Rebecca Long Bailey
MP for Salford · Labour · United Kingdom
“Let me first offer huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for her brilliant speech, and for the work that she does most weeks and about which, in my opinion, she does not speak loudly enough. My mum has been rushed to A&E twice in the last two months, and I have been with her.”
“For years we saw hospital beds disappear, staff vacancies grow, social care neglected, community health services hollowed out, and local authority budgets slashed, and the consequences were entirely predictable.”
“It was harrowing. I can only describe it as something that one would see in a war zone rather than in modern Britain. When I asked the staff, “Is it always like this?” they said, “Yes. It comes and goes when it gets busy. It gets worse at weekends.”
“That sounds brilliant, but the fact is that the system does not have the staff capacity to deliver it, so we need a properly funded long-term workforce plan that delivers fair pay, expands education and apprenticeships, improves retention, ensures that we have safe staffing standards, and gives frontline staff a real voice in how services…”
“It also means investing in community nursing, neighbourhood health teams, rehabilitation services and mental health, so that fewer people reach crisis and more people can leave hospital safely when they are ready.”
“If we want to end corridor care, we must deal with its root causes, not just the consequences, because it does not just begin when someone arrives at A&E; it begins when they cannot get a GP appointment, when mental health support is not there, when local authorities cannot provide a care package.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Rebecca Long Bailey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“Lifting the overall benefit cap would complement the removal of the two-child limit, ensuring that the gains we make today are not clawed back through arbitrary ceilings that fail to reflect real living costs. I applaud the Government for scrapping the two-child cap, which is the right thing to do, but I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances that his next step will be to look at lifting the benefit cap.”
“It has bored down on the backs of many families like a rucksack full of lead. Organisations including the Child Poverty Action Group, the End Child Poverty Coalition, Save the Children UK, the Children’s Society, Barnardo’s, Action for Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have all highlighted the damaging impact of the overall cap. It places arbitrary ceilings on support, regardless of rent levels, local costs or family size. It disproportionately affects single parents—overwhelmingly women—and families in high-cost areas. It drives rent arrears, temporary accommodation and homelessness, and the evidence is clear that it does not meaningfully increase employment; it increases hardship. If we are serious about tackling structural poverty, we cannot remove one barrier while leaving another firmly in place.”
“Those who argue that support should not go to families out of work should remember that six in 10 children affected by the two-child limit live in households where at least one parent works, and those families are taxpayers too. As my mum says, there but for the grace of God go I. A crisis can happen in an instant at any moment, and bereavement, illness, redundancy or family breakdown can push any household into temporary reliance on universal credit. A humane and flexible social security system exists to provide stability in those moments of crisis. I urge all Members to support the passage of the Bill today, but it must be just the start and we must go further. Alongside scrapping the two-child limit, we have to address the wider benefit cap, which was introduced in 2013.”
“Investing £3 billion to reduce a £39 billion problem is not reckless spending; it is a highly targeted, cost-effective investment with long-term returns. It is preventive policy at its very best. Other Members have asked why taxpayers should support larger families. Well, the honest truth is that only a very small number of families have more than four children, and almost all are working hard to provide for them. The two-child limit has had no measurable impact on family planning and has not influenced fertility rates; it simply punishes children who are already here. Every child, regardless of birth order, deserves enough food, a safe home and a fair start in life. When children are supported to thrive, they do better in school, stay healthier and contribute more fully as adults, and that benefits all of us.”
“I speak in support of new clause 4, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), me and others, and I will try to be as brief as I can. Scrapping the two-child limit in full remains the single most impactful step we can take to reduce child poverty, and will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030. When combined with other measures in the child poverty strategy, more than 550,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by the end of the decade. Some Members of this House have said, “How can the country justify this multibillion-pound spend?” It is around £3 billion a year, but child poverty costs the UK economy £39 billion annually—more than 10 times as much. That £39 billion reflects poorer health, lower educational attainment, increased pressure on public services and lost economic potential.”
“There are few people who are opposed to a robust and fair immigration system, but sadly these plans are not that. They would rip up the promise on which people built their lives. For workers who were asked to come here to fill skills gaps in our public services and industries, the route to settlement would double from five years to 10. Lower-paid public service workers could be forced to wait 15 years, longer than the new standard, while those earning six-figure salaries are offered a fast track of three years. It is contribution measured by wages, rather than care given, lives saved or children taught.”
