students from all over the world. The context I am speaking within is the dynamic of an island economy, with a relatively more flexible immigration system in the Republic, and some of the challenges that that creates, particularly for businesses around the border, which experience competitiveness issues. I am also aware of the experience of centuries of the Irish people feeling it necessary to travel to other places for reasons of poverty or marginalisation in Ireland. That is our national story, but the national story of this country is welcoming people, and of people being able to find opportunity and acceptance. That is part of the national story of Britain and the UK; many people have had to flee and have come to contribute, including not least my parents, early in their married life. I will reflect on a few specific dimensions. My good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) well covered the issues around seasonal visas and visas in agriculture and fishing—issues we have both worked on over many years. Those visas sustain coastal and rural communities in Northern Ireland and are under pressure that cannot be solved in other ways—we have both tried. I also want to address, as others have, the proposed changes, the most egregious of which is the moving of the goalposts on leave to remain and the breach of good faith that that will represent to so many people who came in good faith. The tiered aspect of earned settlement will not only disadvantage many people in lower-paid sections of the economy—I do not know about here, but we certainly could not do without those workers, not least in health and social care—but expose some groups to the risk of exploitation. I credit Unison and the Law Centre Northern Ireland, which are campaigning broadly on this issue. I have spoken before in Westminster Hall about the lack of access for some of the most vulnerable people in Gaza. Nobody is suggesting that everybody in that beleaguered place would or should come here, or would wish to, but people are facing entirely irrational barriers in not being able to access biometrics, with those who are bombing them effectively having the say over who can leave to access those. I think of my constituents Omar and Dalal, whom I have been supporting. They are facing daily terrible news while they work in our health system and education system, but the visa system will not facilitate them. My third point relates to the ETA—electronic travel authorisation—and the impact of electronic visas in Northern Ireland. Protecting the UK’s border is a perfectly fair and rational thing to do. It does not work for the island of Ireland, for many reasons. We have an integrated island economy. An Estonian software engineer cannot come to the Belfast office. An Italian backpacker cannot pick up work in Derry. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) mentioned sport: 50,000 Indian citizens living and working in Dublin, sustaining the tech sector, cannot come up to see Ireland playing India at cricket—there is an all-Ireland team playing in Belfast. Those are irrational outworkings. The visa system does not work for the region I represent.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. The UK needs a humane, efficient, fair, secure and just immigration system. I will raise two issues drawn directly from cases in my Dewsbury and Batley constituency, but before I do, I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing the debate. The first issue is e-visas. The Government’s move towards a digitally based system has the potential to modernise immigration status and make it easier to improve one’s rights. That is welcome, but the transition must be managed competently and compassionately, and the evidence suggests that far too often it is failing on both counts. In my constituency, one resident holds indefinite leave to remain through the older, physical sticker or stamp placed in someone’s passport that proves they have settled status. As we transition to an e-system, my constituent has done exactly what was asked of him: he has applied, reapplied, uploaded documentation and followed all due process. Yet despite repeated attempts, he has been unable to access the e-visa route, due to unresolved technical issues with photograph verification. This is not a minor inconvenience; without secure, accessible proof of immigration status, he faces the very real risk of being unable to travel abroad or to re-enter the UK. That example highlights a fundamental problem: the system is being digitised faster than it is being made error-proof. Moreover, there is a communication failure. Many people with legacy documents—whether physical stickers or physical biometric residence permits—should have received clear, proactive communication from the Home Office explaining the transition to e-visas and what steps they must take. What contingencies are in place for individuals who are struggling to access their e-visa due to technical faults, and why were all affected individuals not directly notified in writing of the need to transition to digital status? Secondly, I turn to the skilled worker visa programme. This route is meant to attract talent and fill genuine labour shortages, but in practice it is being manipulated by sham companies to exploit migrants. A second constituent’s case illustrates this deeply troubling reality. He arrived in the UK in good faith on a valid skilled worker visa, but upon arrival his sponsor did not provide him with work. My constituent turned up to the registered address of business, only to find that nobody was there and that the business did not exist. He was then extorted by his sponsor and asked to pay thousands of pounds to maintain his immigration status. He refused to pay the extorters, and as a result his sponsor withdrew their sponsorship and lied to the Home Office, saying my constituent had failed to start work. Consequently, his visa was cancelled. My constituent was not given a meaningful opportunity to find an alternative sponsor or to make his case as a victim of fraud. He was placed on immigration bail. In his own words, his life has been placed on hold. He cannot work, he cannot repay his debts, and his future is in jeopardy through no fault of his own. That case exposes a critical weakness in the system: when sponsors act improperly, it is too often the worker who bears the consequence. In both the cases I have raised, people followed the rules and engaged in good faith, yet the system failed them. I go back to my initial point: the system must be fair, functional, humane, secure and just.