Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon]

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of this. The political parties have been consulted through the Electoral Commission panel, and we will continue to work with them as we move forward.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

We know that Russia orchestrated not only an arson attack on the Prime Minister’s family, but then the spreading on social media of misinformation about the attack, so I welcome the Rycroft review’s recommendations on strengthening enforcement. Does the Minister agree that this has to target not only foreign actors who spread misinformation and the countries behind them, but the social media companies that are allowing misinformation to spread on their platforms?

[Samantha Dixon]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the priority is to protect our political system from interference by foreign powers, including Russia. We will always continue to hold Russia to account and to counter the threat posed by Putin’s regime, and we will work at pace across Government to support that work—and not just in the Representation of the People Bill or as a response to the review, but continuously.

Park Home Owners

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Park home residents have had consultation after consultation over many years. Site owners will respond to the current Government consultation, because they have lawyers to back them up and support them in putting in their thoughts, but the park home owners I have spoken to worry that there is no point in submitting responses to yet another consultation when, as they see it, nothing is going to happen. I worry that far fewer park home owners will respond to this consultation, and we will therefore end up with a one-sided consultation.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. As he knows, there are many park homes across Bracknell Forest, which we both represent. I understand the scepticism that some have expressed about the call for evidence, but as he has identified, the Government need to put forward something that can stand up to those with very expensive lawyers behind them. Will he therefore take this opportunity to urge everyone who lives in a park home, whether in Bracknell Forest or elsewhere across the country, to contribute to that call for evidence, so that the evidence base can be as robust as it needs to be and we can abolish the 10% charge?

[Mr Reynolds]

I thank my constituency neighbour for that point. It is incredibly important that everybody responds to the consultation, so we must encourage more people to do so.

The financial cost of the 10% commission is only part of the story. We have heard time and again about unscrupulous site owners who have used intimidation to drive residents off their pitches. There are fewer bad actors who own sites than there were a number of years ago, but some still know that if they intimidate residents and force a sale, they will get a 10% commission. We see that time and again. In my constituency, one owner bought a site for £200,000. They then intimidated countless park home residents, who sold their properties, and made that £200,000 back within less than 12 months. That is the business model of unscrupulous site owners. We need to think about where the 10% commission came from. It has not always been 10%: it was 15% a number of years ago, so it is an arbitrary number.

I pay tribute to Sonia McColl OBE and the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign. Over decades, she and the campaign have done what many in this place only wish we had been able to do. They secured two legislative changes: ending sale blocking, and shifting pitch fees from RPI to CPI, which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) spoke about. Sonia and the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign have driven lots of the work that is happening here. Another petition is going to Downing Street later today. I was lucky to be able to present one to Downing Street last year, and I know that many of us are willing to submit them in future.

We need to be honest about what we are going to do. There is a consultation on the table, but lots of residents have been consulted before. I ask the Minister for a clear timeline for when we will see action, when we will have a conclusion with published responses, and when the 160,000 residents will get the fair deal that has been promised for so long but postponed for much longer.

Local Government Reorganisation

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for those points. On the announcement process, we followed the precedent set by the previous round of reorganisation in 2021, under the previous Government. In relation to Sussex, it is really important that we get this right. We had concerns about the proposals not sufficiently addressing the criteria, particularly on economic growth, service disaggregation, community identity and financial sustainability. We will work quickly with Sussex, so that we can enter into that period of intense discussion and consultation after the local elections. That will not affect the overall timings of the programme, with new unitaries going live in 2028.

