Iqbal Mohamed

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.