Proposed immigration changes 2025 discussion thread - UK set to limit permanent residency for some migrants

[secret.simon]

Not really contradictory. One must really watch Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister to understand at least some of the language. It has been said that those two TV series were not so much comedy as documentary about the behind the scenes working of government in the UK.

Specifically it has this paragraph:

The Home Office on Sunday told the Financial Times that the policy would not apply retrospectively to people already in the UK, since the courts would be likely to rule this illegal.

That is a Home Office civil servant giving that quote, because the quote is attributed to the Home Office itself. And they are correct.

The courts have already ruled in the 2000s/noughties that a person who is on a particular pathway to ILR stays on that pathway to ILR even if the Immigration Rules have changed in the meanwhile.

That is why I have mentioned in the my posts above that the government is likely using an Act of Parliament to make the changes, because an Act of Parliament can override a court judgment, while a mere change of the Immigration Rules by a minister can be overruled by the courts. Making the changes by Act of Parliament essentially makes it bullet-proof in the courts.

Followed immediately by:

But a person close to Cooper said on Wednesday that, under current plans, any applications for settlement put in after the point at which the more restrictive policy came into effect would fall under the new rules “regardless of when the individual first came to the country”.

Applications for settlement are usually made at the end of the five-year period in which a migrant has been living in the UK.

The person added, however, that the Home Office had yet to confirm when the new rules would take effect, suggesting people nearing the five-year deadline soon might be spared.

"Person close to Cooper" (note "Cooper", not "the Home Secretary") almost certainly means a political advisor or somebody advising the Minister from the political side of things, i.e. not a civil servant. Indeed, in Yes Minister, there's a whole list of code words (such as "Informed sources", etc) which would suggest that perhaps even the minister themselves or a junior minister in the Home Office may have briefed the FT themselves.

Essentially, the first quote is from a civil servant following and interpreting the current known rules and laws and the second quote is from a politician stating the changes that they want to bring in.

By the sounds of it, not even the government are fully aligned on what the exact plans are at this stage. Hopefully with enough pressure, we can start to get some back tracking and delays... I've already written to my MP to complain, I sugggest many others do the same.

You can and absolutely should write to your MPs on this topic (and vote in all local elections if you are eligible). But keep in mind that the reason for this sudden change in policy is because of political pressure, namely the sudden rise of Reform in local elections at the start of the month. And complaining to the MPs is unlikely to change that reality for them.

[secret.simon]

Below is the quickest timeline between white paper published and it becoming a law. Previous record was 18months. Fingers crossed that the current white paper about ILR one does not break the previous record.

1. European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020
White Paper Published: 24 July 2018

Royal Assent (became law): 23 January 2020

Duration: About 18 months (1 year and 6 months)

I probably would not take the Brexit withdrawal period as the best example, given how fractious that period was in Parliament and an external deadline imposed by the EU.

Could you provide a link to the source of your analysis?

[kpmsc]

Not really contradictory. One must really watch Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister to understand at least some of the language. It has been said that those two TV series were not so much comedy as documentary about the behind the scenes working of government in the UK.

Specifically it has this paragraph:

The Home Office on Sunday told the Financial Times that the policy would not apply retrospectively to people already in the UK, since the courts would be likely to rule this illegal.

That is a Home Office civil servant giving that quote, because the quote is attributed to the Home Office itself. And they are correct.

The courts have already ruled in the 2000s/noughties that a person who is on a particular pathway to ILR stays on that pathway to ILR even if the Immigration Rules have changed in the meanwhile.

That is why I have mentioned in the my posts above that the government is likely using an Act of Parliament to make the changes, because an Act of Parliament can override a court judgment, while a mere change of the Immigration Rules by a minister can be overruled by the courts. Making the changes by Act of Parliament essentially makes it bullet-proof in the courts.

Followed immediately by:

But a person close to Cooper said on Wednesday that, under current plans, any applications for settlement put in after the point at which the more restrictive policy came into effect would fall under the new rules “regardless of when the individual first came to the country”.