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing the debate and introducing it in the way he did. It will not surprise him to know that I do not agree with all of what he said, but he did raise valid concerns about the abuse of our visa system and the loopholes in it. The Liberal Democrats are willing to work cross-party with the Conservatives and the Labour Government to tackle those issues. The Liberal Democrats believe in a fair and controlled immigration system that works for our economy and our public services. It must function effectively, command public confidence and bring benefits to the United Kingdom and its people. We want a controlled immigration system, with a visa system that meets the demands of our economy and public services, but that must go hand in hand with a credible plan to boost domestic skills. However, this country’s visa rules can hurt our economy, damage families and fail to fully support refugees fleeing conflict, and that is what I will use my time today to talk about. The Lib Dems wholeheartedly oppose the Government’s plans to retrospectively change the rights to seek indefinite leave to remain, and I know that many Labour MPs do as well. Moving the goalposts in this way violates the fundamental British value of fairness. I am particularly concerned about the impact it will have on Hongkongers, who are fundamentally British. Many now reside in my constituency of Woking, and they are really concerned about the unreasonable financial and language requirements being put on them. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that, and particularly any reassurance he can give Hongkongers in my community and across the country. As well as being unfair to the individuals involved, visa requirements can damage our economy. Thousands already contributing to our society and economy have made an investment in this country, and their firms have made investments in this country and offered them jobs knowing what ILR means. The lack of certainty from moving those goalposts is massively damaging—I have heard that from businesses in Woking, the Law Society and many others. It is not right or fair to change those rules. The immigration system also damages our economy through the visa costs charged. The five-year global talent visa now costs £6,000— 20 times higher than in competitor countries. Cancer Research UK has said that several pieces of its research have been affected by soaring immigration costs, which have risen by 126% since 2019 and are up to 17 times higher than comparable countries such as Australia, France or the United States. The amount that the charity has had to pay the Government in visa fees or other immigration surcharges has nearly doubled since 2022-23, rising from less than £500,000 to almost £900,000 this year. That money could have been enough to train 40 PhD students, and I know where I would prefer the money to go. A report from Oxford University’s Migration Observatory has found that there is very little evidence to support the Government’s belief that employers will train or rely on domestic staff because of hiking charges. It just does not agree with the Government. That is why I urge the Government to rule out retrospective changes to ILR and agree transitional arrangements, and to review visa charges based on genuine benchmarking against other similar countries. Visa rules are not helping us grow our economy, and they are also undermining the right to family life. British citizens who wish to return to the UK with a foreign-born spouse encounter complex and costly application requirements. The application fee varies depending on whether someone applies in or out of the UK, but it can be more than £2,000. UK citizens should have the right to have their family come to the UK, provided that there are proper checks to verify their relationships. The Liberal Democrats think that minimum income and asset requirements for those with visas should be structured to ensure that there is no recourse to public funds, rather than being tied to arbitrary earning levels. Last year, British citizens were required for the first time to present British passports at the UK border or present a certificate of entitlement attached to a non-UK passport. Dual nationals were really hurt last year by this Government. The current fee for that certificate of entitlement is £589. At the time, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I called on the Government to implement a grace period to allow British dual nationals to travel home without being caught out. There were families with children, children trying to take exams and families with sick relatives who were caught out, not only by the Government’s rules but by their refusal to compromise and adapt based on a poor information campaign. The Home Office did not listen to us, and I hope that it starts to listen to us again. Finally, I worry that this country’s approach to visas can undermine our very humanity. We should welcome those fleeing war and support them when they are here. I am proud that my constituency of Woking has welcomed over 500 Ukrainians who have fled their homeland following Vladimir Putin’s appalling illegal invasion of Ukraine. I hear from Ukrainians that, as well as being anxious about their homeland and what is happening to their friends and family back in Ukraine, they are also anxious about their immigration status here in the UK. The Liberal Democrats think that the Government should automatically extend visas for Ukrainians who are already granted the right to be here to stay in the UK. It is vital that we remove the uncertainty that hangs over those families and children.