“I urge the Minister to stand for dignity, fairness and humanity. Retain the five-year route to settlement, end retrospective changes, protect refugees and BNO families, reform skilled worker visas so that they prevent exploitation rather than enable it, and above all, recognise the simple truth that those who care for Britain are part of Britain.”
“Charities and clinicians in the asylum system warn that prolonged insecurity deepens trauma and drives people into destitution. Earlier access to work, settlement and citizenship improves outcomes for individuals and the communities they join. A humane asylum system, with safe routes and timely decisions, is not an act of charity, but an investment in social cohesion. Another community unfairly affected is the British national overseas visa holders from Hong Kong. For them, the five-year path to settlement must be protected and made permanent. Retrospective rule changes or excessive salary thresholds and language barriers would simply betray the commitment that this country made to people seeking safety and freedom. Children born here should have automatic and secure status, not years of uncertainty.”
“I am sorry, but I want everybody to have time to speak. Worse still, the changes would apply retrospectively. Nurses, social care staff and council workers who came here under one set of rules would suddenly find the goalposts moved or, worse, find they could be deported due to harsher income thresholds, with their public sector employers unable to meet the increased salary requirements and their colleagues left behind, stressed and overworked. Even after gaining indefinite leave to remain, people would have no recourse to public funds—settled in name, but excluded in reality. For women fleeing domestic abuse, disabled people, and the LGBT communities, the impact will be cruel and profound. The problems reach beyond skilled worker routes.”
“Q10. Police officers in Greater Manchester are facing exceptional pressures as they work to keep our communities safe from horrific terror threats, hate crime, organised crime and regular mass protests. Despite that, Greater Manchester police received the second lowest percentage funding increase of any police force under the provisional settlement, leaving it £12 million worse off. I know that the Prime Minister will share my concerns, so will he urgently work with the Greater Manchester Mayor, the deputy mayor, myself and Greater Manchester MPs to ensure that GMP has the funding it truly needs to keep our communities safe?”
“The BBC’s presence there has transformed the city and the wider north-west economically and socially, creating skilled jobs, anchoring creative clusters and proving that world-class broadcasting does not have to be London-centric or the preserve of a wealthy elite. Media City shows what public investment can achieve, and weakening the BBC would weaken Salford and the wider creative and media investment we have seen in the north-west in recent years. That must not be allowed to happen.”
“The same principle of proper funding applies globally. The World Service is one of the UK’s greatest assets, reaching hundreds of millions of people across more than 40 languages. It presents us to the world. In a world where journalists are threatened and independent media is silenced, the World Service provides trusted, impartial information, yet repeated rounds of cuts have reduced its reach and handed ground to state-backed outlets from authoritarian regimes. Long-term, secure funding for the World Service is firmly in the national interest and must be restored. Finally, the BBC is a powerhouse of creativity and economic growth, and nowhere demonstrates that better than Salford.”
“The BBC has experienced 14 years of sustained real-term cuts—a 30% reduction in its funding—lost experienced journalists, hollowed out training and stretched its workforce to breaking point. It is no surprise that mistakes are more likely when journalists are overburdened and under-resourced; we cannot demand world-class journalism on a shrinking budget. Nowhere are the consequences of cuts clearer than in regional and local news. Cuts to BBC local radio have stripped many communities of genuinely local programming, and that has particularly affected older audiences, disabled people and ethnic minority communities, who rely most on trusted news. These damaging cuts should be reversed, with renewed investment in live local radio and digital journalism in news deserts where no other local provision exists.”
“I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as chair of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. Many colleagues have made the point about fair funding. It is critical. Ultimately, the BBC must remain universal and it must serve everyone. That means no subscription model, no two-tier system and no paywalls locking people out of so-called premium content. Public service broadcasting works only when it is genuinely public, and that universality must be protected through a funding model that is fair, sufficient and free from political interference. It is clear that sustained cuts and closed-door licence fee freezes have weakened that principle, and that has to end.”
“My hon. Friend speaks with great moral clarity. Does he agree that, given that the matter has been decided by the UN, lasting peace in the region cannot be achieved without dialogue that includes the voices and aspirations of the people of Kashmir themselves?”