Applications for settlement are usually made at the end of the five-year period in which a migrant has been living in the UK.

The person added, however, that the Home Office had yet to confirm when the new rules would take effect, suggesting people nearing the five-year deadline soon might be spared.

"Person close to Cooper" (note "Cooper", not "the Home Secretary") almost certainly means a political advisor or somebody advising the Minister from the political side of things, i.e. not a civil servant. Indeed, in Yes Minister, there's a whole list of code words (such as "Informed sources", etc) which would suggest that perhaps even the minister themselves or a junior minister in the Home Office may have briefed the FT themselves.

Essentially, the first quote is from a civil servant following and interpreting the current known rules and laws and the second quote is from a politician stating the changes that they want to bring in.

By the sounds of it, not even the government are fully aligned on what the exact plans are at this stage. Hopefully with enough pressure, we can start to get some back tracking and delays... I've already written to my MP to complain, I sugggest many others do the same.

You can and absolutely should write to your MPs on this topic (and vote in all local elections if you are eligible). But keep in mind that the reason for this sudden change in policy is because of political pressure, namely the sudden rise of Reform in local elections at the start of the month. And complaining to the MPs is unlikely to change that reality for them.

The Home minister has mentioned that there will be a consultation. Who will they consult with ?
I assume based on the inputs from the MPs. So I think it is a good move, by the people who are concerned about this white paper. After looking at the timelines of the previous white papers to it becoming law, it is very unlikely that it will happen cold turkey, this year(me being cautiously optimistic).
Just to remove the illegal immigrants from UK it is taking ages, and the migrant's less friendly conservative party could not do it any quick. I don't think the legal migration is more pressing than the illegal migration. The PM few months ago was seen talking highly about legal migrants. The white paper has been released as a result of reform party's victories. So I feel, the legal migrants don't have to press panic button yet.

[DrUni]

Has anyone read this article on gov.uk website?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/immi ... hen-border

The article mentions under 'Earned Settlement' that 'further details to be set out to Parliament by the end of the year'. Maybe that means that changes won't be implemented till next year.

Also under the same paragraph, it says: "The policies outlined, part of the government’s Plan for Change, will be delivered over the course of this Parliament to strengthen the UK’s immigration system, with the first changes set to be introduced in the coming weeks". Which means that some changes in the white paper are coming soon.

[kpmsc]

Below is the quickest timeline between white paper published and it becoming a law. Previous record was 18months. Fingers crossed that the current white paper about ILR one does not break the previous record.

1. European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020
White Paper Published: 24 July 2018

Royal Assent (became law): 23 January 2020

Duration: About 18 months (1 year and 6 months)

I probably would not take the Brexit withdrawal period as the best example, given how fractious that period was in Parliament and an external deadline imposed by the EU.

Could you provide a link to the source of your analysis?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea ... )_Act_2020

[secret.simon]

The Home minister has mentioned that there will be a consultation. Who will they consult with ?

Typically representatives of bodies affected by the changes. So very likely some organisations/charities representing the affected migrants, probably balanced by people who campaign against migration (in the interest of balance), representatives of the care sector and NHS trusts that will be affected by the changes, universities if student visas will be impacted, business groups if work visas are affected, etc. Essentially affected civil society interest groups.

Essentially the policy is decided, thence the White Paper. Consultation will be for smoothing out the edges of the implementation of the policy. So the finer details of how the policy will be rolled out. It is unlikely to change the policy itself.

MPs of course feedback to ministers all the time. That's what the Whips and PPSs are there for. They are typically not involved in a formal consultation. They give feedback within a political context. It is quite likely that Labour MPs at the very least will likely already have been sounded out about the policy through the Whips and PPSs before the policy was announced. Senior civil servants would have been asked about whether such a policy could be implemented and how quickly it could be rolled out, etc. That kind of discussion does on in government all the time and I would not classify that as "consultation".

