(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate. I will focus today on two groups, Hongkongers and Ukrainians, as the two largest recipients of humanitarian visas between 2019 and 2024. Recipients of humanitarian visas, however, come from a wide range of places, including conflict zones in Africa and the middle east. Hon. Members who wish to refer to broader UK initiatives, including the Afghan resettlement programme, are welcome to do so.
Since 2021, thousands of Hongkongers and Ukrainians have made the UK their home, including many families in my constituency, who now live, work, study and volunteer here. They have become our neighbours, colleagues and friends. I believe our communities are richer because they chose to build their futures in the UK. Colleagues will recall that, after Beijing’s imposition of the national security law and the crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong, there was cross-party recognition that the UK had a moral and historical responsibility to offer a route to those holding British national overseas status—thus the BNO visa scheme was born.
Since 2021, approximately 200,000 Hongkongers have come to the UK and put down roots in this country, working their way towards indefinite leave to remain after five years. That is why that, when the Home Office published its immigration White Paper in May this year, it was a shock for many to learn that the Government intended to increase the standard qualifying period for settlement to 10 years across the board. That created significant uncertainty, especially for Hongkongers, with accusations that the goalposts were moving retrospectively.
Fast forward to last week, when the Home Office published Command Paper 1448 and launched a 12-week consultation on how to implement the White Paper. For Hongkongers, that paper contains an important and welcome clarification: BNO visa holders will be fully exempt from the proposed earned settlement criteria, and will retain a five-year route to ILR. The paper confirms that the Government remain fully committed to the BNO route. The Home Secretary went further on the Floor of the House by noting that this country has
“always supported…the repatriation of Hongkongers.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 547.]
The word “repatriation” is important. It communicates the sense that the UK sees Hongkongers as people who rightfully belong and whose presence is understood and recognised. That is an important and powerful message. I want to place on record my thanks to the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers for their continued commitment.
The headline announcement has not dispelled all anxiety, however, for two reasons. First, the consultation document suggests that, to be eligible for ILR, applicants should demonstrate that they have earned at least £12,570 per year for three to five years. The intention behind that is understandable—to maintain confidence in the system—but the BNO route was never conceived as a classic economic migration route. It is a humanitarian route for people who have demonstrated a uniquely strong attachment to this country.
Many BNO households are income poor but asset rich. They arrived with significant savings and have supported themselves without recourse to public funds. Given the shift to a new culture and way of living, income patterns do not necessarily fit neatly into rigid salary thresholds, which is a concern. Secondly, there is the proposed increase in the English language requirement from B1 to B2. Thousands of BNO holders have already paid for and passed the B1 test in good time. Moving the goalposts to B2 now would shut many people out of ILR in the short term, despite years of lawful residence, work and contribution.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
My constituents in Chelmsford, which has a sizeable BNO population, are concerned about the issues that the hon. Member has just raised. As for the question of economic migration, many of them came here as students or retirees so it is difficult for them to fulfil the criteria, and they feel that the rug is being pulled out from underneath them through retrospective changes to the language criteria. Does the hon. Member agree that that does not make sense and needs to be looked at again?
James Naish
I will come on to five groups who need to be given special consideration, including those that the hon. Member has just mentioned.
Over the weekend, more than 5,000 BNO visa holders completed a survey about the proposals. The results show that if the requirements outlined were strictly applied with no transitional arrangements, only 8% of BNO households would expect all members to be able to apply for ILR after five years in the UK, and 43% said that no members would be eligible for ILR at the five-year point.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent advocacy on this issue, which is much appreciated across the House. In Uxbridge and South Ruislip, which has a significant and important BNO community, I recognise the concerns that he has outlined. I welcome the fact that the Government have moved, but does my hon. Friend agree that, under the amended proposals, so few BNO holders qualifying for ILR would have a real impact on people’s ability to access student finance and study in the UK, and to integrate into society, and that people being unable to access their pensions back in Hong Kong would have a massive economic impact?
James Naish
Yes, I absolutely agree. I will come on to why that issue matters and I will cover both of my hon. Friend’s points.
Given that the route was designed as a safe and secure five-year pathway for intergenerational families fleeing a severe crackdown on civil liberties, the figures are worrying. They highlight the importance of making sure that the small print aligns with the Government’s overarching strong and welcome commitment to the BNO scheme.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Many Hongkongers in Altrincham and Sale West have written to me with concerns about any changes to the pathway for indefinite leave to remain. My hon. Friend is powerfully making the case on how changes to language or income requirements would have a major impact on their lives. Does he agree that the fact that Hongkongers now account for less than 2% of total visa grants should be an important consideration for the Government as they consult on their immigration proposals and on building a fair but balanced immigration system?
James Naish
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to note that applications fluctuate. Certainly, the 200,000 members of the BNO community who are already here are very much part of our community, but the numbers coming through now are much smaller.
That brings me to why this issue matters. ILR is not a technicality for Hongkongers; it is fundamental to their security and their ability to live a full life in this country, as has already been mentioned. Without ILR and, in due course, citizenship and a UK passport, families will be unable to travel safely. Considerable pension savings in Hong Kong can be accessed only once ILR has been granted, meaning that any delay to ILR could push some into severe hardship. ILR is the gateway to home student fee status. Until children in BNO families have ILR, many will be unable to afford university in the UK. Put bluntly, the way we design and implement these rules will determine the safety, socioeconomic security and contribution of tens of thousands of Hongkongers over the next few years.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am grateful for the speech that the hon. Member is making. He has highlighted many of the reasons why I wrote about this issue for The Atlantic more than six years ago, and why my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as the then Home Secretary, was able to change the law at the time. Does he agree that the importance of this change is fundamental, because it is not just about the ability to integrate here, but about fear of persecution abroad?
The reality is that in our own community now there are many Hongkongers who fear the long arm of the Chinese Communist party, and if they are not secure in their position here, they could be—or at least in their own minds they could be—dragged back to Hong Kong and very severely punished in pretty horrific ways, as Jimmy Lai’s case demonstrates. This is therefore actually about the liberty of British citizens and not just about the right of abode.
James Naish
The right hon. Member has been a tireless advocate for this group of people. I completely agree with everything that he said and I am sure we will continue to work together on these issues.
Over the weekend, I received hundreds of real-life stories from Hongkongers who fell into five main groups, of which a couple have already been referenced. Those groups are, first, self-employed people whose income has varied significantly from year to year since arriving here; secondly, primary carers, typically women, who have purposefully stayed at home to look after young or old dependants; thirdly, children still completing their education; fourthly, older couples who work limited hours for age and health reasons; and finally, families who for practical reasons will not be able to arrange for everybody to study and demonstrate linguistic competency in the next few months.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that this policy framework distinguishes between immigration control on the one hand and, on the other hand, how we treat lawfully present migrants? Does he agree that we must restore order and control to the system for those coming into the UK, but that once people are here, we need to encourage integration and value non-monetary contributions as well, so that we do not skew the system away from the integration that we ultimately need to see for those who are lawfully here?
James Naish
Absolutely. I think that the concept of a retrospective introduction of criteria is what is really concerning residents, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will have been listening to the point that my hon. and learned Friend just made.