“Bringing them back in house is not radical; it is already happening across parts of Scotland and Wales, where insourcing has improved accountability and service quality. Removing the web of contracts would cut the cost of the work that was created by privatisation. I would welcome the Secretary of State’s adopting, in a spirit of constructive partnership, the sensible and pragmatic proposals on such issues from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. They would strengthen the Bill, and help to deliver the railway that we all want to see.”
“We must be honest that the pressures that fell on the workforce over 30 years of privatisation have left deep scars. We saw repeated attempts to hollow out staffing, driver-only operation, de-staffed stations, ticket office closures, aggressive outsourcing and the downgrading of essential roles. The Government’s “Getting Britain Moving” promised to turn the page, and to recognise staff as an asset, not a cost. It pledged to make GBR a single employer that people would be proud to join. That vision was right, but it cannot be delivered if we keep the workforce scattered across a maze of private providers. If GBR is to inherit the contracts of Network Rail and the train operating companies, we should not simply carry forward decades of outsourcing. Cleaning, security, station staff, catering and maintenance are vital parts of the railway.”
“Altogether, well over 150,000 people form Britain’s rail workforce, yet sadly those workers cannot say who their future employer will be, what will happen to their pension, or how they might transfer into the new organisation. Although today is a great day, that uncertainty is not fair on them, and it undermines the stability and confidence that the new system needs from day one. We need to see some detail on how workers and their unions will be given a voice. Other public transport bodies, such as Transport for London, Transport Scotland and Transport for Wales, have built-in mechanisms for staff representation on their boards, but Great British Railways does not have any such route. If we want an organisation that benefits from the insights and expertise of the people who operate it, that has to be put in the Bill.”
“It will reverse the legacy of privatisation, which carved up the industry and prioritised share dividends over people and service quality. The Bill is great, but I have some fundamental issues that need to be ironed out as the Bill makes its way through the House. If Great British Railways is genuinely being built from dozens of separate organisations, then we need a clear description of its structure. We need clarity on who will actually employ all the people who keep our railways running. More than 100,000 workers are employed by Network Rail and the train operating companies; tens of thousands more jobs are outsourced to security firms, cleaning contractors, catering companies and agencies supplying infrastructure labour. Many of those workers are on insecure, zero-hour terms.”
“I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for all their hard work in getting us to this point. I recognise the thousands of rail staff who keep our network moving every single day. Their skill, dedication and professionalism were impossible to miss during the pandemic, and once again during the recent tragedy in Huntingdon, when workers ran towards danger to protect others. If we are serious about creating a world-class rail system, then those workers must be at the centre of it. A unified, publicly owned railway will be simpler, safer and more efficient.”
“When we think of building a nationwide ID system capable of linking health records, education data, housing history and even information about crimes that people have suffered, we should stop, because once that architecture exists, any future Government could misuse it, and we would have very little power to stop them.”
“That argument aside, the real fear here is that we will be building an infrastructure that can follow us, link our most sensitive information and expand state control over all our lives. The Minister must understand why people are concerned. This policy does not arrive in a vacuum. It sits alongside a worrying pattern: the accelerated roll-out of facial recognition, attempts to weaken end-to-end encryption, and data laws that strip away privacy protections. We must remember that Britain has no constitutional right to privacy. Parliament can, in a single vote, grant or remove protections that people in other democracies take for granted.”
“This is a watershed moment for our country, and not a good one. The argument for digital ID is that it will help tackle illegal working, but sadly the evidence does not stack up. Across Europe, nations with long-standing ID card systems—Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece—have not seen reductions in irregular migration as a result of ID cards. In fact, some have larger shadow economies than our own. Estonia, the poster child for digital ID, actually has a bigger underground economy than Britain. Assuming that this new system will somehow suddenly make rogue employers obey the law, when they have ignored the paper checks for some time, is for the birds.”
“I completely agree. We have seen the consequences of reckless data sharing already. All too often, migrant victims of domestic abuse, rape and trafficking have been frightened to report crimes because police forces routinely pass on their information to immigration officers. The harm is real: the offenders go unpunished and communities are less safe. Even if we set aside the civil liberties concerns, there is a basic practical problem here: UK Governments, of all stripes, do not have a good track record of keeping our data safe. The number of serious cyber incidents is rising year on year. Critical institutions from the British Library to the Legal Aid Agency to the One Login platform have already been criticised for major security flaws.”