Consultations would be conducted by the Home Office, a government body, typically by civil servants. As mentioned, the job of a consultation and of civil servants is to implement a policy that has already been decided by ministers.

Keep in mind that MPs, especially those of the two largest parties, are under great pressure from the move of many voters to Reform. The smaller parties (from the Lib Dems down) are numerically small enough to be irrelevant, except in case of a very close vote, which would be unlikely given the pressure that Labour MPs are from the drift to Reform.

Just to remove the illegal immigrants from UK it is taking ages

I think the purpose of this policy is to make it unattractive for people to come to the UK in the first place. So removal from the UK is not the purpose of this policy. Indeed, this policy is aimed at legal migrants. The purpose is to make moving to the UK or settling in the UK through a legal pathway undesirable. It is at least partially psychological and aimed really at current and future migrants.

The article mentions under 'Earned Settlement' that 'further details to be set out to Parliament by the end of the year'.

This is the kind of thing that the consultation will look at. The policy of "Earned Settlement" is decided. But what factors should be taken into account, would it be only positive (i.e. would it only take positive actions into account) or would it look at a balance (positive vs negative actions of the applicant, etc), the details of the implementation is what the consultations would look at.

Also under the same paragraph, it says: "The policies outlined, part of the government’s Plan for Change, will be delivered over the course of this Parliament to strengthen the UK’s immigration system, with the first changes set to be introduced in the coming weeks". Which means that some changes in the white paper are coming soon.

As mentioned by me in an earlier post, I'd expect some changes, the ones that cane be done by Statutory Instruments by ministers, either before the summer recess of Parliament (mid-to-late July) or, for maximum press coverage, the party conference seasons (September-October).

For those of you who are strongly opposed to the changes, those who are eligible to vote can also choose to join the parties and try to give feedback via the relevant party apparatuses.

[kpmsc]

The Home minister has mentioned that there will be a consultation. Who will they consult with ?

Typically representatives of bodies affected by the changes. So very likely some organisations/charities representing the affected migrants, probably balanced by people who campaign against migration (in the interest of balance), representatives of the care sector and NHS trusts that will be affected by the changes, universities if student visas will be impacted, business groups if work visas are affected, etc. Essentially affected civil society interest groups.

Essentially the policy is decided, thence the White Paper. Consultation will be for smoothing out the edges of the implementation of the policy. So the finer details of how the policy will be rolled out. It is unlikely to change the policy itself.

MPs of course feedback to ministers all the time. That's what the Whips and PPSs are there for. They are typically not involved in a formal consultation. They give feedback within a political context. It is quite likely that Labour MPs at the very least will likely already have been sounded out about the policy through the Whips and PPSs before the policy was announced. Senior civil servants would have been asked about whether such a policy could be implemented and how quickly it could be rolled out, etc. That kind of discussion does on in government all the time and I would not classify that as "consultation".

Consultations would be conducted by the Home Office, a government body, typically by civil servants. As mentioned, the job of a consultation and of civil servants is to implement a policy that has already been decided by ministers.

Keep in mind that MPs, especially those of the two largest parties, are under great pressure from the move of many voters to Reform. The smaller parties (from the Lib Dems down) are numerically small enough to be irrelevant, except in case of a very close vote, which would be unlikely given the pressure that Labour MPs are from the drift to Reform.

Just to remove the illegal immigrants from UK it is taking ages

I think the purpose of this policy is to make it unattractive for people to come to the UK in the first place. So removal from the UK is not the purpose of this policy. Indeed, this policy is aimed at legal migrants. The purpose is to make moving to the UK or settling in the UK through a legal pathway undesirable. It is at least partially psychological and aimed really at current and future migrants.

The article mentions under 'Earned Settlement' that 'further details to be set out to Parliament by the end of the year'.

This is the kind of thing that the consultation will look at. The policy of "Earned Settlement" is decided. But what factors should be taken into account, would it be only positive (i.e. would it only take positive actions into account) or would it look at a balance (positive vs negative actions of the applicant, etc), the details of the implementation is what the consultations would look at.