With months to go until many BNO families hit the five-year mark, the possibility of a sudden shift has understandably caused anxiety. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the following questions. First, if the Government are to impose a financial test, could this be an assessed contribution at household level rather than for each person in isolation? Secondly, will the Government consider introducing transitional arrangements so that anyone already on a pathway to ILR is not subject to new conditions retrospectively? Thirdly, will the Government consider exempting the BNO route from the changes altogether, having openly acknowledged this group’s historic attachment to the United Kingdom? Fourthly, if these new rules are needed, will the Government look into common-sense exemptions for pensioners, children, disabled people and others whose earning and linguistic potential is likely to remain low?
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. A very large number of people wish to take part in the debate, and I will try to get everybody in, but if there continue to be interventions, some people will not get in. I just ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can shortly bring his remarks to a close so that I can get everybody in. Thank you.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
All right, we will have one more intervention.
Jo White
Thank you, Sir Edward; I will be very quick. I received yesterday a petition from 500 people, so I feel obliged to contribute. Many Hongkongers relocated here, trusting the UK Government’s promise. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) agree that altering the rules after relocation contradicts the spirit in which and the legal ethics under which the route was established?
James Naish
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend and I worked together at Bassetlaw district council and welcomed a lot of Hongkongers into our community, so I thank her for her support today.
I will now turn much more briefly to Ukrainian humanitarian visa routes. It is 11 years since the beginning of Russia’s illegal occupation of parts of Ukraine, and three years since Russia began its full-scale invasion. Since then, over 200,000 displaced Ukrainians have arrived in the UK under Ukrainian visa schemes. However, there remains no pathway to permanent settlement for Ukrainians in the UK, and time spent under these schemes does not count towards the UK’s 10-year route to ILR. A very recent survey of 3,000 Ukrainians by the University of Birmingham demonstrated that this uncertainty is having a deep, emotional and practical toll on that important group.
Like many hon. Members here, I am proud that my constituents continue to support the Ukrainian war effort. In my recent survey, 87% of them said that they support this Government’s continued iron-clad support for Ukraine. I know that many of my constituents would like that support to be reflected in our approach to Ukrainians living in the UK, too. I therefore hope that the Home Office will fully explore how it can enhance the existing Ukrainian visa schemes to provide a route to ILR for Ukrainians deeply embedded in the UK. After all, some Ukrainian children have now spent far more time in the UK school system than the Ukrainian one, and more time speaking English with their friends than Ukrainian. Both Ukrainian adults and children have built vital support networks that they will require as their country is slowly rebuilt, and they should not be forgotten.
I am proud of the BNO and Ukrainian communities in my constituency. In Rushcliffe, Hongkongers and Ukrainians are working in our NHS and care homes, starting businesses, volunteering in community groups and enriching our cultural life. The UK is better off because they chose to come here. I believe that this House recognises their contribution, and I am confident that colleagues will continue to work together to advocate for them. We must ensure that the small print genuinely reflects the spirit of welcome and protection expressed by Ministers, rather than inadvertently undermining it. I look forward to colleagues’ contributions and the Minister’s response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they must bob. As you can see, a large number of colleagues are trying to take part. I shall impose an immediate three-minute limit on speeches. Bear in mind that if you make interventions on your colleagues, somebody may not get in.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on his strong advocacy on this topic.
I welcome the Government’s confirmation last week that people with BNO visas will continue to qualify for permanent residence in the UK after five years. That is the right and fair thing to do for people with such unique attachments to this country. However, the Government’s new consultation has left many of my constituents in Bath concerned about their future, particularly our valuable Hong Kong community. As has already been said, BNOs are not economic migrants; many made an irreversible decision to come to the UK to flee political persecution and repression. For many, returning to Hong Kong is not an option. Changes to indefinite leave to remain requirements could put BNOs in an impossible position: unable to settle in the UK and unable to return to Hong Kong.
One of my constituents is a self-funded PhD student on a BNO visa. He is concerned about the proposed income requirement for ILR. Since any part-time work during his studies could be under the taxable income threshold, it is likely that he will not meet the income requirement during that period. He feels that the UK Government are, in effect, encouraging him either to abandon his PhD in favour of entering the job market or to leave the UK after his PhD studies are complete.
BNO families came to the UK seeking safety, stability and the shared values of freedom and democracy. Retrospective changes risk undermining the spirit of the BNO pathway altogether. The potential for a sudden increase to the B2 English language test is particularly concerning to some of my constituents. Thousands of BNOs are due to become eligible for settlement in 2026. They have been planning and preparing—as we have already heard—for the current B1 English requirement. A sudden mandatory increase to the B2 level, which requires near-fluent conversation and complex argument, is a significant step up from B1 and would be difficult to achieve, especially for many older applicants. For my constituents who have begun the process of settlement while contributing to society, it now feels like the Government are throwing additional barriers in their way.
The Government must look at providing flexibility through a transitional period if they are to press ahead with any of these changes. At the very least, the major wave of applicants in April 2026 should be left unaffected by any of those new rules. I urge the Government to listen.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
Many families in Warrington South have been in touch with me over recent months, worried about their future. We opened the BNO pathway because it was the right thing to do. We did not do it out of charity but because we recognised a historic responsibility and a bond that runs deep. When the BNO route opened, thousands of Hongkongers uprooted their lives under extraordinary pressure. They arrived self-funded, often highly skilled, and determined to make a contribution.
In Warrington, that is exactly what they have done. They work in our public services. They set up their own businesses. They volunteer. They pay taxes. They have bought homes. They are raising their children here with the quiet hope for stability in a country that they now call home. I welcome the Government’s confirmation that the five-year route to ILR will remain intact for BNO families. That was the right decision: it recognises Hongkongers’ unique position and our responsibility to them. But that reassurance is valid only if the mandatory requirements reflect the same spirit of stability and trust.
The concerns that I am hearing are simple: people feel that the goalposts are being moved in the final minutes. Raising the English language requirement from B1 to B2 and introducing a mandatory earnings threshold for settlement risk shutting out people who have built their lives here in good faith. I have heard from constituents who met every rule set out when they arrived who now fear that they may not qualify because their partner struggles with the written element of the B2 test, or because a family member earns below a threshold, despite working. I have met constituents who have already taken their B1 test, fully prepared to apply for ILR in 2026, who now fear that the standard might change at the last minute.
Additionally, a rigid income requirement risks misunderstanding how many BNO households operate. Many are income-poor but savings-rich; others have one parent working part time to support the family through their transition to a new country. If income is measured at the level of each individual rather than at the level of the household, thousands could be locked out of ILR through no fault of their own. That would be an unintended, deeply unjust outcome, and one that we should avoid.
A longer journey to settlement risks leaving people stuck in limbo, which is no foundation for a stable life. These are our new neighbours, friends and colleagues. They fled political repression and trusted our word—that trust matters. Of course the immigration system needs clarity and fairness, but fairness and the rule of law cut both ways. These families followed every rule: they paid the fees, they made the leap, and they contributed to our economy and our civic life from day one.