The hon. Lady also mentioned working with local government on its overall finances. Having just dealt with the fair funding review, I can honestly say that in the months since I was appointed, I have spent most of my life talking in detail, along with Members from across the House, about financial sustainability for councils. I have no doubt that she and I will engage on the subject many times in the future.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I genuinely welcome the fact that my hon. Friend stresses the need for locally led decision making. She will know that there is widespread support across the Thames valley for a foundation strategic authority for Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Swindon, and that a bid along those lines is with her ministerial colleagues at the moment. She will also know that there is genuine concern about a different proposal, wholly unacceptable to local leaders, that is being mooted. Will she reassure me and colleagues across the House that when it comes to FSAs, MSAs, SDSs or any initialism that she chooses, there will always be priority given to locally led decision making?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for making his way through the alphabet soup of devolution. I will make sure that the Minister for devolution hears his points. She will have read his letter and I am sure will respond to it. The next stage of our plan is to make sure that all places in this country have a plan for growth, and we will listen to what he says as we move forward.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Member for his support, for his work with the defending democracy taskforce and for contributing to Sir Philip Rycroft’s review. He is quite right that we want to make sure that there is adequate time on Report for Members to make their points, and I am sure that the business managers will ensure that that happens. Regarding resources for the Electoral Commission, we will need to ensure that the resources are adequate to meet any new demands placed on them or other regulators. That will be part of the process of ensuring that the legislation goes through and can be followed through on.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I thank Sir Philip Rycroft for his important work. In his review, he notes:

“The online environment has created a cheap and relatively simple means of getting anonymised content in front of ordinary people in a way that seeks to undermine their trust in the political process.”

He notes that this activity is “strategic, long-term and patient”, and that

“dissonance is its own reward.”

Does the Secretary of State agree with those findings? What can we do to address the challenge of misinformation and disinformation on social media and in online spaces?

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have to maintain confidence and trust of the British electorate in the integrity of our elections and election processes. This legislation, and the amendments we will table as a result of the Rycroft review, are intended to achieve precisely that.

Representation of the People Bill

Peter Swallow Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

Those of us who are in this Chamber on a Thursday morning know that we sometimes have questions to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission then, and I say that because in the last Parliament, as an Opposition MP, I was a spokesperson for that Committee. It is the only time in the parliamentary week when Members pose questions to an opposition Member to answer. That is an important point, because it highlights the fact that the Electoral Commission is not answerable to Government, of any colour; rather, it is answerable to Parliament, because it is a regulator like no other. It regulates politics, and it therefore holds a very special status.

I also served in the last Parliament on the Elections Bill Committee, and I saw there what happens when political parties use legislation for political advantage. I am really pleased to be able to say that the Bill before us contains many of the important democratic principles that I have been speaking about for the last 11 years in this House, and I am excited to vote for it on Second Reading this evening.

Among the Bill’s measures is the expansion of voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds. We have heard some quite bizarre things said about that so far this evening, some of which were really quite remarkable. The Bill also includes bank cards among the forms of ID that can be used to access voting. For those who were not in the last Parliament to see the Elections Bill go through and become the Elections Act 2022, let me say that time and again, Conservative Ministers told us at the Dispatch Box that if people need ID to collect a parcel at the post office, they should need ID to vote at a polling station; but if we want to collect a parcel at a post office, we can use a bank card for that, so this is completely in line with the arguments made for the introduction of ID, and I would expect the official Opposition to support expanding the relevant ID to include bank cards.

It is important that we come together on upholding confidence in democracy, because confidence in democracy is not very high in this country right now. That is why it is so important that expanding the franchise to include 16 and 17-year-olds goes hand in hand with working with our colleagues in education to ensure that those young citizens are equipped to vote, and have the necessary support. Already, young citizens in Wales and Scotland have the right to vote, and bringing English and Northern Irish citizens into line makes logical sense.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I declare an interest: I am chair of the all-party group on schools, learning and assessment, and we are conducting an inquiry on votes at 16 to see what support young people will need to make the most of the vote, when they get it. The most important thing that young people are telling us is that they are concerned that their teachers do not feel confident enough to lead discussions in the classroom around politics. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must support not just our young people, but our teachers, and enable conversations about democracy, the voting process and citizenship?

[Cat Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. His APPG sounds very interesting. I am sure that those on the Front Bench heard those points, and I agree with them.