“My hon. Friend is spot on, and we all have constituency stories that replicate her experience. Finally, there is the question of exclusion. As we have heard, millions of people in Britain do not have reliable digital access, and millions more do not have the basic digital skills required to navigate systems like this. Introducing mandatory digital ID risks shutting people out of work, housing, healthcare and public services, so I urge the Minister: for the sake of our rights, our safety and our democracy, drop this plan.”
“The key points from the plan are: reform media ownership rules with a strengthened public interest test; establish a journalism foundation to support new media and invest in public interest journalism; introduce a 6% windfall tax on tech giants; retain public notice requirements, thereby protecting a vital revenue stream and a vital democratic function; designate local papers as assets of community value; reform the local democracy reporting scheme, to ensure that public money supports genuine local journalism; and finally, use the BBC charter renewal to reverse the damaging local radio cuts and guarantee sustainable funding for trusted independent local news.”
“It is content that imitates local voices rather than reflects them, and that is just not journalism; it is misrepresentation, and the public know it. The overwhelming majority of people want transparency in AI-generated news, and they do not believe that the current safeguards are enough. At the same time, tech giants continue to siphon off the advertising revenue that once sustained local titles, while refusing to contribute meaningfully to the journalism they profit from. They have taken billions, paid a fraction back in tax, and flooded our information environment with disinformation, extremism and chaos. This has gone on long enough. It is time for a reset. I urge the Minister to do what was suggested in the NUJ’s news recovery plan, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington did a fantastic job of outlining.”
“No private company should control more than 25% of the media market. Those holding more than 15% should be required to divest or establish publicly accountable structures. I must stress that this crisis is not simply about ownership; it is about the hollowing out of newsrooms across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the redundancies at Reach, with over 300 editorial jobs gone in September alone. Titles that once had rich, thriving newsrooms are being left with one dedicated reporter, or sometimes none. Communities are being stripped of their chroniclers. Journalists are being stripped of their livelihoods. While the cuts happen, companies increasingly turn to AI to churn out homogenised, centralised copy.”
“People lose the very information they need to understand what is happening in their constituencies, and what is happening in their lives. The broken business models that we see today are a direct result of the local media market being dominated by a handful of corporations whose priorities have been consolidation, cost-cutting and the extraction of profit from once-thriving community institutions. Three companies now control over half the UK’s local papers and websites, and two companies dominate local radio. The same patterns are being replicated in the national media, with potential takeovers threatening to concentrate nearly half the newspaper market into the hands of a single individual. That is why new market rules must be introduced—not to punish success, but to safeguard the public interest.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this debate, and for his brilliant speech. I draw the House’s attention to my role as chair of the NUJ parliamentary group. Since 2005, nearly 300 local papers have closed their doors. Millions now live in communities with only one local title, and millions more live in what we can only call news deserts, where meaningful local reporting just does not exist. We all know what that means: when there is no one in the room holding power to account, decisions are taken in the dark. When there is no local reporter at council meetings, in our courts or on our high streets, communities lose their voice.”
“I understand the importance of involving those at the coalface in the Government’s deliberations on the upcoming media strategy. Would he agree to meet the National Union of Journalists and consult it on the local media strategy?”
“Without proper investment in infrastructure, green industries, modern transport, digital systems and manufacturing, we simply cannot build the prosperous future we deserve. We have made a fantastic start this week. The Chancellor’s strategies—such as Pride in Place, which will see parts of Salford receive £20 million over the next 10 years—are welcome, but we need further announcements on industrial strategy and strategic investments over the coming year. We have waited years for this. We have millions of people who are ready to work, build, care, invent and dream. Let the Budget be the spark that drives wider transformation, so that we have a fairer economy, a fairer society and a Government who match the courage and aspirations of their people.”
“The Government have an opportunity to ensure that the energy system works for the public good, and to consider windfall taxes, fair pricing and even forms of public ownership. A resilient, affordable green energy system would strengthen the whole economy. More broadly, the economy urgently needs strengthening. The OBR forecasts only 1.5% growth this year and sluggish productivity for the rest of the decade, and that is the result of 14 years of short-termism, of putting short-term dividend extraction before long-term industrial strategy, and of the UK investing barely 18% of GDP in productive assets. That is far behind countries such as France, Germany, China and India. We are not punching above our weight, but we should.”