I ask the Minister, before any final decisions are made, to listen to the communities affected, to honour the commitments already given and to ensure that humanitarian routes such as those on which BNO families arrived are treated with the dignity and stability that those families were promised. Let us avoid retroactive changes. Let us make sure that transitional arrangements protect anyone already on the pathway. Let us keep the BNO route grounded in the principles it was built on: sanctuary, clarity and trust.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for setting the scene so well on a subject close to all our hearts. This debate is not simply about policy but about the lives of people who will be deeply affected by the impact of the proposed immigration reforms. We must navigate such reforms with care, mindful of our moral and legal obligations to those seeking refuge.
I will speak specifically about people of faith who are persecuted and have to flee to seek asylum. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I reiterate the importance of our duty to protect individuals who have fled their home countries due to violations of religious freedom and human rights. Across the world, countless individuals are forced to abandon everything they know—family, community, culture—simply because they choose to practise their faith or live their life according to their conscience.
Today, over 380 million Christians face high levels of persecution or discrimination. More than 80% of the world’s population live in countries in which their freedom of religion or belief is restricted or severely restricted. The United Kingdom has long been a place of refuge for those seeking safety from oppression, including those fleeing the civil war in Syria and the Taliban in Afghanistan. We provided not only shelter but the opportunity for individuals and families to rebuild their homes in dignity, free from the daily threats, discrimination and violence they once faced. That tradition reflects the best of our British values of compassion, justice and an unwavering commitment to human rights. As the UK has proven itself to be a leading figure in promoting freedom of religion or belief worldwide, we must ensure that those escaping persecution receive the support and protection necessary.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I have also had Hongkongers in my constituency contact me about the changes, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate.
The immigration reforms come with a strengthened commitment to provide safe and legal routes for those who are genuinely fleeing persecution, with a particular emphasis on vulnerable groups such as children. That would be a great step forward in getting rid of the criminal gangs, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need more details from the Government on how these safe and legal routes will work, in order to emphasise their commitment to protect those who are genuinely in need?
Jim Shannon
The Minister is, no doubt, listening. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the Minister will give a positive response.
We must not ignore the plight of those suffering for their faith: the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan, Christians in Nigeria and the Baha’is in Iran. Faith groups in countless other countries such as Sudan, Eritrea and Myanmar are subjected to unspeakable tragedies. The UK has provided lifesaving refuge to groups fleeing religious persecution through humanitarian visa routes.
When we consider genuine cases of forced displacement due to freedom of religion or belief, it is not a short-term issue. It is important to strengthen the UK’s immigration system to provide greater efficiency and fairness, but in doing so, I urge right hon. and hon. Members, and the Minister in particular, not to turn our backs on those who are targeted solely for their faith or belief. As Isaiah 1:17 states:
“Learn to do right; seek justice. Give the oppressed reason to rejoice; take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”
We must ensure that, in reforming the terms for humanitarian visas, updated and quality training is provided to decision makers so that they make the right decisions, and so that legal standards are applied correctly in any subsequent settlement decisions. Civil society and non-governmental organisations have a significant role to play in assisting with their expertise, evidence and on-the-ground insight. Their partnership is essential if we are to ensure that those fleeing genuine FoRB violations are given the protection that they so urgently need.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate.
I think there is wide agreement across the House that our current immigration system is broken. It is inconsistent, confusing and, far too often, inhumane. It is right that it falls to a Labour Government to fix it and to build a system grounded in our values of fairness, transparency and humanity. At present, the system does the very opposite.
I will specifically speak about Hongkongers who settled in the UK through the British national overseas visa scheme, many of whom have become proud and valued members of my constituency. We estimate that about 400 BNO status holders now call South Norfolk home. They enrich our towns and villages through work, volunteering, culture and the arts, and they have shown extraordinary resilience after fleeing political persecution.
Following Beijing’s imposition of the national security law and its severe crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong, all parties in this House supported the launch of the BNO pathway in 2021. Over 200,000 Hongkongers have since arrived in the UK, rebuilding their lives under the terms we set out. In September, concern filled this Chamber during the debate I led on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The consultation launched on 20 November has exposed new risks that could inadvertently undermine the BNO scheme’s very humanitarian purpose. Let me be clear: if applied to BNO applicants for indefinite leave to remain, an income requirement would disproportionately disadvantage BNO families.
The visa route is fundamentally different from a work visa. It was never designed around employment. People came here as families with stay-at-home parents, part-time workers, students and retirees. Their eligibility depended on need, not on earning power. Many of them face systemic barriers to having their professional qualifications recognised, preventing them from securing jobs that reflect their skills immediately upon arrival. They are not failing the system; the system is failing them. To require three to five years of earnings above £12,570 would not reflect their reality. Many BNO households are income-poor but savings-rich. They moved here under the explicit promise that no financial conditions would be attached to this humanitarian route.
The proposed increase from B1 to B2 English has caused deep worry among BNOs, particularly those nearing retirement or who have already earned their B1 qualification and are months away from eligibility for settlement. B2 is effectively A-level proficiency. For many, achieving it with only months’ notice is unrealistic, and I hazard a guess that it would be unrealistic for many Members of this House as well. We must be cautious not to retroactively impose standards that people could never reasonably meet in that time.
Above all, BNOs are not economic migrants; they made an irreversible decision to come to the UK to escape political repression. For many, returning to Hong Kong is not an option. If we were to shift the goalposts now, we would risk placing them in an impossible position —unable to settle here or return home. That would be a betrayal not only of policy, but of principle. I urge the Minister to listen to the speeches today and to make the progressive changes we need in the immigration system.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate on the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes.
I am here to speak up for the individuals and families in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire and across the country who arrived here in moments of crisis, conflict and persecution in search of safety, dignity and a chance to rebuild their lives through safe and legal humanitarian routes. My constituents from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong arrived here via those routes, making huge life-changing decisions, fulfilling all the established requirements and believing that the UK would stand by its words, yet they now fear that those promises and the rules-based order is being ripped up from beneath them. To tell them, years after arrival—with many of them just one year away from fulfilling the five-year eligibility requirement for indefinite leave to remain—that the rules are changing is not only unjust; it undermines the very principle of humanitarian protection.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that at the heart of this debate is article 8 of the European convention on human rights? This is a fundamental attack. Let me make myself clear: in attacking article 8, the Home Secretary does not speak for me. Imitating Reform will only lead to further hatred and division on our streets, and that is not the way forward. Forcing people to wait 10, 15 or even 20 years for settlement is not a migration system; it is a punishment regime. It punishes ordinary workers, families and, in particular, children who have built their lives here. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a fair and humane system, not even harsher hurdles designed to score headlines and create further division and hatred on our streets?
Pippa Heylings
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
I want to turn to the punitive regimes that many of my constituents have fled in coming to this country through a fair system, and to speak principally about those constituents who are British nationals from Hong Kong. From 2021, Hongkongers were offered a humanitarian route to indefinite leave to remain in the UK. That reflected the UK’s historical and moral commitment to those people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their strong ties to the UK by taking up BNO status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China, following on from their previous British dependent territories citizenship. Rightly, in the wake of China’s national security law in 2020 and the breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, BNO visa holders were promised a clear and safe five-year route to settlement. Even then, that route was more restrictive than for other citizens of former British colonies.