In my remaining time, I want to address the need to protect our democracy from foreign interference. In cleaning up politics, we need to address specific weaknesses identified. There is a very good blog by Professor Alan Renwick at the University College London constitution unit, which I would love to quote from, but my time is quite limited. He highlights that while the Bill introduces stricter eligibility criteria for company donors, there are still huge gaps regarding cryptocurrency and the potential for illicit funds to bypass traditional checks. We should be bold enough to start talking about a donation cap, too. There is no plausible argument against introducing caps on political donations to prevent a small number of wealthy people from exerting disproportionate influence.

The changes made in the last piece of legislation that went through this House on electoral law have left a huge vulnerability. That legislation abolished the 15-year rule we used to have, whereby citizens who had lived outside the UK for 15 years or longer lost the right to vote and to donate to UK politics. When that rule was abolished, there was no way for elections officers in councils up and down the country to verify that people claiming to have lived at an address in another constituency in 1976 actually did so, because those records were not kept past 15 years, as of course there was no point. Now, there are permissible donors to the UK electoral system who claim to have lived in the UK, and we have no way of proving whether they did. That is a huge vulnerability, and I urge those on the Front Bench to look again at that, and at closing that potential back door that we have left open to foreign money interfering in UK politics. We are an outlier in having this rule; in the Republic of Ireland, for instance, those who leave the country lose the right to vote after one year.

I would like to finish by saying that many colleagues have made the case for proportional representation, and this Bill would have been a great opportunity to set up a commission to look at all the different options that would be available to make sure that people feel that their vote counts, and that there is no such thing as a wasted vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

While new technologies can often be a force for good and, when used correctly, can enhance political debate, accountability and trust, in practice they are too often having the opposite effect. Social media, in particular, has helped to fuel further division and facilitated levels of distrust, threats and intimidation towards elected representatives that have never been seen before. It has also opened our political system and discourse to the wider world, with other countries able to use platforms to influence and interfere in our domestic political debate in ways that were previously not possible.

Political discourse has become murky, and legitimate political debate has become distorted by misinformation, with people no longer even able to agree on basic facts. This represents an existential threat to liberal democracy. When misinformation spreads unchecked, abuse is normalised and accountability is lacking, confidence in our democratic institutions is significantly weakened. That is what our foes want.

[Peter Swallow]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and a representative from Meta spoke to the Committee just last week. I was very concerned about their answers when probed on the work that needs to be done to protect social media sites from foreign interference. Does he share my concerns that social media companies are not doing enough to tackle this issue on their platforms?

[Justin Madders]

In my experience, Meta does not care about the truth. We heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) about what he experienced, and I have had the same experiences: stuff goes up, it does not meet the threshold, it carries on and the lies continue to be propagated. Meta’s indifference is a danger to our democracy and that absolutely needs tackling.

There are long-standing rules on how political parties can use paid-for advertising in the offline world, but we have effectively gone from a situation where we have banal party political broadcasts on terrestrial channels to a virtual free-for-all online. That leads to deliberate distortions, misleading claims and half-truths being pushed into social media feeds with absolutely no checks on their accuracy and little recourse, as we have heard, to challenge their spread.

Local Government Finance

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

My hon. Friend is right to point out, as I did, the consequences of council cuts. They are not just theoretical on a spreadsheet—we all saw the effects in our parks and our town centres. We want to turn that around in Gravesham, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend over the weeks and months to come to make that real for her residents.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Between 2015 and 2020, under the last multi-year settlement, the Conservative Government cut Bracknell Forest council’s funding by £500,000. I am delighted that this provisional settlement would see Bracknell Forest’s funding rise by almost £10 million—an increase of over 7%. Does my hon. Friend agree that this shows that Labour will always invest in our local services and the Conservatives will always choose austerity?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for the case he makes, which shows people in Bracknell that they have an effective MP who is prepared to stand up for them, champion them and make sure they get the services they need.