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed these issues about Hongkongers and Ukrainians before. We often talk about the Boris wave and the large numbers of immigrants who came to this country. But within those numbers, there were a good half a million people who we wanted to come to this country—who we invited—including Hongkongers, Ukrainians, Afghans and others on humanitarian visas. Does he agree that the language we use and the numbers that we talk about need complete reframing so that we recognise those humanitarian visas, which the vast majority of the British population support?

I completely agree, but I suggest that the hon. Member takes it up with his Government, who seem to be more focused on the hatred from the Reform party than on agreeing with our quite welcoming rhetoric. He should take that up with his Ministers rather than with me as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—he might risk crossing the Floor, if he is not careful. The Ukrainian scheme is the only humanitarian visa scheme that does not have the pathway to permanent settlement. I hope that the Minister will start to correct that injustice. Everything about this country—apart from its weather—should be fair. But our visa system is not fair, and it is not working for this country and the people in it. My hon. Friends the Members for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), for Horsham (John Milne), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) have shown real-life examples of that unfairness and failure. I urge the Minister to start correcting it.

Thank you, Mr Stuart, for chairing today’s debate. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this important debate. As he has highlighted, his thoughtful and comprehensive report sets out a series of practical proposals to close loopholes and strengthen our legal migration system. At a time when immigration remains one of the most important issues facing the country, any serious attempt to examine the system as a whole and identify where improvements can be made deserves careful consideration. Whatever view one takes of his recommendations, nobody could accuse my hon. Friend of lacking ambition. His 30 proposals provide a clear direction of travel, including tightening loopholes, strengthening incentives and ensuring that our immigration system works in the interests of the British people. Policy decisions matter. The Oxford Migration Observatory noted that the recent decline in net migration was driven largely by policy changes introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Those measures included restrictions on dependants, higher salary thresholds and tighter work visa requirements. They showed that when Governments are prepared to take difficult decisions and close obvious loopholes, migration can be brought down without compromising the principle of attracting talent. Those measures addressed mistakes that had been made, and it is notable that the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), acknowledged those mistakes early in her leadership and accepted the need for change. She also rightly recognised that, since the change in leadership at the Home Office, the Government have taken some steps in the right direction. While many Labour MPs appear reluctant to support tougher measures, we have consistently said that where the Government bring forward sensible proposals to strengthen the immigration system, we will support them. I hope that the Government move quickly to implement their proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain and to increase the qualifying period for settlement. Such reforms are long overdue.

Does the hon. Member agree that it is not simply unfair but un-British to change the rules for people who were told that they could qualify for settlement if they stayed in this country for five years, by moving the goalposts to 10 years?

There are real challenges in our immigration system, with real costs and pressures on our public services. We have to do something about it. What might be halfway for somebody at this point in time is day one for somebody else. We back the Government. We will look at what they bring forward and take it from there, but we are determined to support them where sensible measures are brought forward. As today’s debate has demonstrated, immigration policy cannot be reduced to a single issue. Settlement matters, but so do work visas, family routes, student migration and enforcement. The system must operate as a coherent whole. Focusing on one area while weakening another risks undermining the overall objective. That brings me to one of the recommendations highlighted in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. This is an issue on which I would welcome clarification from the Minister: the proposal to make remote English-language testing the default method of assessment. It raises a broader question about the future direction of the immigration system: in seeking efficiency and convenience, are we risking the robustness and integrity of existing safeguards? For many years, the Home Office has relied on a small number of trusted providers delivering secure English language tests in controlled environments, but the Government now intend to move increasingly towards remote assessments.