On behalf of the many BNO visa holders in South Cambridgeshire, I thank the Government for the important reassurance that they are exempt from the changes to the length of the route for ILR eligibility. The consultation launched by the Government, however, has introduced other areas of concern for those same BNO holders. I would like the Minister to clarify two points, because although the goalposts for length have not been moved, what constitutes a goal has changed.
First, when the visa was created in 2021 there was no requirement to meet an earnings threshold. The BNO route is a family-based application and each family faces very different situations and conditions, and there are also different divisions of labour in those families. One constituent wrote to me—we know what it means when they write to us with their own stories and fears of transnational repression—about how her family came to the UK as retirees. Immediately, they faced punitive measures by the Chinese Government, who have made it impossible for them to keep their pension—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Lady must sit down.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate, and it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to Labour Friends of Taiwan, given that my comments are about the Hong Kong community.
More than 40 constituents have been in touch with me regarding the BNO scheme. I will not repeat the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, but more than 200,000 people from Hong Kong have used that visa route. I have met several people who have used the BNO scheme to come to the UK, as well as a lot of activists from my constituency, and the two key points they made were that decisions to come to Britain three or four years ago were based on the existing rules and that the proposed new requirements would create real hardship for those who are already working extremely hard to integrate and to contribute to Britain. I would like the Government to exempt the BNO visa scheme from the B2 English requirement, and I welcome the Home Office’s position that the community have a
“uniquely strong attachment to this country”.
We need common-sense exemptions from the language requirement for ILR, including for infants, people with disabilities and pensioners. Everyone in this Chamber will be very aware of the deep historical ties, dating back to Hong Kong’s time as a British territory, and our unique shared connection. The BNO scheme should be exempt from the contributions rule. For many people on the scheme, it is challenging to have annual earnings of over £12,570 for a minimum of three to five years, for a variety of reasons that I do not have time to list. We are not talking about small numbers; we are talking about a large number of people. People both young and old from Hong Kong have been very emotional when speaking to me about the uncertainty of their future, so it is important to get this right.
There are several faith groups in Stockport, and across Greater Manchester and the north-west, but two faith groups in particular have been going out of their way to support the newly arrived community from Hong Kong. St Mary’s church is the oldest parish church in Stockport, and I want to place on record my thanks to Rev. Andy Crook and Rev. Chris Blunt for supporting the community. They have a weekly worship in Cantonese each Sunday, and at the Methodist church in Stockport, the Hong Kong fellowship meets regularly to support people with languages—they also have socials and all of that. I reiterate the cross-party strength of feeling on this issue to the Home Office.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for an excellent introduction and for securing the debate. I ought to draw people’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support I get from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project.
Humanitarian visa routes are an effective tool to tackle irregular migration, alongside efforts to target criminal gangs. From the failure of UK immigration policies under several Governments that focused only on deterrence, we know that that does not impact the irregular journeys of refugees. The push factors are too strong, and it is not hard to see why. Imagine being an 18-year-old young man from Eritrea—a persecuted Christian likely to be conscripted to murder his own people as they flee the evil dictator Isaias Afwerki. He has made his way through the lawless, deadly chaos of Libya, crossed the Mediterranean and found his way through Europe—as if the 30 miles across the channel is a terrifying threat compared with that. As the Home Secretary has rightly said, we need to change people’s calculations at the moment of decision. A viable, safe route will change the calculation of asylum seekers, so that people no longer feel the need to pay smuggler gangs.
We talk about Ukraine and Hong Kong. It is worth bearing in mind how many Ukraine and Hong Kong refugees are in those boats: none, because there are safe routes of one kind or another for those people. In the light of that, the UK-France deal announced in July is absolutely to be welcomed as a framework to build on, because an asylum seeker can apply for safe passage from outside the UK without the need to make dangerous journeys. However, for that to be an effective deterrent or alternative for people, the Government urgently need to ensure that, by the time the pilot is evaluated in June next year, there is some proper data to analyse.
My questions to the Minister are: what steps is he taking to increase the number of people coming to the UK under the UK-France agreement? How is it being advertised to migrants, and how can confidence and trust in the route be increased? Can applicants have a timeline for their applications, so that they know how long they will have to wait for a decision, and so that they do not choose small boats instead? It will not be an alternative to crossing the channel if people do not know about it.
The Government also say that they are looking for community sponsorship to be the resettlement model for the UK. My questions are: how will that be done at scale, what support will the Government offer to communities that want to sponsor, and what changes will they put in place to make the process quicker and easier? Given that refugee family reunion is a safe route, used predominantly by women and children, will the Government’s decision to stop it not push more children and women into the hands of smugglers?
Should we not recognise that the pull factors that bring people to the United Kingdom are not the stuff we hear about benefits, but the fact that we are seen to be a decent and safe country? We should be proud of that.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this debate and on making such a powerful case. First, I welcome many of the Home Secretary’s announcements from last week about reforms to the asylum and immigration system, particularly the proposal to develop safe and legal routes, and a move to a community sponsorship model that is very much based on the Ukrainian and Hong Kong schemes. I hope that it will break the pull factors that force migrants into the hands of people smugglers and into using the treacherous cross-channel route.
Moving on to the substance of the debate, Hongkongers in Devon is a community interest group based in my constituency. It was founded by Dennis Mak, and it estimates that there are about 1,000 Hongkongers in Devon, most of whom are based in Exeter. Many are teachers, university lecturers, nurses, IT professionals and so on, and they are enriching our community and contributing to the local economy. Our Hongkonger community is exceptionally active, holding Chinese new year breakthrough events, a mid-autumn festival lunch, and dragon boat racing on the River Exe. Both culturally and economically, Hongkongers in Exeter are a valued and vital part of our community.
Having worked with Hongkongers to make the case to Government on a range of issues—including the conditions of their visas, their ability to access funds still held in the Chinese system, and of course Chinese state monitoring of Hongkongers in the UK—I greatly welcome the Government’s Command Paper, published last week, which confirms that British national overseas visa holders would be fully exempted from the proposed earned settlement criteria and maintain a five-year route to indefinite leave to remain, in recognition of their unique circumstances and, indeed, the UK’s historic responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong. I know that the community welcomes that.
Will the Minister comment on how else we might support the Hong Kong community in the UK, in particular the request for a special British identity for their newborns who are born in the UK, in order to guarantee their rights and recognition as integral members of the community in the future? Hongkongers are also asking for a simplified route for BNO passport holders seeking British citizenship. I know that the Government have worked hard to clarify many areas of the visa settlement regime for Hongkongers, and I welcome that. However, my question for the Minister is: how can we ensure that we provide total clarity for those communities?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important and timely debate.
Like so many of my constituents, I was delighted to hear last week that Hong Kong BNO passport holders will keep their five-year route to settlement. The Liberal Democrats have fought hard for that, so I am pleased to see the Government finally respond to our campaign. Britain and Hong Kong share a special relationship, and nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, and across Sutton borough. Thousands of Hongkongers have built their lives, raised families and grown thriving businesses in Sutton. They are part the very fabric of the borough that I am proud to call home.
