Neil Duncan-Jordan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  I led a debate in this Chamber some months ago on the need for a certificate of common sponsorship, which would make sure that individuals coming over to this country and working in the care sector were not tied to a single employer and could move between employers, giving them the power rather than the employer. I hope that the Government will look very seriously at that point. It is wrong fundamentally to pull the rug out from people and change the rules halfway through the process. What message does it send about the kind of country we are if our laws and promises hold no meaning and if the British Government can make a deal with someone on a Monday, but by Wednesday, we could have changed our mind? That is part of why these policies have provoked such a reaction: they run against our values. British people believe—and Members across the Chamber have said today—that if a person works hard and plays by the rules, the Government should tread lightly on their life. What someone gets out should be what they put in. Labour must be clear-eyed about where the real value in our economy lies. It is not with the billionaires and bankers, but with the workers—wherever they come from—who keep this country running every day.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing a very timely debate. In fact, it took only hours after the Home Secretary’s announcement on settlement rights for messages from worried constituents in Poole to start flooding in. One of them, my constituent Olebanjo, put it very powerfully. He said: “Migrants are not just statistics; we are carers, professionals, volunteers, and parents raising children who already call this country home. We want to belong, to integrate fully, and to continue giving our best to the UK. This proposal would make that harder, not easier.” I think he is right. The idea that making life harder for people who are already here, working, raising families and contributing somehow improves assimilation or cohesion simply does not make sense at all. The Government have described settlement as a privilege to be earned, but that ignores the valuable contribution that those workers have already made to our country, the economy and their local communities. In Poole and across the country, our health service relies on thousands of workers from around the world. In social care, the changes risk turning a staffing crisis into a catastrophe. We cannot tackle that problem by punishing the migrant workers caring for our relatives and providing dignity and warmth to our elderly. The problem, then, is that migrant workers are being made to pay for issues that they did not cause. The outcome will be, I fear, depressingly predictable. When care homes, particularly those outside big cities, struggle to fill vacancies and care worsens as a result, right-wing politicians and their media outriders will not admit that punishing migrant workers has failed; they will double down and the clamour for harsher measures will grow. Our Labour Government must challenge that approach.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the Home Secretary mentioned that our immigration policy needed to be based on the idea of fairness. Is it fair to change the rules on indefinite leave to remain for those who are already making a contribution to our society and came here under the old rules? Will the Minister give those individuals some assurance that they will get some transitional protection?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the final contributor from the Back Benches, I shall try to strike a slightly different tone from the rest of the debate. Over the past few days, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are likely to be affected by today’s emergency Bill. One of those is Dr Khan, a resident doctor at Poole general hospital’s emergency department. He trained overseas and has been working in the NHS for almost three years. He also has a young family living in my constituency. As an international medical graduate working in the NHS, he is concerned that the proposed emergency legislation on UK medical graduate prioritisation will have a negative impact on people like him. Although I support a sustainable domestic medical workforce, implementing these changes mid-cycle in 2026, after applications have closed and commitments have been made, is, I believe, a breach of procedural fairness. My constituent has raised further concerns that I would also like to share. The technical proposal to use immigration status such as indefinite leave to remain or citizenship as a proxy for NHS experience is both blunt and unnecessary. The Oriel application system already specifically collects data on whether an applicant has more than six months of NHS experience, and this existing evidence-based metric should be used to prioritise those already contributing to our health service rather than relying on immigration status. Many of Dr Khan’s colleagues have relocated to this country and planned their lives based on the rules in force when the applications opened in late 2025. To change the rules now, while we are in the middle of the interview window, will cause immense personal distress and undermine our long-standing commitment to fairness. There is also a genuine risk to the workforce. Our NHS relies heavily on our international staff, and today’s Bill risks damaging the UK’s reputation as a fair employer. It could lead to an exodus of skilled professionals that the NHS, in my view, cannot afford to lose. When the Minister responds, will she consider providing clear transitional protections for the 2026 cohort who are already here? Will she further consider that any new criteria should be implemented prospectively for 2027 and that any measure of NHS experience should utilise the data already collected, rather than blunt immigration-based proxies? A few days ago, I submitted a written question on the impact that the proposed changes to rules around indefinite leave to remain for health workers would have on the viability of the NHS 10-year workforce plan. The response from the Department was that no such assessment had been made. I fear that we are now making the same mistake again. Those who are already here and making a contribution need to be acknowledged for their service. I would welcome any assurances that the Minister could give to Dr Khan and all those like him who are already a valued part of our NHS.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Any employment status that traps workers in those conditions has to be addressed, and the proposed extension of the ILR period from five years to 10 will potentially trap those workers in what we can only describe as long-term exploitation. The immigration White Paper also suggests sweeping changes to the skilled worker visa system. A constituent of mine, Olabanjo, wrote to me: “If implemented, this proposed change would create unnecessary instability for thousands of families, including mine. It would prolong uncertainty, increase financial and emotional strain, and discourage people who are already working hard, paying taxes, and contributing positively to the UK. Migrants are not just statistics; we are carers, professionals, volunteers, and parents raising children who already call this country home. We want to belong, to integrate fully, and to continue giving our best to the UK. This proposal would make that harder, not easier.” Olabanjo is right to point out that the plans to retrospectively change the settlement rules feel like a betrayal. The suggestion that we can change the rules halfway through is grossly unfair. Behind the debate about immigration are real people, and the proposed changes have caused considerable upheaval for many overseas workers who are already here. In fact, virtually all migrant workers will in some way be affected by the changes to salary thresholds and new visa conditions. The Government have described settlement as a privilege to be earned, but that ignores the valuable contribution that these workers have already made to our country, the economy and their local communities. That is why I urge the Government to reject the negative rhetoric around immigration, retain the five-year route for ILR, scrap plans to apply extended qualifying periods retrospectively, and reform the visa system to ensure that sponsorship is sector-wide, rather than linked to an individual employer.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. Some months ago, I led a debate in this Chamber on the merits of a certificate of common sponsorship in relation to the social care sector. In that debate, I highlighted the unfair and precarious nature of having an employment visa linked to a single employer, rather than to the sector as a whole. I mention that because that campaign, which is ongoing, is of course linked to today’s debate on indefinite leave to remain. Overseas workers have made, and continue to make, a massive contribution to the UK’s health and social care sector. Because of those dedicated staff, we have been able to provide much-needed care for some of our most vulnerable individuals, but the proposed changes to the ILR rules could put all that at risk. The adult social care sector is already experiencing a crisis in recruitment. In England, for example, 7% of roles are unfilled; that represented about 111,000 vacancies in March this year. These proposals will make filling those vacancies even more difficult. I have raised before with the Government how the current sponsorship arrangements leave migrant workers open to abuse. Some are locked into unfair contracts; when they raise concerns about their working conditions, they can be threatened with deportation. Employers already have undue power over migrant care workers, because their work visa is tied to their employment status.