Also under the same paragraph, it says: "The policies outlined, part of the government’s Plan for Change, will be delivered over the course of this Parliament to strengthen the UK’s immigration system, with the first changes set to be introduced in the coming weeks". Which means that some changes in the white paper are coming soon.

As mentioned by me in an earlier post, I'd expect some changes, the ones that cane be done by Statutory Instruments by ministers, either before the summer recess of Parliament (mid-to-late July) or, for maximum press coverage, the party conference seasons (September-October).

For those of you who are strongly opposed to the changes, those who are eligible to vote can also choose to join the parties and try to give feedback via the relevant party apparatuses.

Sounds easy to discuss, but we will have to wait and watch. My guess is if the government is too pushy(I mean by action, not just verbal), I expect big changes like changing ILR qualification period to 10 years, might start from next year. Obviously the easy to implement ones like student visa, care visa, English language etc can be implemented in the next few weeks. People who came in SWV after April 2020 are already getting ILR. So my guess is, difficult ones are not going to be implemented this year.

[777GE90]

Can someone with greater insight tell me what your thoughts are on the Life in the UK test. My wife still has about a year left until she can apply for ILR (hopefully...), but I noticed some people are rushing to do their Life in the UK test now before they change the test.

I was kinda thinking that would be a pointless task but now I'm not so sure, my assumption was the government would announce a new Life in the UK test from date X (e.g. Sep 2025) and if I was applying for a visa / ILR in date Y (e.g. Jun 2026) they would only accept the new Life in the UK test and not the old one which could only be used on date X (e.g. Sep 2025).

But some people seem to think that once they have the Life in the UK it's good for life so better to take it now and have it on hand before the rules change.

What do people think?

[zxyzhgp]

It is reported that labour is going to introduce a movement scheme for EU young people (18-30) which allows ~40000 persons per year. Let see what happen next week. This white paper properly makes some room for that. Keep in mind the recent deal with India will allow India workers to come to the UK without work visa.

If you link them together, it makes sense now. This is 4D chess bro and Labour is actually very smart =D

[James6384]

Hi guys,
I posted this in the ILR subforum before realizing I'm not supposed to, and so am re-posting it here.
I came across a parliamentary bill that's currently going through its 2nd reading, which includes some proposals that appear rather shocking to me. What stood out to me is that according to the Bill, it looks like people who already have ILR would have their status revoked retrospectively if they have received any social support or if their income has dropped below £38700 for six months or more on aggregate either before or since they gained ILR. Here is the bill in detail: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... 240234.pdf
For context, my wife is an ILR holder who would be affected by this (as would a substantial proportion if not the majority of all ILR holders, it would seem to me).
Surely this bill won't possibly pass, right?

[alterhase58]

This draft bill was introduced by the opposition Conservative Party…. So highly unlikely that it will pass with government support.

[James6384]

This draft bill was introduced by the opposition Conservative Party…. So highly unlikely that it will pass with government support.

Thanks for the reassurance. Although it's concerning that something this extreme was even thought up. It makes me uncertain about what sort of draconian laws could be put in place in future, and whether ILR itself will always remain the secure status that it is for those who have it.

[MyGodisable]

[highlight=yellow]That is why I have [url=https://www.immigrationboards.com/viewt ... 9#p2193166]mentioned in the my posts above[/url] that the government is likely using an Act of Parliament to make the changes, because an Act of Parliament can override a court judgment, while a mere change of the Immigration Rules by a minister can be overruled by the courts. Making the changes by Act of Parliament essentially makes it bullet-proof in the courts.
[/highlight]

@ secret.simon: Based on your statement above. It is now confirmed by the House of Common/Parliament that most of these changes doesn't need the Act of Parliament or statutory instrument for it to be changed except the issue of the levy on student fees. You can find this in the new post delivered on the Parliamentary site yesterday 20/05/25 - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... cbp-10267/. So like things is folding right now, it seems the issue of ILR in my own understanding might not be applied to those in the UK or else it is likely to be challenged in court. Please you can get me wrong on this.