Although I welcome the Government’s decision, my inbox and social media have been flooded with messages from BNO holders who are rightly demanding further clarity. I therefore call on the Minister to answer their three most pressing concerns. The first relates to the new requirement for earnings. Will the new earnings requirement for settlement status above £12,570 be applicable to BNO visa holders? Many Hongkongers are retired, studying full time or caring for children or loved ones. That requirement will cut directly against the humanitarian intent of the BNO visa. Any new sustained and measurable economic contribution test or minimum income rule risks permanently excluding those entirely legitimate residents. Those Hongkongers are already fully integrated in their communities and contribute to British society in non-financial ways. Earning less does not mean contributing less; their contribution might not always show on a payslip.
The second concern relates to the English language requirement. Will the new English language requirement of B2 be applicable to BNO visa holders? For many families, that will be a huge and unexpected hurdle. Tens of thousands of BNO visa holders will reach the five-year point and become eligible for settlement in 2026. A sudden increase to B2 level without adequate notice or transition would throw many vulnerable residents off balance and deny permanent status to people who have lived, worked and put down roots in Britain for half a decade.
Thirdly, on the 20-year route protection, I am extremely concerned that the combination of the new 20-year baseline for refugees on the core protection routes and the suggested additional 20-year extension for anyone who entered as a visitor will apply to Hong Kong political exiles who have no access to the BNO visa scheme. Many young activists, particularly those born after 1997 or whose parents never registered for BNO status, have no safe and legal route to the UK. They are compelled to travel to the UK as visa-free visitors and only claim asylum once inside the country. They fear that declaring an asylum intention at the border would lead to detention or being refused entry and returned to Hong Kong. They are often subjected to surveillance and oppression by Chinese authorities while in Hong Kong, and have needed the time in the UK to prepare adequate evidence to present to the Home Office. These are political refugees fleeing persecution in Hong Kong at the hands of the CCP. Imposing a 40-year wait for settlement on brave young dissidents would be wholly disproportionate. In refusing to consider Hongkongers for this type of exemption, we do not simply adjust a policy; we threaten the humanitarian corridor that has long connected two nations through history, culture and a shared belief in freedom.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing today’s debate.
In a dangerous and dystopian world, our word must be our word. It must be honoured. Many have fled to our land for sanctuary, safety and security, and we cannot change the terms retrospectively; nor should we change them for those to come. We rightly have made commitments to people who have embarked on their settlement journeys, from the horrors of Taliban Afghanistan, to our BNO friends from Hong Kong who have fled the human rights abuses of the Chinese regime, young people who have arrived under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees schemes, and our good friends from Ukraine who have come to the UK because of the sanctuary and human rights we have extolled and spent 80 years leading.
I will say it plainly today. I believe the Government have got this wrong. Their analysis is political, not factual, and their propositions are unacceptable. I agree with all the hon. Members today who have made such pertinent points in this debate. I appreciate how the Tories absolutely destroyed the system. They built the backlogs, did not put the staffing into the Home Office and lost focus and urgency, weaponising our systems. They did not have functional pathways. But all of these things speak of the pace that is needed, not slowing the pathways down.
It has been wrong not to have the humanitarian routes available to so many, and I welcome the Government now putting those in place. But it is right that we honour the schemes already in existence and create the right culture for our country to be safe and secure for others fleeing dangers, so that they have security here as well.
On the issue of language proficiency, what we need is functionality around language. I therefore ask the Government to think this through carefully again. Also, we know that many will not make the earnings threshold. They will be predominantly women who are carers of children and adults. I therefore call for an impact assessment to understand how gendered already our pay is in this country, and how the policy will press into that space and discriminate.
As somebody who represents a human rights city—the only human rights city in England—articles 3 and 8 are not to be questioned. We need to ensure we have secured the right human rights framework and use it to protect people at home and abroad. If we lessen rights for others, it lessens the rights of us all.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing today’s debate. As I have said before, Wokingham is home to a strong Hong Kong community who have had a positive effect on the area. Many have written to me to express their grave concerns about the Government’s immigration reforms and what they mean for them and their loved ones.
First, there have been significant changes to the language requirements for ILR. Previously, those applying for the BNO visa had to pass a B1 English test; now they must meet the higher B2 standard. That creates unnecessary barriers, especially for the elderly, and those with families and with trauma from their experiences in Hong Kong. Will the Minister reassure my residents that ILR English requirements will remain at B1?
The proposed income thresholds for BNO visa holders have created an awful lot of anxiety. Many Hongkongers contribute to essential sectors in Wokingham and across the country, even though their salary may fall below the proposed £12,570 threshold. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not impose a new income threshold for BNO visa holders?
The Government’s new 20-year residency requirement for refugees would inflict serious hardship on those fleeing Chinese persecution from Hong Kong, particularly those who could not access the BNO route. Does the Minister recognise that applying these rules to Hongkongers who missed out on the BNO route is unfair and inhumane?
Many of my constituents have shared their anxiety with me about the Government altering immigration requirements while they are mid-application. That is seriously undermining the trust built with Hongkongers and violating any sense of good faith. Will the Minister reassure Hongkongers in Wokingham, and across the country, that the rules for BNO visa applications will not be altered mid-process? BNO visa holders are not foreigners; they are British nationals. It is time the Government treated them as such.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate, which could not have come at a more pressing time following last week’s announcements.
These suggested reforms are unlikely to deter people from seeking asylum in the United Kingdom—however they arrive—nor will they assist in integrating asylum seekers and refugees into our communities. We hear Ministers speak frequently of the need for stronger integration and better community cohesion, but at the same time they are determined to posture as being tough on immigration. That inherent tension between the desire to appear hardline and the need to foster cohesion means that the Government’s approach is likely to fail and may well create more problems than it resolves.
The Government want refugees to contribute, yet having their status reviewed every two and a half years gives employers little incentive to offer stable employment. Equally, asylum seekers have the right to work only after waiting 12 months for a decision from the Home Office, and even then only in a limited set of roles. Once again, there is the appearance of being torn between professing an interest in integration and a desire to appear performatively cruel towards refugees and asylum seekers.
I welcome, in principle, any expansion of safe and legal routes. The introduction of tight caps suggests that the number of people who will actually benefit will be very small. The displaced talent mobility pilot, for instance, provided places for just 100 applicants. More troubling is the implication that only the exceptional, the talented and the skilled are deserving of refuge. That is not what the 1951 refugee convention says, and it is not a principle that any compassionate country should embrace. Refuge is a protection owed to people because they are fleeing persecution, not because they meet a labour market threshold.
In truth, the UK receives less than 1% of the world’s refugees; most remain in neighbouring countries. While the finger is pointed at migrants and asylum seekers, the reality is that working people have far more in common with an asylum seeker living on £49 a week than with a billionaire. The real threat does not come from those arriving in small boats but from those arriving on super-yachts. We should be tackling inequality and holding the super-rich to account, not scapegoating migrants.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I cannot comment on the content, but the delivery of the last speech was certainly very powerful.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate.
