Indefinite Leave to Remain

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and to stand alongside other hon. Members in defence of a promise that we made to the people of Hong Kong. Carshalton and Wallington is home to many Hongkongers. It is situated in the London borough of Sutton, which has become a bit of a go-to location for new arrivals, with more than 5,000 now living in our area. It is no surprise that many of those local residents signed this petition. They know, at first hand, what is at stake. They took risks to be here, they have built their lives here, they have contributed to our community and they have trusted the UK to be a safe haven. We owe it to them to secure their future.

The BNO visa scheme was introduced in response to the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong—a law that essentially criminalised dissent against the Chinese Communist party. The visa is a lifeline rooted in the special and enduring ties between our two nations. It offered a clear pathway: five years to indefinite leave to remain and then citizenship.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I have a significant Hongkonger population in my constituency of Solihull West and Shirley—there are about 4,500 across the borough. Does he agree that they had a legitimate expectation that the rules of the game would not be changed part way through, and that to do so would damage the social contract that we, as a state, have with these people?

[Bobby Dean]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. It is a moral duty for our country to maintain its promise to those people.

To extend the pathway to 10 years would be a betrayal of trust. The change would have damaging consequences: young Hongkongers would face a decade-long wait to access university at home fee rates, and families would be locked out of £3 billion-worth of retirement savings that they cannot access at the moment because of the restrictions imposed in Hong Kong. Many would be immobilised, unable to travel safely without risking contact with Chinese consulates. Children born here would have to wait until the age of 11 to gain a passport. All of that would play directly into the hands of the Chinese Government, who have long claimed that BNO holders misplaced their trust in Britain. Changing the rules now would hand the Chinese Government a huge propaganda victory.

Constituents on BNO visas have written to me to describe how the limbo of waiting for indefinite leave to remain makes it difficult to continue their education or apply for the jobs that they want. Others have shared how they are harassed or subjected to surveillance, even here in the UK, simply for speaking out or being politically active.

This is about safety. The Hong Kong diaspora in the UK faces transnational repression, a term that is no longer abstract. In recent months, we have seen surveillance and intimidation of activists, bounties placed on UK residents, physical attacks including the assault of a protester at the Manchester consulate, and attempts to break into the homes of exiled Hongkongers. Those are no longer isolated incidents. They are part of a systemic campaign, and the UK must respond with clarity and courage.

In our borough of Sutton, I have heard personal stories of fear, resilience and hope. Hongkongers have opened businesses, joined our schools and enriched our community. We must not let bureaucracy or short-term politics undermine the commitment that was made in good faith. We must stand by Hongkongers, guarantee their rights and secure their futures in the way we promised.

Employment Rights Bill

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow several excellent maiden speeches this afternoon.

For an economy to thrive, both employers and employees must feel protected. Protections enable both parties to draw comfort. However, this Bill does not uphold that principle. In its approach and in its drafting, this Bill has fallen off its axis. It has, without doubt, landed in a place where it overwhelmingly favours the employee, to the detriment of any working balance with the employer. This should come as no great surprise. After all, given the paucity of private sector experience in the Cabinet, it was almost inevitable that this Bill would be seen through the prism of trade union bias. Having studied the Bill, one cannot fail to conclude that the Ministers who commissioned it have no understanding of the struggles faced by small and medium-sized businesses up and down the country.

While there is much to be derided in the Bill, there are two points I wish to raise for Ministers’ consideration. First, the abolition of the qualifying period for bringing an unfair dismissal claim will inevitably mean a rise in the number of claims presented to the employment tribunal. This will flood an already overwhelmed system. I ask the Minister: what true impact assessment has been made of that?

Under this Bill, bringing a claim for unfair dismissal becomes, to all intents and purposes, a day one right. There is a lack of clarity about the length of any probation period and the obligations on an employer when seeking to dismiss in that period. Inevitably, these obligations will increase the burden on SMEs, which will not have the depth of resources of their larger counterparts. The predictable consequence is that small businesses are likely to sink under the weight and cost of these additional requirements.

My second point relates to the proposed changes in respect of industrial action and trade union relations. By repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, lowering the ballot threshold for union action and requiring employers to direct their staff towards unions, the Government have demonstrated their willingness to bow down to their union paymasters, to the detriment of hard-working businesses and industry. The public will see this for what it is: a cheap effort to curry favour with the unions while lining the pocket of the Labour party.

It is clear from my conversations with small business owners in Solihull West and Shirley that the Government’s proposals will only hinder growth and productivity. These measures fail to strike the balance between employer and employee. They will choke our courts, cripple small businesses and stifle employment growth.