Park Home Owners

Debate between James Naish and Jim Dickson

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will talk later about the different reasons that have been given for the 10% commission, which demonstrate in and of themselves that nobody is sure what it is for. It is a hangover from a past era.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I have had the pleasure of visiting Stonehill Woods Park in my constituency, a wonderful park homes community where I heard residents’ huge frustrations about the regulation of park homes, particularly the 10% sales commission. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should look carefully at all the evidence provided as part of the consultation, and at whether the 10% commission can be reduced or scrapped entirely?

[James Naish]

I trust that the Minister and his team will do exactly that. This is not just about the 10% sales commission; there are broader issues impacting park home residents. I will come on to those matters shortly.

Let me say two important things. First, mobile homes can be a very good housing option. They typically offer people a smaller, more manageable home in an attractive, close-knit community. The quality of mobile homes has improved considerably over recent years; the sites are often now home to a diverse mix of individuals and families, just like any other location.

Secondly, and critically, for most people park homes are not a second home or a luxury purchase; they are their only home. They therefore represent security, independence and a lifetime of savings, just like the bricks-and-mortar properties that most of us inhabit. That is precisely why protections for mobile home owners matter. We are talking about 160,000 ordinary people living ordinary lives in 100,000 increasingly ordinary properties, but they are underpinned by out-of-date legislation and perceptions. Rightly, the Government are looking at major commonhold, leasehold and fleecehold reforms to end the feudal leasehold system and the injustice of unfair maintenance costs, but as part of those wider changes, park and mobile home owners must not be forgotten. I hope that today’s debate will make sure that they are not.

On mobile homes, MPs from parties of all colours have talked over the years about mis-selling, poor maintenance, weak enforcement, opaque utility charges, disputes over pitch fees, sale blocking and the 10% commission charge when a home is sold. Most concerningly, MPs have often alluded to the imbalance of power between mobile home residents and site owners.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Debate between James Naish and Jim Dickson

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and to speak as the Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, which is proudly home to more than 2,000 Hongkongers who have arrived under the BNO visa scheme. That is what I would like to focus on today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening the debate. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) to his place as Minister of State at the Home Office, and thank him for joining us on his first working day in office.

I am here this afternoon to make a simple, principled case. The five-year pathway to settlement for BNO Hongkongers must be retained. This is about trust as much as law—about keeping our promises and the faith of the people who place their future in our hands.

The BNO visa route was created as a humanitarian lifeline in response to Beijing’s horrific national security law. The route is grounded in our legal, moral and historical responsibilities under the Sino-British joint declaration. It is not an economic channel, but a bespoke, safe and legal route for British nationals and their relatives fleeing repression in a former British territory where the rule of law and human rights have been ruthlessly eroded. That is why there has been rare, enduring cross-party support for the scheme since day one, and why any attempt to move the goalposts now would cut against the very reason the route exists.

Hongkongers uprooted their families on the explicit promise of a five-year pathway to indefinite leave to remain, plus one year to citizenship. To lengthen the timeline mid-journey would be seen as a breach of trust and would shake confidence in the UK’s credibility far beyond the BNO community. The numbers tell their own story, with almost 200,000 BNO Hongkongers now living in the UK. Crucially, the overwhelming majority came in the first two years after launch, and BNO grants now account for about 1% of total visas. We must appreciate that today’s debate is not about headline immigration numbers but about the welfare of a community that is already here. In Rushcliffe, as I mentioned, more than 2,000 Hongkongers are already on their five-year pathway to ILR. The impact will be on them.

Shifting the rules would hand Beijing and its regime in Hong Kong a propaganda gift: “You trusted Britain, yet Britain broke the deal.” We cannot allow that narrative to stand, which is why the Government must keep their promises. Extending settlement to 10 years would force a decade-long wait for home fee status for BNO students, pricing out the vast majority of BNOs currently studying for their A-levels at schools in my constituency from starting university until their mid-20s. It would also delay access to an estimated £3 billion in Hong Kong pension savings that can be released only once ILR is granted.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case on what those with BNO visas are being put through by this White Paper and the proposed legislation. In Dartford, I have been contacted by a large number of people on skilled visas who are in a very similar situation. Does he agree that, whatever the situation—whether people are on BNO or skilled visas—and whatever may happen with this legislation, they have come to the UK to contribute to our economy and society, and that the least we should offer is clarity on what they can expect from us, as well as fairness in not changing the terms on which they were accepted here in the first place?

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The consensus here is that we need to determine whether we as a country support the uncertainty of moving the goalposts, and I sincerely hope the Minister is listening to the sentiment in the room.

Because many BNOs lack consular protection and cannot safely renew travel documents, a longer route would also trap families. People would be separated, unable to travel for study, work or to see relatives abroad. To extend the pathway to 10 years would not be an act of administrative tidying; it would be a material downgrading of hundreds of thousands of British Hongkongers’ lives across the UK.

Meanwhile, the community is contributing civically and economically. Hongkongers are working, studying, volunteering, starting businesses and even serving in local government as councillors. They are precisely the neighbours and colleagues that we and my constituents in Rushcliffe want to keep. Many of them are also concerned about some of the broader immigration issues that have been referenced.

The five-year route was designed so that Hongkongers could put down roots quickly and securely. Extending the clock would defer integration, depress opportunity and waste potential. I therefore close by echoing the words of the tens of thousands of UK Hongkongers who will be watching this debate at home. I want to keep standing with Hong Kong. I want to keep our promise to Hongkongers. I want to keep the five-year route. That is how we honour our word: we support a thriving community that has so much to offer our nation. That is how we can show the world that, when Britain gives its word, it keeps it.