[MyGodisable]

@ secret.simon: Based on your statement above. It is now confirmed by the House of Common/Parliament that most of these changes doesn't need the Act of Parliament or statutory instrument for it to be changed except the issue of the levy on student fees. You can find this in the new post delivered on the Parliamentary site yesterday 20/05/25 - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... cbp-10267/. So like things is folding right now, it seems the issue of ILR in my own understanding might not be applied to those in the UK or else it is likely to be challenged in court. Please you can get me wrong on this.

[Mem2025]

I think either they don’t know exactly what they gonna do. Or they want to blindside everyone with very strict measures

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 5-13/51988

[777GE90]

That is why I have mentioned in the my posts above that the government is likely using an Act of Parliament to make the changes, because an Act of Parliament can override a court judgment, while a mere change of the Immigration Rules by a minister can be overruled by the courts. Making the changes by Act of Parliament essentially makes it bullet-proof in the courts.


@ secret.simon: Based on your statement above. It is now confirmed by the House of Common/Parliament that most of these changes doesn't need the Act of Parliament or statutory instrument for it to be changed except the issue of the levy on student fees. You can find this in the new post delivered on the Parliamentary site yesterday 20/05/25 - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... cbp-10267/. So like things is folding right now, it seems the issue of ILR in my own understanding might not be applied to those in the UK or else it is likely to be challenged in court. Please you can get me wrong on this.

Thanks for sharing, this is reassuring for me and my wife:

Which visa categories will be affected by the longer qualifying period?

There are explicit exemptions for people married to British citizens, who will continue to qualify for settlement after five years...

But won't stop me sending e-mails to my MP and signing petitions to make sure it doesn't happen to anyone else on other routes.

[kpmsc]

@ secret.simon: Based on your statement above. It is now confirmed by the House of Common/Parliament that most of these changes doesn't need the Act of Parliament or statutory instrument for it to be changed except the issue of the levy on student fees. You can find this in the new post delivered on the Parliamentary site yesterday 20/05/25 - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... cbp-10267/. So like things is folding right now, it seems the issue of ILR in my own understanding might not be applied to those in the UK or else it is likely to be challenged in court. Please you can get me wrong on this.

It says "There are explicit exemptions for people married to British citizens".
I am still confused if this would apply for Skilled worker dependants of British citizens(via Skilled worker route).

[777GE90]

@ secret.simon: Based on your statement above. It is now confirmed by the House of Common/Parliament that most of these changes doesn't need the Act of Parliament or statutory instrument for it to be changed except the issue of the levy on student fees. You can find this in the new post delivered on the Parliamentary site yesterday 20/05/25 - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... cbp-10267/. So like things is folding right now, it seems the issue of ILR in my own understanding might not be applied to those in the UK or else it is likely to be challenged in court. Please you can get me wrong on this.

It says "There are explicit exemptions for people married to British citizens".
I am still confused if this would apply for Skilled worker dependants of British citizens(via Skilled worker route).

Ye that is not clear to me either, my assumption is they mean people on the partner visa but bit strange they just mention "married" people explicitly, since the partner visa also includes unmarried partners, children, etc which you would think would be excluded too - and ofcourse as you say skilled worker dependents who are also married could count too.

[secret.simon]

@ secret.simon: Based on your statement above. It is now confirmed by the House of Common/Parliament that most of these changes doesn't need the Act of Parliament or statutory instrument for it to be changed except the issue of the levy on student fees. You can find this in the new post delivered on the Parliamentary site yesterday 20/05/25 - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... cbp-10267/. So like things is folding right now, it seems the issue of ILR in my own understanding might not be applied to those in the UK or else it is likely to be challenged in court. Please you can get me wrong on this.

