Indefinite Leave to Remain

James Naish Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Thomas]

I very much agree, and I add that surely we have a responsibility to stand with refugees fleeing appalling conflict, including those from Ukraine, and those fleeing increasingly authoritarian regimes such as those from Hong Kong.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gareth Thomas]

Forgive me; I have taken one intervention already.

Overwhelmingly, migrants from Pakistan, the Caribbean, India, Sri Lanka and across Europe—wherever they are from—have benefited my constituency. Are we sure we want to lose those vital workers from crucial public services, such as the NHS or social care?

International students make a positive contribution to our economy and our country, too. I am certainly proud of the many Indian students who were attracted to the UK and who live in my constituency, and I do worry for our universities. The fees of international students helps to fund research. Cutting-edge universities in Britain need to attract international students, so we should not demonise those students who come here, and drive them towards other countries’ universities. I recognise that the choices before my hon. Friends in the Home Office are not easy, but I urge them none the less to recognise the particular responsibility we have to those who are already here and are already on the ILR pathway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

Although 116 people in my constituency have signed the petitions, the story of one constituent—I will call her Jill—stuck with me. It is a story of anxiety and uncertainty for Jill, who works in social care on a health and social care visa. She described the reality that many face: low pay, unsafe workloads and a fear that speaking up about conditions at work could put her visa at risk. She made the point that those pressures have been pushing people to breaking point across the country for years. She captured exactly why this issue matters.

People like Jill moved here in good faith. They brought their families. They got jobs in health and social care roles, filling the critical gaps that we have in the workforce. They are contributing to society and dutifully paying their tax. Now the goalposts are potentially being moved. Will the Minister commit to protecting those already on the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain from retrospective changes? For workers like Jill, settlement is not just a petition or debate; it is whether they can plan a future in the country for which they are helping to care, whether they will have to uproot their families and leave the homes where they have created connections and communities, whether they can speak up about unsafe conditions without fear and whether their financial and emotional sacrifices will ever lead to the security they were promised.

Many on this route organised their lives around the existing five-year pathway.

[James Naish]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

In the interests of time, I will not.

Those people budgeted for visa fees, planned family life and made long-term decisions on the understanding that after five years they could apply for settlement. Extending that to 10 years means five more years of uncertainty and thousands of pounds in additional costs. For families, it means children growing up with prolonged insecurity and uncertainty. For workers, it means remaining tied to temporary status for a decade, severely limiting their bargaining power at work. For our public services, it risks driving away exactly the people we can least afford to lose.

I am not arguing that immigration policy can never change; I think most people here agree that it can and must change. However, there is a fundamental issue of fairness when changes are applied to people who are already here, already contributing to local and national economies and our public services and already well along a pathway that was clearly set out to them. We should not and must not pull the rug from under them now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that issue. She is a strong advocate for children and families, and she is right to highlight how the Government have not thought this policy through. It has a disproportionate impact, particularly when childcare costs are so significant. I will come on to talk about the unacceptable changes to the income thresholds.

As I said, the Liberal Democrats and I oppose the changes, which move the goalposts and change the rules of the game after we have kicked off. They go against the fundamental British value of fairness. I thank the organisers of the two petitions and all those who signed them, including and especially the 218 and 444 of my constituents in Woking.

The Government’s consultation document states that from April 2026, anyone who does not have ILR status—even if their application is going through the process—will be affected. That is subject to the final outcome of the consultation, which invites views on whether there should be transitional arrangements to exempt some people already in the UK. The Government press release suggests that such arrangements might be considered for “borderline cases”. Will the Minister expand on that, and perhaps explain, without the use of euphemism or vague language, what it means in practice for our constituents? We owe it to the people of Hong Kong, Ukraine and other war-torn parts of the world who have sought refuge in Britain to respect their wish to take part in our society and allow them peace of mind to plan for the long term.

[James Naish]

The hon. Gentleman mentions Ukraine. Obviously, most Ukrainians will not be eligible for ILR as we are discussing it, and this may be an area where we do need rule changes. A lot of young people who have come over from Ukraine with their families will now know nothing other than our education system and our ways of life. Does he agree that it would be good if the Minister looked carefully at the approach we take with Ukrainians?

[Mr Forster]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will talk a bit more about Ukraine in a minute. I thought I would be generous to him, compared with some of his colleagues, who were a bit less keen to hear from him this evening—a little more cross-party working is in order.

I want particularly to talk about Hongkongers. Several elements of the earned settlement proposals are causing serious concern for the Hong Kong community in my constituency, in particular vulnerable BNO families and young Hong Kong pro-democracy activists who have been forced to seek asylum here. Many BNO arrivals are full-time students, retirees, stay-at-home parents—as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned—or family carers who do not meet the conventional salary thresholds. Any new sustained or measurable economic contribution test or minimum income rule risks permanently excluding those entirely legitimate residents, who are already fully integrated into our communities and contributing to British society.