Planning Reform

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The solution to nutrient neutrality and other similar constraints is the environmental delivery plans delivered through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which the hon. Gentleman’s party voted against.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

When I met local nature activists in Bracknell, they told me that swift bricks are used not just by swifts, but by house martins and sparrows. Sadly, they are not used by swallows—although this Swallow certainly welcomes them. As the Minister knows, I have been strongly calling for swift bricks, so I am really pleased to see that they will be a requirement in new developments. Does he agree that this demonstrates that bringing forward the housing that we need to address the housing crisis does not have to come at the cost of nature? If we get this right, we can make sure that there is fantastic access to nature, alongside the homes we so badly need.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is one of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have called for greater support for swift bricks, which we recognise are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. The new swift brick requirement in the framework will require all developments to include swift bricks in their construction, unless compelling technical reasons prevent their use or make them ineffective. This is a significant strengthening of the expectations already in place, and we expect the end result to be at least one swift brick in every new brick-built house, unless there are legitimate reasons why installation would not be appropriate.

Electoral Resilience

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Cryptocurrency is one route by which dirty money can covertly enter British politics in an attempt to influence the outcomes of elections. That is why crypto will be in scope for this review, and I look forward, as I know she does, to the findings of Philip Rycroft’s review.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

A once senior leader of the Reform party is now in jail for colluding with Russia. When the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) heard about that, did he launch an inquiry? Did he perhaps review his own previous statements on Russia, including saying that he admired Putin? No, he did not; he called Nathan Gill a “bad apple”. I welcome this review and the fact that all political parties will be invited to contribute, but will my right hon. Friend commit to make clear to the House, when he reports back on the findings of the review, exactly which political parties took part in this exercise of scrutiny and transparency and which did not?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

May I confirm with the hon. Member that he has informed the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?

[Peter Swallow]

I am pleased to say that I did. The hon. Member for Clacton is not in his place to hear my comments, but I hope he is listening anyway.

[Steve Reed]

It will be for Philip Rycroft to publish his review in the way that he sees fit, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The sentencing of Nathan Gill for bribery, alongside other recent cases, has exposed vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the UK’s political and electoral systems. The review will give us the opportunity to check that our safeguards are sufficiently robust given the evolving nature of the threat.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

It is a honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the Minister to his place. By way of ingratiating myself on behalf of my constituents, may I also say how much I like his socks, which I have been admiring?

The immigration White Paper rightly recognises that we need an immigration system that is fair, firm and clear. Those who have come to this country to work hard, contribute and play by the rules should be able to see a well-defined route to citizenship. That pathway must be bound by rules that are consistent, transparent and well understood.

That said, I have heard from Bracknell constituents who will potentially be affected by a shift from a five-plus-one year route to a 10-plus-one year route to citizenship. Many of those residents are almost at the five-year point today, and have already built lives and careers here. Understandably, they are worried that just as they reach that threshold, the rules will change beneath their feet. My firm view is that when people come to this country on the basis of a clear settlement route, we should respect that understanding, and that, at the very least, any change should be introduced in a staggered way. That is the fair and right thing to do.

Importantly, this moment provides us with the opportunity to properly re-examine the individual components of our immigration system, including the BNO visa scheme. When the Conservatives launched it, the scheme was billed as a bespoke pathway that honoured our historical obligations to the people of Hong Kong. In reality, however, far too many BNO holders have found themselves bound by the same rules as other visa holders. That is not what was promised, and it does not reflect our historic commitment and the unique circumstances that brought Hongkongers to our country. Here I am afraid I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray): the route by which people come to this country does matter.

The Hong Kong community is making a remarkable contribution to Britain. A 2023 survey found that 99% of BNO visa holders intend to settle permanently and become British citizens, and they are highly skilled. Almost six in 10 hold a degree or postgraduate qualification, compared with a third of the UK population. Despite that, only about half are currently in work, compared with three quarters of the UK as a whole. That gap reflects the barriers that people still face—barriers that we should be helping to dismantle.

I have seen at first hand the contributions of Hong Kong families in Bracknell. I recently met members of our local Hong Kong community, and while I was inspired by their resilience and the way they have enriched our town, I also heard about the barriers and uncertainty that they now face. I thank the 487 Bracknell constituents who signed the petition on BNO visas that we are here today to discuss.

One young woman at my meeting told me about how ready she is to continue her studies, but that she has been priced out of university because she does not yet qualify for home fees. Extending the length of time BNO visa holders must wait to secure settled status also means extending the length of time they are liable to pay international fees, despite living in this country, achieving their A-levels at UK schools and looking to build their adult lives and careers in, and lend their considerable talents to, the UK.

Another constituent is a talented professional dancer who teaches local students. She is unable to dance for Britain in international competitions because of her visa status, despite being exactly the kind of role model we should be championing. I also met a young married couple who have bought a home and started a life in Bracknell, but feel they cannot yet start a family because of uncertainty over their future status. These stories are not abstract policy points; they are the lived experiences of people who are already making an incredible contribution to our country and our community.

It was precisely because of these concerns that I, together with Labour colleagues, wrote earlier this summer to the then Home Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary. We urged her to ensure that BNO visa holders are not unfairly disadvantaged by retrospective changes to the settlement route, and that the promises made to Hongkongers when this scheme was created are properly upheld.

At my public meeting, I was saddened but not shocked to hear that some members of the Bracknell Forest Hong Kong community had chosen not to come because of the fear of transnational repression. They were concerned that by engaging in the democratic process and speaking to their local Member of Parliament—a right that must be available to every man, woman and child living in this country—they would make themselves a target for the long reach of the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments. That is a powerful reminder of why the previous UK Government, with the Labour party’s full support, brought in the BNO visa route in the first place: the Hong Kong national security law. We owe it to the Hongkongers rebuilding their lives in the UK to ensure that the BNO visa scheme is properly bespoke, so that we can live up to our historic obligations.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

May I just say to the Minister that his socks are in order? The Clerks are excellent, because I now know that the first reference to socks in the House of Commons was in 1842, in a manufacturing debate. To reassure him, there is no mention whatever of socks in the “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” or in “Erskine May”, which of course was first published in 1844. Members can therefore all be reassured, and certainly the Minister can be: his socks are in order. There is a ruling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I believe I am the first member of my party speaking in this place to welcome the Minister to his new place. I look forward to working across from him, socks and all.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), the Petitions Committee and the members of the public who signed the petitions before us today. The hon. Member is right to note that there are many different strands to the issue. This evening, I will speak about the proposed changes to ILR qualification for the skilled worker visa.

Over the past 30 years, millions of people have immigrated to Britain. The level of migration to this country has been too high for decades and remains so. Every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce migration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the last Government, like the Governments before them, promised to do exactly that. Like the Governments before them, they failed to deliver.

[Peter Swallow]

On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

[Katie Lam]

I will make a little progress first.

It is particularly concerning that the vast majority who have come to Britain in the last few years, including many of those on the skilled worker route, are unlikely to contribute more in tax than they cost over their lifetimes through their use of public services and state support. As things stand, the lifetime cost of the recent wave of migration is set to be hundreds of billions of pounds. It is one of the biggest scandals in British politics and most people, including the Prime Minister, now acknowledge that the accelerated migration of the last few years was a profound mistake. When we make a mistake and have the power to reverse it, it is right that we do so. We absolutely have the power to reverse this particular mistake, and that would start by changing the rules on indefinite leave to remain.

At the moment, after just five years, most migrants can claim ILR, allowing them to stay here indefinitely, access state support and begin the path to citizenship. My shadow Home Office colleagues and I have repeatedly argued that the qualifying period should be extended from five years to 10, but that alone is not enough. No new visa should be issued to, no new ILR status should be granted to, and existing ILR status should be revoked from, those who have committed a crime, accessed state support, or are unlikely to contribute more than they cost. Those who have no legal way to stay here would then need to leave. That is how immigration works.

Many hon. Members in this debate have commented on the fairness and perceived fairness of retrospective rule changes to those who have come here. That point was made in opening by the hon. Member for South Norfolk and by too many other hon. Members to list. We can feel great personal sympathy for such people, but our primary, indeed our only, fundamental responsibility is not fairness to foreign nationals but fairness to the British people. It is our sacred duty to put them first, and to act in their interests and their interests alone.

[Peter Swallow]

The hon. Member is setting out a powerful argument, but she has not touched on the BNO visa route. As I mentioned earlier, that route was introduced by the previous Government with support from the Labour party. I ask her to be really clear. She talked about mistakes from the previous Government. Is she now saying that that route was a mistake, or will she take this opportunity to recommit her party to the Hong Kong community, to whom, after all, we owe that historic commitment?

[Katie Lam]

Our suggested reforms do not apply to Hong Kong BNO visa holders. That is a specific route set up for extraordinary purposes. We believe it should be viewed and treated differently.

Implementing our policies in full would save the British taxpayer hundreds of billions of pounds. It would relieve pressure on our already stretched public services and lay the foundations for an immigration system that genuinely works in the national interest. More than that, it would give effect to the democratic wishes of the British people by reversing a costly disaster that nobody voted for and that most people now acknowledge was a catastrophic mistake. I urge the Government in the strongest possible terms to commit to implement the changes that we have repeatedly proposed, including by applying any changes to ILR to those who are already here.

A five-year visa does not confer a right to apply to settle here indefinitely. Those who come here must make a genuine and sustained contribution to our country, and unfortunately most of those who have come on the skilled worker route in recent years are unlikely to do so. If, as the Prime Minister says, our “open borders experiment” has been a mistake, why should British taxpayers be saddled with the cost of that mistake for the rest of their lives?

Finally, although I do not agree with the argument made by the petition on skilled worker visas, I believe that that process should be subject to an open and frank public debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will turn to the BNO status shortly, but I think of all the work that goes on in my community around English language. Similarly, with those who have come from Ukraine in the past few years it has been transformative. As we make the proposals in the White Paper law, we will consider those important accompanying conversations.

It is a long-standing point of consensus across this place that settlement is a privilege and not a right. We know that settlement in the UK brings significant benefits, so the proposals that we have set out in the immigration White Paper reflect our view that people who benefit from settling in the UK should at first make a proportionate contribution. We have heard much about the valuable contributions that hon. Members’ constituents are making. That is why, although we are setting a baseline qualifying period for settlement at 10 years, we will allow those who make meaningful contributions to reduce that period, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) referred to.

I turn to skilled work, the subject of the first petition. Skilled worker visa holders make an important contribution to our economy and public services, filling essential skills and labour market gaps, but for too long, sectors have become reliant on them to fill those gaps and have not sought to invest in our domestic workforce. The reforms that we have set out in the immigration White Paper are addressing the balance and reversing the long-term trends of overseas recruitment increasing, at the same time as reducing investment in skills and training and increasing levels of unemployment and economic inactivity in the UK, which I know we are all concerned about in our communities.

We implemented the first of the reforms in late July, lifting the threshold for skilled workers to RQF level 6, and we have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to advise on future changes to salary requirements and a temporary shortage list. We have established a new labour market evidence group, which met at the end of July and will continue to meet quarterly, to support our aim of tackling the underlying causes of workforce shortages and ensuring that growth-driving sectors have access to the skilled workers that they need now and into the future. I speak as someone who, until a couple of days ago, was the local growth Minister: we must support our children and schools with the same vigour, so that they get brilliant opportunities and the training that they need first.

Colleagues have talked with great passion about the Hong Kong British national overseas visa route. I want to take a moment to reflect on what the BNO route means, not just for those who have made use of it but for this country more generally. Our country has a long-standing and unique connection to the people of Hong Kong. As Hong Kong is a former British territory, many Hongkongers hold BNO status, which is a recognition of that shared history, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) said. I commend the previous Government for launching the BNO route in January 2021—I supported it in this place—as a direct response to the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong. Through that, the UK honoured its historic and moral commitments to the people of Hong Kong by creating a bespoke immigration route for those seeking safety, stability and a future rooted in those shared values.

Since it launched, close to 225,000 people have been granted a BNO visa, and over 160,000 have arrived in the UK. Like many of the migrants across the immigration system, Hongkongers have quickly become an integral part of both our economy and local communities, with high levels of employment, education participation and community engagement. They have made their homes in key cities and regions across the UK.

In Nottingham, Hongkongers have made an extraordinary contribution, whether it is in our public services, the private sector or the community and voluntary sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) takes a great interest in this area, and a year ago we met organisations representative of the extraordinary contribution Hongkongers are making. I will stop short of saying whether I consider them to be from Nottingham now; due to local government reorganisation, that is a very sticky point, as it is for my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) and possibly for my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who mentioned Long Eaton. I am not going to go anywhere near that question.

The presence of those people is not just valued; they are making a huge positive and lasting contribution to our national life. As a Government, we recognise the significance of that community, not just for what they have done so far but for the role that they will play in the years ahead. I assure Members that this Government remain steadfast in supporting members of the Hong Kong community in the UK and all those who will arrive in the future. We remain fully committed to the BNO route, through which we will continue to welcome Hongkongers, but I do know how important the ability to obtain settled status is to the Hong Kong community. That is why I can assure them that we are listening to their views about the route to settlement, and we will continue to do so. In the meantime, the current rules for settlement under the BNO route will continue to apply.

[Peter Swallow]

Given how profoundly the Minister is setting out the importance of the Hong Kong community in the UK, can I tempt him to take this opportunity not only to recommit to supporting the Hongkongers with the current route, but to use this as an opportunity to fix some of the things in the BNO visa route that have made it not quite as bespoke as was originally intended through this process? Will the Minister look at that as he looks at the overall immigration system?

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to reform the leasehold system.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

21. What steps she is taking to reform the leasehold system.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

May I start by sending my thoughts and prayers to everyone involved in yesterday’s incident at Southend airport?

We remain committed to giving leaseholders greater rights, powers and protections in respect of their homes, and bringing the feudal leasehold system to an end. We have made significant progress, implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and, this month, launching a consultation to strengthen leaseholder protections when it comes to charges and services. We are delivering, but we will go further; we will publish a draft leasehold and commonhold Bill later this year. This week, the High Court will hear challenges to some of the enfranchisement reforms in the 2024 Act; we will defend those challenges robustly, and will await the Court’s judgment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Rayner]

Unjustified service charges are wholly unacceptable, and I strongly recommend that the homeowners obtain legal advice. The Leasehold Advisory Service, for instance, gives free legal advice to leaseholders. Developers are typically responsible for rectifying defects within the first two years of the warranty period; even if no warranty claim is made, developers are still liable, and should not pass charges on to leaseholders. Unreasonable service charges may be challenged at the first-tier tribunal.

[Peter Swallow]

Through the Government’s landmark Renters’ Rights Bill, we are doing much to address the inequities of the rental sector for constituents in Bracknell and across the country—for instance, we are extending the right to request a pet. Now the Government are turning our attention to reforming leasehold. My right hon. Friend will know that many leaseholders are also blocked from having a pet by a clause in their head lease. What can we do to deal with that?

[Angela Rayner]

I know that my hon. Friend has already spoken to the Minister for Housing and Planning about this issue, and that those discussions will continue. As you well know, Mr Speaker, pets bring joy, happiness and comfort to their owners, while also supporting their mental and physical wellbeing. We have strengthened the rights of private tenants to keep pets in the Renters’ Rights Bill, and we will of course keep the position of leaseholders with pets under review.