Let me say at the outset that I will focus my remarks on the Hong Kong community in my Bolton West constituency. In Westhoughton, Lostock and across Bolton, Hongkongers have enriched our schools and supported local businesses, and they continue to make a meaningful contribution to local life. I pay particular tribute to my constituent Po, who is a fantastic champion in the community. She has done tremendous work not only to assist Hongkongers in my constituency but to speak with folk across Westhoughton and further afield about her experience and that of others who had to flee persecution and the crackdown on human rights in Hong Kong.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to retaining the five-year route to settlement via the BNO via. That is the right course of action and I am pleased that the Government have heeded my concerns and those of many hon. Members in this House. I fully back the Government’s determination to reduce irregular and unlawful migration. But the BNO scheme is not a standard immigration pathway. It was created in response to a political crisis in Hong Kong, reflecting our historical responsibilities and moral obligations. Families in Bolton took life-changing decisions in good faith, leaving jobs, uprooting their children and starting again, based on the rules as they were. Altering any rules now would be retrospective and, frankly, could undermine trust. The proposed requirements in the Home Office’s immigration White Paper could fall hardest on the most vulnerable: home-makers, who are often women caring for children or elderly relatives, and students who came under the original terms but could be disadvantaged.
The BNO route was never intended to filter visa applicants by income, qualification or employment. It was designed as a safe, fair and non-discriminatory avenue for people seeking stability and safety—nothing more. The Hong Kong community in Bolton has more than fulfilled their end of the bargain. They have paid the full immigration health surcharge, moved at their own expense and contributed through work, volunteering and entrepreneurship. My constituents have concerns about the proposed changes, especially, as we have already heard today, about the raising of the English language requirement from B1 to B2 level and—quite understandably—the introduction of an earnings threshold of £12,570 for three to five years. With the political situation in Hong Kong deteriorating, uncertainty here in the UK only adds to the pressure that families already feel.
I will press the Minister on three points. First, will he definitively rule out any retrospective changes to the BNO settlement pathway? Secondly, will he recognise BNO holders as a distinct group, who have deep historical ties to the UK? Thirdly, will he offer transitional arrangements for those forced to come here via alternate routes due to the political pressures they faced in Hong Kong?
The Hong Kong community in Bolton West placed their trust in the UK. We must honour that trust with integrity, by ensuring that the promise we made is the promise we keep.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate, which is important because it speaks to who we are as a country and how we uphold commitments to all people fleeing persecution.
Earlier this month, the Prime Minister acknowledged that racism is “returning to politics” and that
“racist rhetoric, divisive rhetoric…makes people feel very scared.”
That recognition is welcome, but the Home Secretary’s asylum proposals in the “Restoring Order and Control” policy paper have undoubtedly prompted widespread criticism from refugee support organisations and others. However, I commend the recognition across the House that we need an immigration and asylum system that is both controlled and humane. That balance is not only possible; it is essential.
Unfortunately, the debate on this subject has become toxic. Stories claiming that refugees would be stripped of valuables provoked fear. Thankfully, the Home Secretary has clarified that no such policy exists. But criticism of policy is not an attack on democracy; it is proper scrutiny in a properly functioning democracy.
One of the most troubling reforms is the proposal to review refugee status every 30 months, potentially over decades. Framed as reassessing the status of safe countries, the proposal raises serious legal, practical and moral concerns, as highlighted by the Refugee Council, Amnesty International and others. The Home Office already struggles with backlogs, and repeated reviews would leave people in constant insecurity. Amnesty warns that the policy could trap refugees in limbo, undermine family life and integration, and breach the refugee convention. Refuge must mean stability, not a fragile, temporary status.
The British Red Cross highlights further concerns: family reunion may be delayed or blocked; reassessing core protection every two and a half years risks instability; and ending statutory asylum support could push vulnerable people into destitution.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
My understanding was that the Government’s immigration plans were geared towards tackling so-called illegal immigration, such as channel crossings—although I would argue that they are in fact irregular, not illegal, because it is not illegal to seek asylum.
The measures we are discussing today are about retrospectively making regularised migration rules more stringent. As such, they will not have any impact on channel crossings, but will instead cause fear and uncertainty for many settled, tax-paying families. This is not just about Hongkongers; there are people from all over the world who are equally deserving of our compassion and integrity. Does my hon. Friend agree that to tackle channel crossings—
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to tackle channel crossings by introducing more humanitarian visas and, once we have, not pulling the rug out from underneath people?
Andy McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent point. Indeed, that is one of the things the Red Cross highlighted. Narrow safe routes alone will not prevent dangerous journeys. The Public and Commercial Services Union report “Welcoming Growth” recommends processing claims within six months, and legal, English language and employment support for refugees. Such measures would protect people, reduce costs, speed up integration and enable people to contribute to society.
Will the Minister say whether unaccompanied children and families who are in danger will be exempt? Can core protection be granted for five years to provide stability and reduce bureaucracy? How will the Government safeguard against the unfair loss of support? Will family reunion remain accessible, with the piloting of a humanitarian visa system to provide legal protection?
The way to build a fair, humane and effective system is to invest in faster processing; get it right first time; provide legal, language and employment support; and strengthen humanitarian visa routes. If we truly want safe alternatives to dangerous channel crossings, to combat smuggling and to maintain control of our borders, the path forward is thoughtful reform that supports those who are genuinely seeking sanctuary and integrates people.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for safe and legal routes for refugees. That is how we, as a country, can stop the dangerous small boat crossings, which put lives at risk, and provide sanctuary for those who are fleeing their former homes for their lives. However, there is cross-party concern, ably led today by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), that the Government are seeking to limit and restrict the two successful humanitarian visa routes for those from Hong Kong and Ukraine.
In my Woking constituency, we know how life-changing a functioning immigration system can be. Since 2015, we have welcomed more than 300 refugees from Afghanistan, Syria and especially Ukraine, and they have been resettled in our community. They arrived after fleeing conflict and persecution, and Woking has worked hard to rebuild their lives. Humanitarian visa routes must enable more stories like those in Woking, but that will not happen if the system becomes harder, slower or less certain for the people coming here. I join colleagues from all parties in urging the Minister to reassure Hongkongers and Ukranians who are worried about their future.
Under this Government, we have seen the suspension of the refugee family reunion visa. That is not acceptable. It was a vital safe route that allowed close relatives to join loved ones who had already been granted asylum in the UK. It is due to reopen in spring 2026, but with more restrictive rules. It is also apparent that new skilled or student visa routes for displaced people will initially be capped in the low hundreds.
Without more legal routes, such as work and student visas or family reunion, people who have nowhere safe to return to may be forced on to the irregular and often dangerous routes that put lives at risk, and that the Government say they want to stop. We do not want to force human beings who are desperate to avoid a life of slavery and crime into dangerous channel crossings. Britain has a proud history of responding to people fleeing war, oppression and unimaginable horror. Communities such as mine in Woking continue to show that compassion works when the Government match it with leadership and resources.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I pay tribute to the residents of my community who have opened their arms to numerous Ukrainian families who have fled the war. It worries me that, time and again, I am asked to step in to help Ukrainian family members who are getting visa extensions for one member of their family but not for others. That is creating real concern among those families, who have fled war and conflict, that they are going to be split up. Nothing in the Government’s proposals does anything to deal with the huge backlog of cases. Does my hon. Friend agree that none of this will work unless we deal with the millions of people who are stuck in the system?