“The same principles of fairness must extend to the broader financial sector. The banking industry benefits from extraordinary Government support, with deposit guarantees, central bank facilities and vast rounds of quantitative easing, while the public receive little in return. Governments of all stripes continue to grant what is now an annual £23 billion in interest payments on central reserves. That was meant to be a temporary fix to help following the financial crash, but many EU countries have stopped paying that interest. We could look at doing that, too. The same forward-thinking approach is needed on energy policy. Removing green levies from bills will bring welcome relief, but families still face high costs, while energy giants have made more than £125 billion in profits since 2020.”
“We should eliminate the structural unfairness whereby normal people’s salaries are taxed at higher rates than income derived from wealth, and the freezing of tax rates, which quietly drags millions more people into tax bands that were never designed for them. It was good last week to see the Government introduce an online gambling tax, and a tax on homes worth more than £2 million, but I hope we will now explore the many more options available to us to restore fairness. We could tax capital gains and dividends at the same rate as wages. We could tax share buy-backs, and reintroduce the investment income surcharge that the Tories scrapped in 1984. We could charge VAT on financial services such as wealth management. We could look at a whole plethora of wealth taxes and so much more.”
“She knows that we need money for our public services, after 14 years of crippling austerity, which have held our country back and destroyed our public sector, but restoring the public finances is the first building block of growth. That is not an easy task when we are working with a tax system that has needed fundamental reform for decades. I hope that the next step will be to design a tax system rooted in fairness and clarity, and a long-term strategy that lifts up those on modest incomes, supports young people striving to build their futures and ensures that national prosperity is shared, rather than hoarded.”
“When Government choose to act, when they choose to listen and when they choose compassion, millions of lives are changed. The decision to scrap the two-child benefit cap will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty and ease the suffering of almost a million more. It is a humane, necessary intervention, and the Chancellor should rightly be proud of what she has done. All those who campaigned tirelessly for this over the past year should feel immensely proud. I am hopeful that this is just the beginning of a wider ambitious programme of reform to restore fairness, rebuild our economy, and restore the hope, which we thought was lost, that life will get better for every passing generation. I know how hard the Chancellor has worked.”
“My constituent was separated from her five-year-old son during the horrors of displacement in Sudan. By a sheer miracle, he made it to Saudi Arabia; he is now staying there temporarily until 1 December, after which time he will be forced to return to Sudan. What can the Foreign Secretary do to support families such as that by way of evacuation pathways or humanitarian schemes?”
“The Home Secretary is aware that, in the absence of safe and legal routes, the law forces a refugee to set foot on UK soil to seek asylum, which has led to dangerous journeys and no checks or vetting taking place. She has referenced sponsorship as the primary safe route. Could she clarify whether this can be applied for from outside the UK, and what consideration has she made of recommendations by Safe Passage to implement a visa refugee scheme, so that applications can be done from outside the UK, with cases assessed, vetted and decided before a refugee embarks on a dangerous journey here?”
“We must make domestic law fit for purpose by ensuring that multinationals cannot hide behind opaque structures, and that the UK does not act as a facilitator for profit shifting through low-tax dependencies. Broadly, we must lead reform on the international stage. Britain should champion stronger global agreements—not merely a minimalist 15% tax floor, but a framework that stops profit shifting altogether. That means automatic exchange of tax information, higher global minimum rates, global minimum tax enforcement standards, pressure for jurisdictions that facilitate profit shifting to reform, and co-ordinated sanctions imposed against them if they refuse to co-operate. Fundamentally, this is about fairness, accountability and the very future of democracy itself.”
“beneficial ownership registers must be complete, verified and accessible to all, and there must be comprehensive disclosure of cross-border affiliate transactions of intra-group pricing and payments in dividends flowing to low or zero-tax jurisdictions. Secondly, HMRC must be properly equipped. The Department is dramatically under-resourced, so it needs resources, specialist expertise and the independence to pursue large-scale investigations without political constraint. The diverted profits tax should be strengthened, and penalties must actually bite. Thirdly, we need structural reform at home. The UK must stop indulging secrecy within its own network of territories. It should require those jurisdictions to meet the same standards of transparency and accountability as the mainland.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for securing the debate. It is a simple principle: profits should be taxed where real economic activity takes place. Yet that simple principle is routinely violated, and multinational corporations move billions through paper subsidiaries, internal loans and royalty payments to places where little or no real business occurs. As we have heard today, the result is devastating. For the United Kingdom alone, it represents tens of billions lost—money that should be funding our hospitals, schools, transport and care. Sadly, the UK’s current approach is still falling short, so what must we do? First, we need real transparency. Public country-by-country reporting must be mandatory.”