Nothing has been "confirmed by the House of Commons/Parliament". The document you have linked to is a House of Commons Library Research Briefing that summarises the White Paper and subsequent developments (such as parliamentary questions & answers, media statements, etc) for the information of MPs. It is a summary of the situation as of the date of the publication of the Research Briefing . That's all.

And even that states that the government wants to make the new changes applicable to those already in the UK. That would be against existing case law.

But case law can be overturned by Act of Parliament, which can't be challenged in UK courts. So, if the government wants to get it through, and if it is going to introduce a Bill (which will become an Act of Parliament after passed by Parliament) on this topic anyway, these rules can be applied retrospectively, to people already in the UK. And that can't be challenged in court.

Put simply, if the government is determined to get its way on this topic and make the changes retrospectively applicable to people already in the UK, it can, via Act of Parliament. And it can't be stopped through a legal process, but solely through political processes and pressures.

Keep in mind that the government has the countervailing political pressure of the Reform Party winning in elections (English local and by-elections so far) and would want to make the changes before the Scottish and Welsh Parliament elections due next year, where Reform may do well.

To other comments in the thread, about "married" vs other types of dependents, about spouses on Skilled Worker visas, etc, and that the government hasn't worked out what it wants, this is a White Paper, a political statement of broad proposals. The details almost certainly haven't yet been worked out. That is why they haven't been published as a Statutory Instrument with immediate effect. The government department (i.e. the civil service of the Home office in this case) is likely consulting with both lawyers and with civil society groups on how to implement the political will expressed in the White Paper. When they have worked that out is when we will see the details in the changes to the Immigration Rules and proposed Bill.

EDIT: There is a petition on the Petitions.parliament.uk website on this topic. It has already reached the 100,000 threshold, but it may be worth signing up to the petition to show how widespread support is for retaining the five year pathway to ILR.

Note that there will likely be a parliamentary debate on this topic, but that will just be an advisory debate with no vote.

[secret.simon]

I came across a parliamentary bill that's currently going through its 2nd reading, which includes some proposals that appear rather shocking to me. What stood out to me is that according to the Bill, it looks like people who already have ILR would have their status revoked retrospectively if they have received any social support or if their income has dropped below £38700 for six months or more on aggregate either before or since they gained ILR. Here is the bill in detail: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/b ... 240234.pdf
For context, my wife is an ILR holder who would be affected by this (as would a substantial proportion if not the majority of all ILR holders, it would seem to me).
Surely this bill won't possibly pass, right?

This draft bill was introduced by the opposition Conservative Party…. So highly unlikely that it will pass with government support.

Correct. It will not pass. It will not even get to a vote.

It is not "going through its 2nd reading", it is awaiting a second reading which will not happen. The normal rules of the House of Commons is that the government controls the time and schedule of the House of Commons for all sittings from Monday to Thursday (the word "normal" is important there. These rules can be changed temporarily, as happened very frequently during the Brexit debates and the Theresa May administration, which is why the House could not function normally at that time).

Private Members Bills (PMBs), like this Bill, are proposed laws introduced by any MP of any party who is not a government minister. And they can only be debated on 20 allocated Fridays per session of Parliament (typically one year). Competition among MPs for slots to get space on those 20 Fridays is fierce. This year, the Assisted Dying Bill is taking up a lot of the Friday PMB time allocation. Also, the bill in question is a presentation bill, a type of PMB that is practically never going to be discussed. The purpose of such a bill is to advertise what kind of laws/policies the MP/party in question would want to present. In other words, it is political theatre.

But again, this is where politics comes into the picture. The government could cherry-pick ideas from such presentation bills into its own legislative plans/bills. So, while that Bill will almost certainly not proceed, the proposals within it may, if the government thinks it is a vote-winner.

And that last bit, about the government wanting to pick vote-winners is both the nub of the problem and the basis of democracy.

[MyGodisable]

[glow=red]And even that states that the government wants to make the new changes applicable to those already in the UK. That would be against [url=https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... 8/664.html]existing case law[/url].

But case law can be overturned by Act of Parliament, which can't be challenged in UK courts. So, if the government wants to get it through, and if it is going to introduce a Bill (which will become an Act of Parliament after passed by Parliament) on this topic anyway, these rules can be applied retrospectively, to people already in the UK. And that can't be challenged in court.
[/glow]

[MyGodisable]

@Secret.simon - Why I appreciate as you have said that the government can over ride the laid down rules and regulation of presenting bills and uses the Act of parliament. What this parliamentary library link https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... cbp-10267/ I posted earlier was saying is that, this is should not be the case as the government is expected to follow the laid down rules and regulation of enacting law, which is the use of statement of change, which is the normal laid down rules and regulation that has been existing from the days the immigration rules was in place and which make it impossible to be applied to those already in the UK.

I remember in the time of Teresa May, when the then government want to use an Act of parliament to over ride the laid down rules and regulation of presenting bills, most of the which were passed by the House of Commons but where later voted out by the House of Lord.

Likewise in this same sense, I will also expected the government to do the same and use a statement of change instead of Act of Parliament. Remember the House of lord is not the same as House of commons. while the rule can be passed by the House of Common and this government can get away with it, it can be voted out by the House of Lord, because I still remember that the House of Lords still follows court judgement on a rule before they give it their approval. This actually happens during the time of Teresa May and i still remember very well.

Moreover, the petition you provided in your statement above, I will expect anyone including yourself to sign the petition to show support and appreciation to all the Skilled worker migrants in the UK that left their homes and come to the UK to contribute immensely to this economy.

[secret.simon]

@secret.simon - Why I appreciate as you have said that the government can over ride the laid down rules and regulation of presenting bills and uses the Act of parliament. What this parliamentary library link https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... cbp-10267/ I posted earlier was saying is that, this is should not be the case as the government is expected to follow the laid down rules and regulation of enacting law, which is the use of statement of change, which is the normal laid down rules and regulation that has been existing from the days the immigration rules was in place and which make it impossible to be applied to those already in the UK.

That is not my reading of the document. Indeed, I am not sure where you read that it is telling the government on what to do and what not to do. It is not for the Commons Library to tell the government on how to legislate. What the document does is to provide MPs more background information on the proposals, nothing more.

The government will likely do both, make a Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules for the rules that it can change and introduce a Bill for the rules that it wants to change, but can't via the Statement of Changes. It can do both.

I would have thought that people would prefer that the government makes law by proper debate in Parliament (which is what passing a Bill would entail) rather than making law by the signature of a Minister (which is what a Statement of Change would entail).

I remember in the time of Teresa May, when the then government want to use an Act of parliament to over ride the laid down rules and regulation of presenting bills, most of the which were passed by the House of Commons but where later voted out by the House of Lord.

Likewise in this same sense, I will also expected the government to do the same and use a statement of change instead of Act of Parliament. Remember the House of lord is not the same as House of commons. while the rule can be passed by the House of Common and this government can get away with it, it can be voted out by the House of Lord, because I still remember that the House of Lords still follows court judgement on a rule before they give it their approval. This actually happens during the time of Teresa May and i still remember very well.

I would be very chary of using examples from the time of Theresa May's premiership (I'm sure there is a football joke there somewhere, but it eludes me). Indeed, Theresa May's premiership is the exception that proves the rules. For a start, her government did not have a majority in the House of Commons. Secondly the Brexit issue had led to a breakdown in party discipline in both the two main parties, though perhaps more pronounced on the Conservative side. The House of Lords was therefore, at the time, much more assertive because they knew that if they sent something back to the Commons, it may not come back.

Normally, the House of Lords is much more restrained in its approach to government legislation introduced in and passed by the Commons. Both the Salisbury convention and the Parliaments Acts 1911 & 1949 constrain the ability of the Lords to block government legislation. They can and do amend it, but at the end of the day, if the Commons (where the current government has a huge majority) wants to pass legislation, the Lords will not stop them. The Lords can tidy up the rough edges of the legislation, but the Commons will have its way.