On those tests, does the shadow Minister agree that the historical role played by the British Council in various countries across the world to support a more rigorous assessment should be reconsidered to play a role in this?

There is a role for the British Council, but when it comes to remote testing, we have had a standard that the public has confidence in, and although this might be more efficient, it might undermine public confidence in the process. As has been said, organisations such as the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants are moving back to in-person examinations in order to protect test security and integrity. Is the Minister confident that the safeguards proposed will be sufficient? Although it may seem to be a technical issue, it illustrates a wider concern. Every change to the immigration system should strengthen and not weaken public confidence. Those of us who spent many hours serving on the Public Bill Committee for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 debated numerous proposals to strengthen the Government’s response to both legal and illegal migration. Unfortunately, many of those measures were rejected. One proposal that continues to warrant serious consideration is the introduction of an annual migration cap approved by Parliament. The Government have repeatedly opposed such a measure, but they are quick to celebrate any fall in migration figures. If migration levels matter—and clearly, they do—Parliament should have a greater role in scrutinising and setting expectations around them. Such a system would provide greater transparency and accountability. Parliament would have oversight of visa numbers across different routes and Ministers would be required to justify the choices they make.

Is there not a real threat of politicising immigration at a time in which universities in my constituency are really struggling because there is a lack of international students, who are no longer willing to come to this country? The amount of money they bring to our economy is phenomenal. Pursuing this type of policy will disrupt the foundations of our universities.

The idea that we, as a Parliament, have the right to scrutinise the decision-making process, to decide how many people should come and by what means, is a real positive. It is a real positive for public confidence and it improves transparency, so I support the idea of a cap for that very reason. It would be for us to debate and decide in this very House who should and should not come to this country.

Will the shadow Minister explain why his party did not introduce such a cap during the 14 years that they ran the country?

That is a very good question. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, a lot of mistakes were made along the way. We have looked at what worked well. In fact, much of the reduction in those legal migration numbers is, as we have said, a result of the moves made by the last Government. We are looking at this afresh. We have talked about leaving the European convention on human rights and we have come forward with a real plan that would allow us to control our borders. Alongside greater accountability, we must continue to close temporary visa loopholes and move towards a system focused firmly on attracting high-skilled talent. That requires robust salary thresholds, clear eligibility criteria and, crucially, a determination to equip people already living in this country with the skills that employers need. At present, we find ourselves in an absurd situation where vape shops on our high streets have been able to sponsor visas on the basis that they require skilled migrant labour. At the same time, the National Farmers’ Union is forced to lobby the Home Office for greater flexibility on seasonal agricultural workers. Whatever view one takes of individual visa routes, that cannot represent a coherent approach to immigration policy. I recognise the challenges associated with relaxing restrictions in any area of the system, but there must be consistency. If the objective is to prioritise highly skilled migration, the system should reflect that objective in practice. The fact that some of the businesses currently able to sponsor visas appear far removed from that aim suggests that further reform is needed. For too long, Governments of different colours have relied on immigration to fill shortages that should also be addressed through training, apprenticeships and investment in the domestic workforce. The answer is not simply to import labour indefinitely; it is to build skills at home while ensuring that, where genuine shortages exist, our visa system can respond effectively and competitively. On that front, the Government’s record is disappointing. Rising unemployment, particularly among younger people, demonstrates the need for a more serious focus on training and workforce development. This improvement needs to be reflected in the numbers. The recent immigration data, while a step in the right direction, still shows significant non-EU migration, higher than in the equivalent period in the 2010s. That is accompanied by still large numbers of people, including British nationals, leaving. We need a visa system designed to support a high-skill, high-wage economy, not one that allows people to game the system. I recognise that the Government remain sceptical of many of the proposals put forward. Nevertheless, I hope Ministers will give serious consideration to the recommendations outlined in the report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Reducing migration numbers matters, but so too does restoring confidence that the system is fair, controlled and working in the interests of the British people.