“I know that the Minister agrees with much of that, which is why I am hopeful about her response. When we truly invest in council housing, we do not just end homelessness; we create jobs, strengthen communities, cut carbon emissions and give people a stake in their own future.”
“While we are at it, we must lift the shackles from council borrowing and address the issues that councils face in meeting borrowing rules. From cuts to budgets, maintenance backlogs, right-to-buy losses and falling rent yields as local housing allowance fails to meet housing spend, housing revenue accounts are in a state of crisis and that must be addressed to remove barriers to borrowing. We must also fix the planning system and rebuild council capacity. Decades of cuts have gutted planning departments and valuable experience has been lost. We must also rebuild those local housing teams and council-owned development companies that can plan for the long term and with social purpose at their core. Salford city council has led the way on that with its own model, Dérive, and that could be replicated across the country.”
“I thank the co-sponsors of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). We start from a position where we have lost more than 260,000 social rented homes in the last decade. Even now, most so-called affordable homes are out of reach for the people who need them most. Ultimately, if we are serious about ending homelessness, we must give local authorities the power, funding and freedom to build social homes at scale. That starts with looking at the affordable homes programme, which is sadly not enough. It too often delivers homes at supposedly affordable rents that, in many places, are anything but. Councils need grant rates high enough to deliver homes at true social rent so that ordinary families can actually afford them.”
“I hope that today he can finally provide reassurance that the BNO visa scheme will be exempt from the changes proposed, and provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on the other points that I have raised. I welcome him to his new position; I am sure he will do fantastically.”
“Salford is home to one of the largest Hongkonger communities in the UK, and I was proud to attend their community awards recently, which awarded members of the community for their efforts in doing good for the city of Salford, from litter picks to supporting those most in need. It was clear that all these people were dedicated to giving back to the society and economy that embraced them. Many came as part of the BNO visa scheme set up in recognition of the UK’s historic and moral commitments to the people of Hong Kong. Many were British citizens prior to 1997, and they maintain British nationality via the BNO passport. I am sure the Minister will agree that the fear that is caused within this community is unnecessary.”
“To protect those migrant workers, in addition to the retention of the five-year route to ILR and a commitment not to apply retrospective changes, I also ask the Minister to consider sector-wide visa schemes in social care, enabling them to challenge bad employers without the threat of dismissal and removal. This extends beyond social care; there must also be greater protection for migrant workers in all sectors from exploitation and the strengthening of access to trade union rights. Finally, the second group of constituents who are most affected in Salford—and have contacted me in great fear—are those within the Hong Kong community.”
“The White Paper also fails to provide any transitional protections for current skilled migrants already working here on the five-year skilled worker visa pathway to ILR. That is causing anxiety to workers and businesses alike. Again, will the Minister reassure these workers today and confirm that there will be no attempt to make retrospective changes? Social care is another sector that would collapse without the support of skilled migrant labour, but it has endemic low pay and exploitation. I have heard at first hand harrowing stories from workers who were brought here on skilled worker visas, and have been threatened, exploited and frequently underpaid—or not paid at all—but because they are reliant on visa support from their employer, they are often forced to keep silent about these abuses or face having their visa removed.”
“The White Paper introduces preferential immigration routes for what it calls high-value contributors, including a shorter qualifying period for ILR and citizenship, but it fails to define what sectors or roles actually qualify and there has not been an impact assessment on the loss of these workers to each sector. Oxford Economics found that in defence alone, in just one north-west manufacturer—BAE Systems—each skilled migrant employee contributes over £84,000 per year to the UK economy. Moreover, as well as being economically valuable, they are integral to our national security and sovereign capability. Will the Minister provide reassurance today and outline the sectors whose workers will qualify as high-value contributors, and which sectors will be provided with an exemption?”