Mr Forster
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate not just for his West Dorest constituency but for the refugees who have made it home. The previous Conservative Government deliberately ran up a huge asylum backlog of 90,000 cases, which now results in £2 million a day being spent on asylum hotels. They did that because they wanted to put asylum seekers off. That failed, it has cost the taxpayer dear, and it is showing that the UK is not as welcoming as we should be. I worry that the new Government are making not the same mistakes but different mistakes in the same vein, by saying that refugees’ cases have to be reviewed every two and a half years or so. That will put unbelievable strain on the Home Office, and it worries my constituents who are refugees, as well as those who are compassionate and care about refugees.
As a country, we should be building on our proud success of supporting refugees. We should not be placing new barriers in front of people who are already vulnerable. If I may conclude with a football analogy, the Government plan to move the goalposts and change the rules for those with humanitarian visas after the match has kicked off. That is fundamentally unfair and un-British, and Parliament must not allow the Government to do it.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I thank you for chairing the debate, Sir Edward, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for allowing Members the opportunity to discuss the impact of the reforms on humanitarian visa routes. I also congratulate him on his recent appointment as patron of Hong Kong Watch, an organisation that has done a great deal to scrutinise successive Governments and to help to communicate essential information to those from Hong Kong who have sought refuge. He joins an illustrious collection of individuals, including current and former elected officials from across the House.
The humanitarian visa route set up under the previous Government sought to recognise the scale of the crisis we experienced at the onset of this decade, whether that be the reprehensible invasion of Ukraine or the complete mistreatment of the existing rights of Hongkongers, which breached commitments enshrined in international agreements and law. I think Members from all parties would almost unanimously agree that it was right that such schemes were set up, and that it was necessary to put forward an offer to ensure that those in great danger, and to whom we have a historic responsibility, received protection.
When we reflect on the context of such schemes, it is right that the immigration reforms appreciate the context. As such, I reiterate that the Conservative proposals on the change to settlement, which were made months before the Government’s own, always stated that they would have no impact on BNO visas and those from Ukraine, given the unique nature of those routes. Many constituents have reached out to me in fear that this Government would not continue that position.
As mentioned, the Government announced last week that those on BNO routes would not be impacted by the changes to settlement. That finally gives them and many others the clarity they have been asking for. It also raises the question of why the Government could not have offered sufficient clarity earlier. Despite the unnecessary delay, I welcome the Government’s decision, and I echo the sentiment expressed by those in the community who are very pleased to see it.
As we consider settlement, it is worth acknowledging the work done on the BNO visa. The previous Government not only instituted a scheme that has seen thousands of people come to this country—with over 166,000 people having arrived in the UK as of June 2025—but brought forward support for those who came. That included funding for 12 welcome hubs across the UK and demand-led funding for local authorities to provide English language and destitution support in England. That work underscores the seriousness with which the Conservative party viewed the integration of this community.
Sarah Bool
I think we would like to hear from the Minister, so I will push on.
Although it is unsurprising, given the continuing restrictions on freedom, the fact that the Government assume that those who arrive on the BNO route will settle after five years, and that those who switch on to the route will also settle after five years, demonstrates that the route has been broadly successful. A qualitative study of the visa route for MHCLG showed that participant responses overall suggested they felt supported by the UK Government, and people with BNO visas were grateful for the existence of the route.
I appreciate that specific challenges and difficulties remain, such as the need for greater engagement with programmes to improve integration. Nevertheless, we can already see some of the immense contributions that those who came through the pathway are making both to this country and to the Hong Kong diaspora. For example, only recently Chloe Cheung won the 2025 Magnitsky award for outstanding young human rights activist. She is one of the numerous people, including young individuals, who have had bounties placed on their heads by the Chinese Government for exercising their democratic rights. The complete undermining of the safety of those individuals and of the UK’s sovereignty is wholly unacceptable, but it is welcome that those individuals are resolutely fighting for the values that underpin the necessity of the visa.
However, as has been expressed in the debate, questions still remain about what the Government’s broader changes will mean for this community. What will BNO visa holders and their dependants need to demonstrate in respect of new income or economic contribution requirements? Will the current English language standard for settlement on the BNO route be maintained at B1, or will it be B2? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those born after 1997 have protection? I appreciate that those questions do not necessarily have simple answers but, given the concerns about the lack of clarity expressed recently by the community, it would be helpful if the Minister could outline answers to those matters.
Ultimately, we believe there is a great deal more to do to reduce levels of legal migration, so changes to settlement are appropriate. However, as is the case with many such changes, there will be an impact, and transparency about the precise impact will always be welcome. I hope the Minister will agree that the Government should do as much as possible to express clearly the impact of the changes on people who have come to the UK through humanitarian routes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their considered contributions. I know this topic is of significant interest and concern to my hon. Friend, and that has come through clearly in his and others’ contributions, for which I am grateful.
A fair amount of ground has been covered, and I will address as many of the points raised in the debate as possible, but first I want to set the discussion in its wider context. That means acknowledging that the immigration and asylum systems that this Government inherited were not working as they should. After years of chaos and dysfunction, the British people had lost confidence in the state’s ability to fulfil one of its most basic functions: deciding who can come to our country and who must leave. It has fallen to this Government to put that right, and that is what we have been working to do ever since the general election.
We have taken decisive and important steps to stabilise the systems. The foundations are much stronger thanks to those efforts, but now we have to go further. That is why we published our immigration White Paper earlier this year, and why last week we brought forward the most significant asylum reform package in modern times. Through those plans, we are determined to restore order and control. We cannot go on as we have with systems that are failing or broken. Change is urgently needed, but I assure hon. Members that we pursue these reforms with a keen sense of our international and historical responsibilities, and a recognition that this is a fair and tolerant country that welcomes those who come here legally to contribute and that is compassionate to the plight of those fleeing peril.
Last week the Home Secretary announced a fairer pathway to settlement and launched a public consultation on the proposed new earned settlement model, and earlier this year the immigration White Paper set out an increase to the default qualifying period from five years to 10 years. That, in general, is not open to consultation, and individuals will need to meet certain requirements to be granted settlement. They must have a clean criminal record, speak English to the higher A-level standard, have made national insurance contributions for at least three to five years, and have no debt in this country.
Individuals will have the opportunity to reduce the length of the qualifying period to settlement based on their contribution to the UK’s economy and society. Those who make a sustained and measurable contribution to this country will be rewarded with a shorter path to settlement. A reduction in years may also be earned by speaking English at an advanced level, known as C1.
We propose that settlement is delayed for those who contribute less to our public life, including those who have claimed benefit payments. A long penalty would also be applied to those who have entered the country illegally, which aims to strongly discourage entering the country via those routes. That follows the announcement of a new 20-year settlement path for refugees who remain on the new core protection route.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) did not let me ask this question earlier, but is it not true that the safe and legal routes have been all but destroyed except for BNO and for Ukrainians? It is really important that the Government restore safe and legal routes to this country to make sure that everybody can actually benefit from our safety and our respect for human rights.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for that good point. Safe and legal routes are part of the solution. We are not making these changes to the immigration system to please any part of the political spectrum; they are about solutions, such as safe and legal routes and harsher penalties for those arriving illegally. I will talk more about safe and legal routes shortly.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister set out what the English requirements and the earning requirements will be for someone with a learning difference? Clearly, those requirements will be significantly different from those for the wider community. How will they be assessed?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for a very good question. Within the 12-week consultation, we will consider vulnerable groups. I reassure hon. Members that more detail is coming on the exact requirements. When we say “A-level”, we are not talking about our A-level standards—applicants are not going to have to study Shakespeare and poetry. The standards will be for foreign language speakers, but more detail will follow on the English language requirements.