Before I call the Minister, let me say that I will look to call the Member in charge of the debate to make a winding-up speech at 3.58 pm.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important, wide-ranging and interesting debate. We inherited a difficult system from the previous Government. At its peak, net migration hit nearly 1 million in one year. We saw around 600,000 individuals enter the country to fill just 40,000 vacancies in health and social care. One in 30 people currently in the country arrived in just four years. In our time in government, we have seen net migration fall by 82% from its peak and by 48% in the last year, and emigration, despite what it says on X, has remained flat. I will do my very best to respond to each of the many specific points that were raised during the debate, but Members should feel free to intervene near the end of my speech if they feel that I have missed one. I will start by setting out this Government’s overarching approach to legal migration, of which our visa system is an integral part. For generations, people have come here from around the world to visit, work and contribute to our society, and that will continue to be the case. Of course, this topic excites very strong views, but I continue to believe that this is, at heart, an open and tolerant country. At the same time, the public rightly expect their Government to have a firm grip on who can come here and who must leave. They expect the rules to be enforced and the numbers to be controlled. We can debate the intricacies of different policies, but the fact remains that on all those counts, the system this Government inherited was failing. Since taking office, we have acted decisively to put that right. We have placed new controls on legal migration routes, the impact of which was laid bare recently with official figures, and we have moved to crack down on abuse of our immigration system. In under two years, we have tackled abuse to a level that surpasses action taken by the previous Government over the preceding decade. Illegal work and enforcement visits are at the highest level in years. In 2025, we carried out nearly 13,000 visits, resulting in more than 90,000 arrests. Since the Government came to power, more than 5,800 work-related sponsor licences have been revoked, meaning that more employers have been stripped of their sponsorship privileges in just two years than in over a decade under the previous Government. Allegations of visa abuse are taken incredibly seriously and will always be investigated. We are removing and deporting more illegal migrants and foreign criminals, and, for the first time, deploying a visa brake on certain routes for nationals from four countries following a surge in visa-linked asylum claims. We are doing all that and more because we recognise that without order and control, public trust is impossible. The people of this country rightly expect an immigration system that is fair but firm, and that is what this Government are determined to deliver.

On deporting illegal migrants, people who do not have a right to be in our country should not be allowed to stay and should be removed, but will the Minister reflect on the way in which deportations have been publicised—the videos that go on X, which he mentioned, and the dehumanisation? Whether legal or illegal, human beings are human beings. Could he explain the thinking behind the Government’s publicity around deportations?

I thank the hon. Member for his important question. It is right that we keep the public informed of what we are doing. In the current atmosphere, there is a lot of misinformation. When we tell the public that there are deportations and removals going on, we are simply not believed—that is the climate that we currently operate in. There have been some representations of illegal migrants boarding planes, but the faces are always blurred and it is not possible to tell who they are, because I completely agree that it is important to respect an individual’s dignity. I will move on to compliance and enforcement. In under two years, we have tackled abuse to a level that surpasses action taken by the previous Government. Since the Government came to power, more than 5,800 work-related sponsor licences have been revoked, meaning that more employers have been stripped of their privileges in just two years than in over a decade under the previous Government. Through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act, the Government have introduced tough new laws to clamp down on illegal working. That means that, for the first time, right-to-work checks and associated sanctions for non-compliance will be extended to cover businesses hiring gig economy and zero-hours workers in sectors such as construction, food delivery, beauty salons, courier services and warehousing. Those changes will restrict rogue employers’ ability to take advantage of illegal workers and encourage businesses to provide work opportunities for those permitted to work in the UK. They will provide parity across industries and set a level playing field for businesses to uphold their responsibilities. A number of Members mentioned work visa sponsorship. The ability to sponsor overseas workers is a privilege and not a right. That privilege must be earned by meeting strict criteria, which establish that the organisation is lawfully trading or operating in the UK, is suitable and trustworthy, and is capable of offering roles that meet the requirements of the immigration rules that we set. That comes with specific duties and responsibilities through which sponsors are held to account. The Home Office will not hesitate to act when organisations fail to meet those standards, and licences can and will be refused or revoked as a result. Arrests involving illegal workers are up by around 60%. I take the point that there are defunct employers on the list, and I will ensure that officials look at that. I will turn briefly, because I am strapped for time, to data. I agree with the sentiment that the Home Office data falls down in many places; that has been a problem for decades. We are looking to combat it, and I will ensure that we work hard to improve it. I always find it unacceptable when I have to respond to written questions and we do not have the data. I will talk briefly about the religious routes, which were also mentioned. The immigration system maintains two dedicated immigration routes for religious workers—the religious worker and minister of religion routes—in acknowledgment of the valuable contribution that faith groups, including religious institutions from overseas, make to our society. All visas are kept under regular review to ensure that they are operating as intended and remain properly controlled, and there are no plans at this point to close those routes. Turning to student and graduate visas, the Government continue to welcome and value the contribution made to our society, economy and higher education institutions by those overseas students who choose to come to our great country. We have the best universities in the world, and we want the best minds in every country to aspire to complete their education here. International students can apply for a student visa if they demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the route, including a sufficient level of English, the ability to support themselves financially throughout their stay and an offer from an approved institution, and pay the immigration health surcharge. We are looking at basic compliance, and there will be more information on that coming—tomorrow, I believe. I was with a number of university stakeholders on Monday. It is important that we work together with the universities to ensure compliance, but that we still attract the greatest minds to the country. Abuse on that route is down by 30% since we came into government, but last year we still saw 11,000 individuals enter on the student route and go on to claim asylum.

I hope that the Minister will forgive me for pressing him on the issue of fishing and seasonal visas, but we really need an answer, please.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am conscious that I only have two minutes before having to hand back—

Will the Minister give way?

Let me just make a little progress. I will touch on fisheries. I have had important meetings with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and we are working to ensure that we come to the right conclusion on that. We have provided whaleboat fishermen—and sheep shearers—with concessions, but I think the agricultural sector needs a more holistic approach, and we are absolutely looking at that and working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Before my time comes to an end—my apologies if I have not been able to get through all the many points that were made—I will talk about earned settlement, which is vital. Someone who is looking to settle has to contribute to and integrate into the country. We saw unprecedented numbers arrive, as I have already detailed—I will not go through that again. We have had a massive consultation—the 200,000 responses are being analysed—and I and the Home Secretary will make it our personal mission to ensure that we provide a system that is firm but also fair and that absolutely rewards contribution, because that is what makes this country great. A number of hon. Members raised specific cases with me. Please can we talk about those afterwards rather than trying to address them in this debate?

I appreciate that the Minister is short for time. Will he write to me in response to my question about the loophole associated with domestic abuse claims?

I will touch on it very quickly. I think “loophole” is a misrepresentation; I think it is an abuse of the system. We have new guidance, which came out in March, but there are other abuses—for example, those who say that they are gay when they are not—and we are ensuring that we deal with that. I will conclude now, with apologies to Members that I could not get through all their many points, but we can of course talk outside the Chamber.

I thank everyone who has contributed to this wide-ranging and interesting debate. I am afraid that I do not have time to reflect on each contribution, but I thoroughly appreciate Members coming and providing their thoughts on this important subject. I thank the Minister for answering my many written parliamentary questions as I was doing my research, and for considering thoughtfully the recommendations in my report and writing to me with his thoughts. I know that he had limited time, but I was disappointed that he did not pick up on the move to remote-only English language testing, which is a very important topic to both me and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I want to emphasise that it is important that there is confidence in the system before the Home Office goes ahead, and I encourage the Minister to encourage his officials to accept the invitation to brief the Public Accounts Committee on that. Fixing our visa system, closing the loopholes and putting the British people and their Government back in control of who our neighbours are should not be controversial. It is the norm throughout the world, and we need to make it the norm here in Great Britain. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of improving the UK visa system.