Tens of thousands of BNO visa holders will reach the five-year point and be eligible for settlement in 2026. It is appalling that that is the point that the Government have chosen for the rules to come in. A sudden increase in the language requirement to B2 level without adequate notice or transition arrangements will throw many of those vulnerable individuals off balance and deny permanent status to people who have lived, worked and put down roots here for a decade. That would be yet another betrayal of Hongkongers, after the Government’s recent approval of the Chinese mega-embassy.

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) mentioned Ukraine. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to take necessary steps to provide Ukrainian refugees in the UK with the stability and security they deserve by establishing a clear pathway to ILR. Later this month, it will be four years since the appalling and unwarranted invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and many Ukrainian families have built meaningful lives here, yet their futures remain precarious because of the temporary nature of their current settled status.

Reports suggest that Ukrainians are missing out on job opportunities, loans, mortgages or lease renewals because they do not have a pathway to permanent settlement. Not only does that put them at a material disadvantage, but the pressures of securing housing or financial security under the current visa system put refugees through huge anxiety. Their country is already at war, and it is deeply unfair to put our allies through further stress. The Ukrainian scheme is the only humanitarian scheme that does not include a pathway for settlement. Ukrainians in this country should not be in that position at all. Yes, we need control, but we need to have a fair and robust system, and a frank discussion about who stays and how we support our friends and allies.

The Liberal Democrats are particularly concerned that elements of Labour’s proposed changes to ILR risk adding unworkable red tape for businesses and for people who came here legally, undermining integration and damaging our economy. Britain is already becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation. The five-year global talent visa now costs £6,000—around 20 times more than in our competitor countries. Cancer Research UK alone spends almost £1 million a year on visas. I know where I want its money being invested, and it is not in visas for the Home Office. Any changes aimed at control must go hand in hand with a serious plan to boost domestic skills and get more people into the jobs that our NHS, social care system and economy desperately need.

Before I come to my asks for the Minister and a summary, I want to mention the elephant in the room—or not in the room. Where are the Reform Members? They are missing yet another debate on immigration. The Government want to change ILR requirements to look tough on immigration because they are running scared of Reform. I urge the Minister and the Government to speak up for our immigrant communities, highlight the benefits of immigration and agree that our constituents are much more likely to be seen by an immigrant in the NHS than to be behind one in the queue.

What assessment has the Minister made of the economic costs and the social costs of these changes? Does he think they will make Britain a more competitive place when it comes to securing the workforce on which our NHS and social care system are so dependent? Has he considered how they may damage community cohesion and integration? Does he agree that retrospectively extending indefinite leave to remain, without the provision of any specific transitional arrangements, will hurt the many hard-working members of our society who have played by the rules and contributed greatly to our economy and culture?

Since taking office, this Government have performed many U-turns on high-profile issues, whether because they are financially foolish, morally wrong, or impossible to deliver because of a political rebellion. Unfairly and unreasonably changing the ILR rules retrospectively would meet all three of those reasons. I urge the Minister to announce today that the changes will not be retrospective, so that immigrant constituents of mine, his and everyone else in the room who have served our communities and fled conflict can sleep soundly at night without worrying about their future. That is what the Minister can do this evening. I urge him to do it.

Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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?

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Naish]

I will.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Hong Kong Democracy Activists

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful, as I always am, to the hon. Member. He has a long-standing track record of standing up for repressed minorities wherever they might be. Clearly, that is particularly relevant in the context of today’s urgent question. He will have heard my opening remarks, in which I referred to the statement that had been issued by the Foreign Secretary specifically condemning the bounties, and in which he called on Beijing to repeal its national security law, including its territorial reach. We take these matters incredibly seriously. We are working with the police and local communities and will do everything we can to make sure that people get the support that they deserve.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I want to come back to the embassy. I have been contacted by several constituents on this matter. At 700,000 square feet, it would be China’s largest embassy in Europe. As we know from the incident at the Manchester consulate in 2022, such an embassy would be contributing to the transnational repression that Hongkongers, Tibetans and the wider Chinese diaspora in the UK experience. Have the Government made an assessment of whether this new super-embassy would contribute to transnational repression and, if so, on what basis has that assessment been made?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend’s question has been asked by others. I assure him that national security is the overriding priority for this and, I hope, any Government. We look incredibly carefully at these matters. We will consider every aspect of this application, which ultimately is to be decided on by the Deputy Prime Minister. But as I have said, both the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have written a very clear letter—I invite those Members who appear not necessarily to have read it to do so—and I can tell him and the House that the letter covers the full breadth of national security issues in relation to this planning application.