We will continue to offer a shorter pathway of five years to settlement for non-UK dependants of British citizens. We will retain existing safeguards to protect the vulnerable, including settlement rights for victims of domestic violence and abuse. The EU settlement scheme and grants under the Windrush scheme are not within scope of the proposed reforms, so those routes will remain unchanged.
The earned settlement consultation, officially launched on 20 November, will be open for 12 weeks until 12 February 2026. We have had nearly 60,000 respondents to that consultation so far, and this debate is useful for feeding in the views of constituents, so I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I encourage all hon. Members to ensure that their constituents are aware of the consultation so that it reaches as many members of the public as possible. As the Home Secretary set out last week, the reforms are underpinned by values that are truly representative of our country: contribution and fairness.
Andy McDonald
Will the Minister reaffirm that the act of seeking asylum is not illegal or unlawful—in fact, it is lawful under the refugee convention? That appears to have become somewhat muddied and clouded in this debate. Would he like to clarify the Government’s reaffirmation of the principles of the convention?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. Claiming asylum is not illegal in itself; it is on the person to claim asylum in the first safe country that they travel into. That said, we are opening more safe and legal routes to ensure that we contribute to helping people in need from around the world, and more detail will come on them.
Turning specifically to the BNO route, the Government remain steadfast in our support for members of the Hong Kong community in the UK and are fully committed to this route, which will continue to welcome Hongkongers. We fully recognise the significant contribution that Hongkongers have already made to the UK and the role they will continue to play in the years ahead. That is why we have confirmed that those on the BNO visa route will continue to be able to settle in the UK after living here for five years, subject to the mandatory requirements. The BNO route is a unique immigration route that was established following China’s passing of the national security law and reflects the UK’s historical and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong.
Pippa Heylings
I have three questions on those mandatory requirements and minimum thresholds, which are in a way being applied retrospectively. First, will the minimum salary threshold for three to five years be applied retrospectively to BNO visa holders? Secondly, will the tax contribution requirement be applicable to all family members, including non-working dependants? Thirdly, on the change to the language requirement from B1 to B2, and given that some of my constituents have only one more year remaining, has the Minister assessed whether test centres, resources and staff are available? Would equivalence to B2 be accepted, such as someone having passed a university degree in the English language because Hong Kong was a British dependent territory when they got their degree?
Mike Tapp
I will come on to that detail shortly. To warn the hon. Lady in advance, however, we are in the consultation period.
Retaining a five-year settlement period for BNO visa holders provides certainty to Hongkongers and ensures that the UK continues to honour its historical commitments. The BNO route will be included in the new earned settlement framework, with those holding a BNO visa given a five year reduction from the 10-year qualifying period.
The new mandatory requirements for settlement are basic requirements that we think are reasonable for people to meet if they settle here, but we are interested in views on whether certain groups should be exempt from them. I stress that no decisions have been made on that, but I have listened to hon. Members today. We are consulting on the transitional arrangements for those who are here, such as vulnerable groups and those within the BNO route.
We are also consulting on the English language levels that a number of hon. Members have spoken about today. Several hon. Members made a strong argument about assets versus income, which will be taken into consideration when making these decisions, as will the possibility of extending the route for those born after 1997. I am also interested in the survey mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe that was completed by 5,000 people, and I would like to see that over the next 12 weeks before these decisions are made. I have taken away a number of questions, including those from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race). I am keen to go dragon boating with the community to listen and learn more from them—perhaps at some point over the next 12 weeks. A number of other points have been made and repeated, all of which have been taken away for consideration.
The UK’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. Together with our partners and allies, the UK stands in solidarity with Ukraine and condemns the Russian Government’s unprovoked, illegal and premeditated war. I am proud that the British people have shown incredible generosity to the Ukrainian people, opening their homes to those seeking sanctuary. Since the launch of the Ukraine schemes, the UK has offered or extended sanctuary to more than 300,000 Ukrainians and their families through the Ukraine family scheme, Homes for Ukraine scheme and the Ukraine permission extension scheme.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for the positivity of his replies. His commitment is very clear. I asked about persecuted Christians; in the few minutes that he has left, can he assure us that protecting them is also part of Government policy?
Jim Shannon
Of course. I talk incredibly fast, so I will try to slow down. I asked about the Government’s concessions for people who are persecuted across the world. It is really important to have those concessions, so that Christians or people of any religious faith know that if they want somewhere to go, the United Kingdom is available. I need that reassurance, if the Minister does not mind.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I apologise for not hearing him the first time. Yes, this is a consideration for the safe and legal routes, and I fully agree that issues of faith and persecution must be fully considered within them.
I will make some progress. The Government have already taken significant steps to further extend support. Since February 2025, individuals in the UK under one of the Ukraine visa schemes have been eligible to apply to the UPE scheme for permission to stay for an additional 18 months in the UK. On 1 September, the Government announced that the UPE scheme would be extended for a further 24 months, following the initial 18 months’ permission. That will provide further certainty and stability for our Ukrainian guests, so they can continue to benefit from the same rights and entitlements to access work, benefits, healthcare and education. More information on the extension will be made available in due course.
I turn to article 8. The Government’s asylum policy statement sets out our plans to tighten the application of article 8 of the ECHR, specifically on claims relating to the right to family and private life, to ensure that it reflects a fair balance between individual circumstances and the UK’s economic and social interests. There is no risk of abandoning the ECHR, which underpins trade deals, peace agreements and returns agreements; this is about making it fit for purpose in modern times. We will reform the application of article 8 by setting out a clear framework, which will be endorsed by Parliament, for those seeking to enter or stay in the UK who do not fall within our family policies.
On humanitarian visas more widely, this country has a proud history of providing protection, and we continue to welcome refugees and people in need through our safe and legal routes. However, it is important that safe and legal routes are sustainable, well managed and in line with the UK’s capacity to welcome, accommodate and integrate refugees. That is why, as set out in the asylum policy statement, we are developing new safe and legal routes to offer sanctuary to those genuinely fleeing war and persecution from around the world, in line with the capacity of UK communities to support new refugees.
James Naish
I thank the Minister for his response and for the many issues he has dealt with. In the remaining 45 seconds, I want to say that we in this Chamber all recognise the challenge that the Government have in balancing illegal and legal immigration. It is an immense challenge, but the tone today has reflected the fact that we collectively see humanitarian visa routes as distinctive, important and reflective of our values as a country—who we are and who we want to be as a nation. I therefore welcome the contributions of 14 Back Benchers from across the United Kingdom, and I hope that those listening feel reassured that this House will continue to stand for fairness and dignity, and for the UK being a place of sanctuary.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes.