Indefinite Leave to Remain

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 727360 and 727356 relating to the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The excellent staff on the Petitions Committee have been as diligent as ever; thanks to their hard work, I have had some very informative meetings with experts and campaign groups. I want to quickly thank the Migration Observatory, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Hong Kong Watch and the Centre for Policy Studies for taking the time to discuss the policy with me. I also want to thank Darwin, the creator of the petition entitled “Keep the 5-Year ILR pathway for existing Skilled Worker visa holders”, for the fascinating and moving conversation that we had last week.

Before I turn to the detail, I want to say why today’s debate matters. It is timely because the public discourse on immigration grows louder, fuelled by the algorithms of X and Facebook. We also see those who peddle the idea that you can have your cake and eat it: lower migration, but without the consequences to our economy, our NHS, our diplomacy or our culture. They are charlatans trying to hoodwink the public with slogans on the sides of buses. They want to divide us and set the tone that all immigration is bad and, by extension, that all migrants are unwelcome.

But that is not our country. That is not who we are. The moral compass of the vast majority of Britons points firmly in the other direction. This debate is our chance to show that careful deliberation is needed. Managed migration, done well, strengthens us. It grows our economy, it enriches our culture and it gives us the diplomatic heft to punch above our weight on the world stage.

First, I want to address one specific point. Experts have raised with me multiple times the need for a clear and honest conversation about what these changes mean, and the need for a clear distinction between immigration pathways and the different types of immigration. Let us be clear at the start about what we have and have not been asked to discuss today. We are not here to debate asylum claims, the graduate route, small boats or ancestry visas. The 164,000 and 108,000 people who signed the two petitions are asking us to consider two precise things: the five-year pathway for existing skilled worker visa holders and the five-year pathway for Hong Kong British national overseas visas.

Let me turn first to skilled workers. There are three issues to get to grips with, the first of which is fairness to those who are already here. The skilled worker visa pathway was introduced only in December 2020, and many people are now close to completing their five years. Some are just months away.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by many constituents across Beckenham and Penge, including Lachlan from Australia, who were en route to qualifying for indefinite leave to remain but now feel uncertain about their future. Does my hon. Friend agree that clarity on the Government’s earned settlement scheme and the retrospective effect of changes to indefinite leave to remain would be warmly welcomed by hard-working constituents like Lachlan and others in Beckenham and Penge and across the country who want to make Britain their permanent home?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which shows not only that he has probably seen my speech and knows what is coming next, but that it is a uniform measure that has been raised by those who have spoken to me, as the Member introducing the debate, and by those who have reached out to their MPs.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am really pleased with the way my hon. Friend is presenting the debate. Many of us agree with what he says about how the immigration debate is being utilised and weaponised, but also believe that the level of legal migration is too high and support the Government in getting a grip on it. We want to ensure that those who come here are delivering, but we also recognise that some people who are already delivering will be affected and that they need to be properly considered.

[Ben Goldsborough]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. As I said at the start, migration managed well benefits us all. That is what I understand the Government are trying to achieve, and that is one thing that we need to support.

The prospect of applying changes retrospectively has caused huge anxiety. For people who have uprooted their family, made financial sacrifices and planned their future on the basis of clear rules, it feels—as one person put it to me—like

“running a marathon and halfway through realising the rules have changed”.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. Because this debate is so popular, Members have received many emails from constituents, as I have from my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate. They are highly skilled and are worried about the transitional arrangements, because they are existing visa holders and have spent a lot of money investing in trying to stay here. That includes those who have emailed me saying that they have already passed their “Life in the UK” test. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are changing the ILR qualifying period retrospectively, it would make sense, because of the financial hardship and distress that it is causing our constituents, to have a clear exemption for those who are already on a qualifying visa route?

[Ben Goldsborough]

That is another issue that I know the Minister, who is new to his place, will address in his remarks.

The second issue that I want to raise is exploitation. A longer route to settlement may embolden bad employers. We already know that there are 40,000 people in limbo in the social care sector because of exploitative bosses and visa sponsorship pressures. Extending the pathway risks increasing the vulnerability of workers who are already contributing to our society. I therefore ask the Minister: has any assessment been carried out of the workplace impact of these proposals?

The third issue is contribution. These are skilled workers; we invited them here because we need their skills. They are in work, paying tax, helping our economy, staffing our hospitals, caring for our elderly and carrying out world-leading research. In my constituency of South Norfolk, skilled workers at the Norwich research park are engaged in science that could revolutionise food security and tackle the climate crisis. At Norfolk and Norwich University hospital, I saw a board listing dozens of nationalities represented in the workforce—it looked like a roll-call of the United Nations—and yet these staff, who are giving so much, have no access to public funds. They pay the immigration health surcharge of £1,000 a year and support our economy, but carry their own costs. That is the reality that we must recognise. My question to the Minister is whether the Government have conducted an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes to the skilled worker pathway.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his speech, and I thank those who secured the debate. Many of my constituents are highly skilled. They often work in IT. Some do not intend to stay and may well go home, but those who have written to me have told me what it means for them. It is not just about their current job; they see themselves contributing in the long term through their skilled jobs and perhaps making a career, climbing up the career ladder and becoming managers and leaders in their field. This decision appears to make that possibility very uncertain. How do HR managers feel about this decision when they are recruiting skilled people from overseas?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I thank my hon. Friend. The important thing is not just the here and now, but the future. We always need to legislate for the future, not just for now.

I turn to the second petition, which is about the Hong Kong BNOs. The moral case is overwhelming. We must remember why this scheme exists: it was created in response to Beijing’s national security law, when freedoms and rights of Hongkongers were crushed. People fled oppression. They came here trusting Britain to keep its word. Some of those who are now living in our country have spoken out against the Chinese Government. Going back to Hong Kong is unthinkable for them.

Colleagues should be under no illusion about what people are fleeing. In mainland China, repression is systematic. We have seen the incarceration of over 1 million Uyghur Muslims, the silencing of dissent and the routine use of mass surveillance against ordinary citizens. In Hong Kong, which was once one of Asia’s freest societies, we have seen the steady erosion of rights that were guaranteed by international treaty. We have seen freedom of the press strangled, freedom of assembly banned, civil society dismantled piece by piece, journalists jailed, students arrested and opposition politicians barred from office or driven into exile—all this in a place where people used to enjoy liberties similar to our own.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the Ukrainian situation is similar to the Hong Kong situation? People on Homes for Ukraine visas have now been here for more than four years. We should be considering including them in the five-year period for leave to remain in this country.

[Ben Goldsborough]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I know that the Minister will have been listening to his point.

When Hongkongers tell us that they are worried about the direction of travel, we must listen, because they have already lived it. They know what it means when promises are broken; they know what it means when the state decides to rewrite the rules halfway through the journey. That is why this debate is not just about visa terms. It is about trust and about whether Britain will stand by its word.

We in this country have always had a proud tradition of standing up to international bullies. When others looked away, Britain was often prepared to say, “No, this is not right. We will not let you trample over your people.” That tradition is written into our history, from our stance against fascism in Europe to our support for democratic movements across the world. The BNO scheme is part of that tradition. It told the people of Hong Kong, “You are not alone. Britain will stand with you.”

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way and is making excellent remarks. At the weekend, I met Sid, who is in the Gallery today, and he made many of the excellent points that my hon. Friend is making. On the issue of the BNO route, the extension from five to 10 years makes it look as though we are shifting the goalposts. Does my hon. Friend agree that that risks handing Beijing a propaganda victory and that it would deny young Hongkongers access to home fee status at our universities for a decade?

[Ben Goldsborough]

My hon. Friend’s point is extremely well made. I would say that I could not have put it better myself, but I hope I can, in the bit that is coming up.

I urge the Minister to clarify today whether BNOs will be included in the changes. What conversations has the Home Office had with the Foreign Office about the diplomatic consequences of this decision? Do the Government regard the BNO scheme as a humanitarian scheme or an economic scheme? To my mind, it is clear: it is a humanitarian scheme rooted in our duty to protect those who share our values, but whose freedoms have been taken away.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ben Goldsborough]

I am just about to make my concluding remarks.

Both petitions speak to a single principle: fairness. People who came here on a clear set of rules deserve to know what those rules are and that they will not change halfway through. Whether those people are skilled workers staffing our hospitals or Hongkongers seeking refuge from oppression, they are already contributing enormously to our country. In all the discussions about immigration, we must start with honesty about the different types of migration and what they mean for Britain. In recent years, there has been too much heat and not enough light. Today’s debate is a chance for us to change that. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to provide that clarity.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not need to point out that this is a very popular debate. I remind hon. Members that if they wish to be called to speak, they should please stand. To give you an indication, something like four minutes each should allow us to get everybody in, given the numbers who wish to speak, so please bear that in mind.

16:42

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

I am very grateful to be called to speak in this important debate, not least because my constituents make up one of the highest proportions of signatories to the first petition, which calls on the Government to keep the five-year ILR pathway for existing skilled worker visa holders, so many of whom live with uncertainty—that is a daily reality in my constituency.

The Government’s immigration White Paper proposes several measures that will make settlement significantly harder to reach for many people, including increasing the standard qualifying period for settlement from five years to 10 years—although the visa routes to which that will apply are not explicitly specified—and introducing the so-called earned settlement and citizenship model, whereby a set of contributions to society and the economy would serve as eligibility criteria for being able to settle more quickly.

I understand that there are explicit exemptions for partners of British citizens, who will continue to qualify after five years, and quite rightly also for victims of domestic abuse. However, having met and spoken to many of my constituents, I seek urgent clarity from the Minister. Precisely who will be affected by the ILR proposals in the White Paper? Will they be applied retrospectively to people already in the UK, including those approaching the end of a five-year pathway to settlement? If a consultation is to take place in the autumn, who will it be with? Will the Government meet with Praxis, an organisation that has collated numerous pieces of evidence and undertaken research, and with which I share a long-standing relationship in my borough on immigration casework? It submitted a letter, along with 100 other civil liberties organisations, requesting a meeting with the Government in May this year. When will the Government conduct an equalities and human rights impact assessment of their proposals to extend the qualifying period to 10 years and introduce the so-called earned settlement model? Under that model, how will the points be calculated or earned, and how much of a reduction in the 10-year qualifying period will be available?

Those are incredibly important questions, to which my constituents and many people in our country need answers. My constituents were already living in limbo before the White Paper was published, but given that applicants for the ILR route have primarily based their claims on the right to a family or private life, and given last week’s announcement of the suspension of the family reunification scheme for refugees, which we understand to be temporary—that is, of course, separate—they are feeling more anxious about these matters than ever before.

I am worried about the widening scope and overall direction of immigration legislation and frameworks. There is already a strenuous process in place. Given that people on the existing 10-year routes have to apply every two and a half years until they complete 10 years of leave and are eligible for ILR, the new proposals beg the question what the intention really is.

A survey undertaken in 2023 by the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, the Institute for Public Policy Research and Praxis found that 40% of those in work on the 10-year route were employed in health and social care settings, including as carers, nurses and cleaners. That will be no surprise to many of us given the history of migration to the UK, from the Windrush generation to the skilled workforces who arrived in waves, including in the 1970s, in areas like mine. According to the Migration Observatory’s analysis of Home Office data, the top five nationalities of applicants on these routes between 2016 and 2020 were Nigerian, Pakistani, Indian, Ghanaian and Bangladeshi.

I am afraid to say that it is no surprise, and it is not a coincidence, that in recent years, during the pandemic, black, Asian and minority ethnic people and women disproportionately suffered in terms of deaths, workplace rights and hardship. They of course include workers in health and social care settings. The pandemic laid bare the structures of inequality and discrimination. We have to be very careful about the proposed changes to the ILR route for those reasons as well. The petitions rightly point out that the skilled worker route is the main UK work visa route, and that includes the health and care worker sub-category for NHS staff.

From what we know of the proposed measures in the immigration White Paper, they appear to be punitive. Wide-ranging evidence suggests that long pathways are detrimental to individuals and communities. No one should be subject to them. Rather than exemptions for some and not for others, we need a thorough overhaul of settlement and citizenship pathways so that people can settle in the UK in a timely and affordable way. People need to feel a sense of belonging and to be able to fulfil their potential. I fear that the proposals will undermine the resilience of our communities. Putting more people on extended routes will multiply the effects already being felt in our communities.

In the east end of London, we have a proud history of welcoming people from all parts of the world and all walks of life, whether they are from Europe, Bangladesh, Somalia or even Hong Kong, because we know we are better for it. As to the proposals in the immigration White Paper, we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves and change our direction.

16:49

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the Petitions Committee for scheduling this important debate, and I welcome the spirit in which it has been conducted so far: the original purpose of debating indefinite leave to remain has been respected and we have risen above the appalling and divisive rhetoric that we have heard recently in relation to the role of migration and the lives of asylum seekers.

My constituency has a long track record of welcoming migrants and refugees. The historic neighbourhoods of the City of London, Soho, Fitzrovia and Pimlico are just some of the villages in the very centre of London that have a long track record of welcoming people. They continue to be proud of their diverse heritage. Indeed, our country prides itself on fairness and stability in our approach to the law and to migration and asylum policy. We are a place where people come to build and rebuild their lives, and to invest in their futures. I think we are all richer for that.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank the hon. Member for her thanks. Far away from London in the highlands of Scotland, the same is true: we have refugees who have fitted in and been greatly welcomed. May I make the point to the Minister that involving the devolved institutions, such as the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, will be hugely important if we are going to make all this work?

[Rachel Blake]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution.

I want to focus my remarks on those who have BNO visas and particularly on the importance of stability in that system. I first became particularly interested in the lives of people living in Hong Kong because of my constituent, Jimmy Lai, who is currently interred in Hong Kong because he stood up for freedom and democracy. That brought me to be profoundly concerned about the importance of BNO visas.

While it is absolutely right that we should be discussing how we appropriately balance the many benefits of migration with the concerns that some people have about the current system, I do think it important that we have stability in the system and recognise that the bar to securing indefinite leave to remain is already high. I will be focusing very closely on the Home Office proposals to ensure that we are standing by those principles and the values of fairness and stability.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I wonder whether she will allow me to register a concern on behalf of those from Hong Kong who live in Harrow, many of whom are making a very significant contribution to our community and are genuinely worried about these proposals.

[Rachel Blake]

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks about the concerns of his constituents in Harrow.

In any forthcoming consultation, I will focus on ensuring that we stick to those values of fairness and stability. There is already a high bar for those seeking indefinite leave to remain, who came to this country expecting to comply with particular rules and will be going forward with their applications in the very near future.

16:53

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on his excellent opening remarks and welcome the Minister to his role. I hope he is enjoying his first day in the job.

Like many Members, I have heard from constituents who have grave concerns about what the immigration White Paper will mean for them. In particular, they are worried about the intention to reform the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain without any specific details surrounding the changes and exemptions. The lack of detail on such an important issue has led to great uncertainty and distress for many UK residents, including many of my constituents in Richmond Park, where we have been pleased to welcome over the last few years many new residents from Hong Kong, in particular.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

My hon. Friend rightly said that the lack of clarity is harmful. It is cruel to people who thought they were on one path and now are not, but it is also counterproductive, because we may end up losing really talented people working our patches. It also undermines employers, who do not quite know what game they are playing. All of this is hugely counterproductive to our economy as well as simply not being fair.

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. This is not just about the residents themselves; it is also about their employers, the places that they work and the wider economy.

My residents in Richmond Park are rightly concerned about how these changes could affect their lives, the lives of their children and their employment in the UK. The BNO visa is not a transactional visa; it is a moral commitment, which the UK offered in response to the national security law and the dismantling of promised freedoms in Hong Kong, so I am deeply concerned about the Government’s decision to extend the route to indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10 years.

The lack of clarity over the BNO visa, in the midst of increasing evidence of transnational repression from China and the looming planning decision on the Chinese mega-embassy, is concerning to me and to many of my constituents who could be affected by the change. The Government must do better to provide assurance for the hundreds of thousands of BNO visa holders across the country, starting by giving them clarity about their immigration status and how the White Paper will affect them.

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

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about this being part of a promise that we made to the people of Hong Kong. When the route was introduced, the Chinese Communist party warned BNO applicants that they should not trust Britain. If we move the goalposts in the way we are now proposing, we may hand a huge propaganda victory to that Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be a big mistake?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that he has many residents from Hong Kong in Carshalton and Wallington, and I really hope that the Minister will take on board the point we are making about the moral duty that we owe those people, particularly in the light of increased oppression from China.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) pointed out, the skilled worker visa route has offered a secure pathway for world-leading talent to join the UK’s workforce. In coming to the UK, those skilled workers have brought value to the economy, to key sectors such as care, and to their communities. That is why the Government’s failure to give detail on changes to the indefinite leave to remain qualifying period is so concerning. Not only do they risk up-ending the lives of so many residents and families, but they risk damaging our businesses and the economy.

A skilled, stable workforce is a key part of any growing business, and recent Government policy has already begun eroding the availability of that workforce in the UK. National insurance contributions have disincentivised hiring; red tape with the EU has made it more difficult to hire skilled workers from abroad; the newly created Skills England risks failing in its aim to upskill the British labour force if it is not given the independence it needs; and now, on top of all of that, the Government’s White Paper has added uncertainty for businesses looking to hire employees—yet another barrier to growth. The Government must provide clarity on the skilled worker visa as a matter of urgency.

Many BNO visa holders have built their life here in the UK and have made huge contributions to our economies and local communities, especially in my constituency; they have bought homes, started businesses and enrolled their children in schools. I therefore urge the Government to offer more clarity on their plans for the five-year qualifying period for those already on specific visa routes, and ask the Minister whether the Government will confirm and honour their original commitment to protect those agreements.

16:58

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I join colleagues in thanking the Petitions Committee for securing this debate, and I thank Mr Li for instigating the BNO petition.

I am here to speak about the BNO visa. Our debate today should have two starting points: first, an acknowledgment of the historic commitment that the UK made to the people of Hong Kong in the form of the BNO scheme, which is something that we should be intensely proud of, and secondly a recognition of the massive repression that we have seen in Hong Kong, particularly since the enactment of the national security law.

Rights that were guaranteed to the people of Hong Kong by the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration have been cast aside. Hong Kong’s democracy has been replaced by a dictatorship, and its free press has been crushed. That is the context that has left many Hongkongers feeling that they have little choice but to leave, to seek freedom and a new life here in the UK.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree we should be clear that when we say BNO, it stands for British national overseas? We are not talking about Hongkongers or Chinese people; we are talking about people we literally recognise as British nationals overseas, because of our historical relationship. Does he think we should be much clearer about that when it comes to how we treat them in our immigration system?

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. She is of course right, and I am proud to have welcomed many people with BNO status to my constituency of Hendon, particularly in Colindale. That growing and vibrant community adds immeasurably to the life of the area.

I have talked to many BNO holders who have come to the UK to start a new life. They are absolutely committed to our country for the long term. They are keen to put down roots. They are planning their working lives, their children’s educations and their retirements here. That is why the five-year ILR timeframe is so important to them. Without ILR, BNO holders cannot get home fee arrangements at university for their children or access their pension savings from their mandatory provident fund accounts. I have talked to many families who are directly and profoundly affected by that, leaving them in great financial difficulty. Without ILR, people cannot begin the path to full UK citizenship. When they applied for BNO status starting in 2021, they did so on the basis of a five-year ILR period. Extending the ILR period for them will potentially create great uncertainty and hardship.

The Government are absolutely right to tighten the rules on migration to address the appalling failures of the previous Government. The measures laid out in the recent migration White Paper will make an important and welcome difference, and I fully support them. However, it is still worth considering the obligation we have to certain groups when making that important change.

[Mr Rand]

My hon. Friend sets out with characteristic eloquence some of the major uncertainties that are currently facing BNO holders. Considering that BNO applicants now make up less than 2% of visa applications, does he agree that the immense contribution that they make to communities such as mine in Altrincham and Sale West, as well as in his own constituency, means that the policy has big costs and, in reality, minimal rewards as the Government seek to cut migration?

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

My hon. Friend is right that the policy is a source of great concern to many people. That is why I welcome the willingness of the Government and the Minister to listen and their decision to consult on the measures in the White Paper, including this one.

Retaining the five-year ILR period for BNO holders who have already settled here would be a strong reaffirmation of the solemn compact we have made with the people of Hong Kong. I believe it need not have huge ramifications for the broader migration system, exactly as my hon. Friend says, especially as I believe BNO holders constitute a unique case because of their special status. It would give certainty to almost 200,000 BNO passport holders who have made the UK their home. It would be a beacon of British leadership, and I hope we can find a way to support it.

17:02

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and all who have successfully brought this petition forward. I rise today, as many others have, in support of the petition calling for Hong Kong British national overseas visa holders to retain their indefinite leave to remain settlement.

As we have heard, such visas are a lifeline; they are a moral commitment created in response to Beijing’s crackdown on human rights and democracies. Families made life-changing decisions, leaving their homes, relatives and friends on the understanding that if they worked hard, paid their way, built their lives here and contributed, they could settle permanently after five years. To move the goalposts retrospectively would not only cause distress, but be a betrayal of everything that they think we stand for and that we hope we stand for, namely that we keep our word.

I have so many wonderful examples of Hongkongers in my constituency. For example, a constituent wrote to me about two people who had become invaluable to their community in Cherry Hinton. They help to run toddler groups and holiday clubs for more than 180 children, supporting families who speak little English. They are law-abiding, hard-working and deeply committed to their community, and yet they now live in fear that the rules will change midway, leaving their futures here uncertain.

I see no reason why those who are already here and contributing should be thrown into that level of anxiety. To delay their right to settlement would upend carefully prepared plans, heap financial pressure on families who are already struggling with the cost of living, and deny children who have grown up here their right to home fee tuition at university.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As well as those financial and educational anxieties, many Hongkongers, some of whom do not have permanent status here, are under threat from transnational repression, as the recent report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights shows. That includes having a bounty on their head. Is it not the case that we are putting anxiety on people who may be at risk of harm if they can no longer stay here?

[Pippa Heylings]

The hon. Member makes a really important point. Delaying their settled status would leave many of these people unprotected when travelling abroad and raise the stakes in terms of their own and their families’ security. Many families are already financially stretched and, as we have heard, that is often exacerbated by the fact that BNO visa holders are blocked from accessing their pension savings with the mandatory provident fund. With settled status, that would no longer be the case. They have told me that that would be best for everyone because they would then be contributing—they do not want to be a burden on the public purse.

We must never forget what is at stake, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has said. In Hong Kong, nearly 1,000 political prisoners remain behind bars for daring to exercise their democratic right. It is neither safe nor realistic for Hongkongers to return. The petition before us is clear and just. It calls on us to stand by the word we gave and allow those on BNO visas to settle after five years, not 10. I urge the Government and the Minister to provide clarity and reassurance, and to exempt from these reforms all who are already here on BNO visas.

17:06

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The vast majority of us want a more balanced and managed migration system built on the principles of contribution and fairness. That is what I hear from constituents in all walks of life in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. However, the question is: how do we get there? How do we get to a more managed level in a fair and just way? My constituents are concerned that the two matters we are debating today do not meet that fairness test.

I have heard from many constituents who are deeply concerned about what these proposals—the extension of the indefinite leave to remain to 10 years and, in particular, the retrospective nature of the application—might mean for them. Many who came to this country in good faith under the current system have planned their lives on the assumption that it will be in force.

Many skilled people from right across the world have the choice of where to come and be a nurse or start a business and contribute. I am concerned that applying the 10-year qualifying period retrospectively to people who already live in the UK, and who made the decision to do so a long time ago, would not be fair and would be deeply disruptive to their lives. I am also not convinced that the proposals, with their retrospective nature, would have any effect on our current migration levels.

This blanket policy, regardless of circumstance, contribution and needs, may also have significant and adverse equalities impacts, which I hope the Government will consider. I encourage them to think carefully and deeply about the implications of the decision in a variety of contexts, particularly for vulnerable migrants such as children or the elderly.

A constituent wrote to me today about the impact on child migrants and the accessibility of university education. Without ILR, prospective students would have to pay full international fees, which are extortionate. If this change comes into force, a child who moves to this country at 10 years old and completes secondary education in the UK would not qualify for UK-based higher education fees. They would potentially have to delay their education for a number of years or put it off indefinitely.

Last week, I happened to meet an individual who contacted me along with her mother, who is a neonatal care nurse at Hillingdon hospital. Her mother and father have always worked and paid taxes in the UK. They have contributed and been active in the community, as have so many of my constituents who now call the UK home and keep our public services running. As we seek to grow our economy, do we really want to restrict those who want to study engineering, maths or law, to work or study in the NHS or to set up a business? Do we want to deny them opportunities to get educated, put down longer-term roots and contribute further to our nation’s future?

I implore the Government to reflect deeply on the ILR changes and not to adopt a blanket approach, but to create a system that encourages contribution and community activity, that encourages people to work in our public services, and that supports education and skills being added to our communities, not taken away from them.

I also concur with colleagues who talked today about our responsibilities to BNO visa holders. I am very proud to represent the many BNO visa holders in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, the seat that I represent, particularly in Hillingdon. One told me recently that this was a key pathway, “crucial” for their safety, and that it provided hope for many in their community

“following the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, which has severely undermined fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, protest, and press.”

Many BNO visa holders have made the UK their home, not through an easy choice but because of life-changing circumstances and decisions. They hoped that after five years of residence and meeting the quite strenuous conditions—including the English requirements and the “Life in the UK” test—they would have the chance to apply for indefinite leave to remain and, one year later, for citizenship. I encourage the Minister to carefully consider the cases of those with BNO visas.

We can and must reduce migration to a sustainable level. We can restore public confidence and ensure that the system is managed well. However, we can also ensure that it is fair and just, that it encourages migration that works for our country, and that it works for people who come here and call our country home.

Many of my constituents are deeply worried about the narrative in Hillingdon and nationally, which seeks to divide communities and to other members of our community. At this time, we must stand together, celebrate our diversity and encourage people to reflect on the importance of difference to a successful and sustainable economy, society and country. I hope that we will not forget that as we reform our migration system, and that we will design reforms that work not only for our country, but for those who call it home.

17:11

[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.

17:14

[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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. This is just a gentle reminder that we are aiming for four minutes. I will not impose a formal time limit unless I have to, but it would help if we could keep close to four minutes.

17:21

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I will not speak for too long, given that most of the debate’s key points have already been made, so hopefully that will help with the average speaking time that you are aiming for.

I, too, thank the Petitions Committee for this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his opening speech. I think it is important to add my voice to the many voices that we have heard expressing concern about the changes to BNO visas, particularly when it comes to the timelines for indefinite leave to remain.

I have received emails from many constituents across Milton Keynes, and I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who I know has received many more. I recently met Yvonne from 852 CIC, a fantastic organisation that represents and looks to integrate Hongkongers into the community in Milton Keynes. It has shared its concerns with me about the changes that it fears may be coming under the immigration White Paper.

[Emily Darlington]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hong Kong community’s contribution to Milton Keynes, to our diversity and strength as an economic powerhouse in the UK, should not go unseen by the Minister and this Government? The reality is that we made the Hongkongers a promise, and we should keep it.

[Chris Curtis]

I completely agree. Diversity is at the heart of Milton Keynes. We are a proud city that shows how people from many backgrounds can come together to enrich and strengthen our community. We have seen at first hand how the many people who have come to our city from Hong Kong have added to our local economy. The previous Government and this Government made a deal, a commitment, that was in keeping with our human rights commitments and our commitment to doing the right thing. It is important that we keep to that commitment.

Like most people, I welcome the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to ensure that those who come to Britain are able to integrate and contribute to our society, rather than simply filling gaps left by uncertainty and under-investment in skills and training—changing the deal for BNO visa holders is not the way to do that.

I do not think the Government intentionally aim to create uncertainty for the people who came here, but unfortunately that uncertainty has now been created, and everybody in this room sees it in our inboxes. I hope that today the Minister will be able to clarify the situation and provide certainty, so that those who came here seeking safety, freedom and opportunity know that this Government still stand with them and will not change the rules, and that the five-year journey committed to by the previous Government will remain in place even after the immigration White Paper goes through.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman is as good as his word.

17:24

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.

In recent years, many Hong Kong families have made the brave decision to uproot their lives and move halfway around the world to Britain. They came here on the strength of our word—a clear promise that if they held BNO status, they would have a route to settle here and be able to build a future.

More than 2,400 residents in Warrington South have signed this petition. That is the highest number anywhere in the country, which tells me just how deeply this issue matters to the people I represent. It matters because those arriving from Hong Kong are no longer just headlines or statistics; they are our neighbours. They are parents at the school gate, new business owners on our high streets, and young people starting out in education and work.

I think of Rose and Wilson, who moved to Great Sankey to give their children a simpler and less pressured life; Renata, who set up a play café near Bridge Foot; Cheryl, who started a bakery on Buttermarket Street; Taki and the wonderful team at Warrington Hongkongers, who have created a supportive resource for Hongkongers arriving locally; and, finally, Oscar, a young man who spent time in my office on work experience, showing that this new generation are already part of the fabric of Warrington.

They are here because Britain offered sanctuary when freedoms in Hong Kong were stripped away. We responded with the BNO visa route, because that was the right thing to do. To row back now, or to create uncertainty about people’s status, would not only harm families who have already sold their homes, invested their savings and enrolled their children in British schools; it would also damage Britain’s credibility. Our word must mean something. Trust, once broken, is hard to rebuild.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend’s stories remind me of stories that I hear in Reading, in my Earley and Woodley constituency. Angie is a nursing associate in the NHS, and her daughter wishes to study paramedic science and also work in the NHS. However, for that to happen, Angie’s daughter needs a route to settlement in order to be eligible to pay home student fees. Does my hon. Friend agree that families like Angie’s need certainty and stability from the Minister and our Government?

[Sarah Hall]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for that intervention.

Fairness and the rule of law cut both ways. These families played by the rules, paid the fees and came here legally. They have every right to expect that the path to settlement and citizenship remains exactly as was set out. Every day in Warrington, I see how Hongkongers contribute to our economy, our schools and our community life. They came because they believe in the same values of fairness, freedom, dignity and democracy that we do.

I know that colleagues across the House share a cross-party pride in the BNO scheme; it said something good about who we are and what we are willing to stand up for. Let us not unpick it. Instead, let us fix what needs fixing in our border system without unravelling a promise that families have bet their lives on.

Every day, I see the contribution that Hongkongers make to Warrington South. What they need now is reassurance, not uncertainty. We must keep the five-plus-one route intact for Hongkongers, and in doing so show that Britain is a country whose promises can be trusted and whose Government stand by those who put their faith in us.

17:28

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy.

When the Government’s immigration White Paper was published with the proposal to increase the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain, I received numerous emails from constituents in Truro and Falmouth who could be affected. My constituency is home to Cornwall’s only large acute hospital, so many of the constituents concerned work in the health service as doctors, nurses or dentists.

In 2022, according to the British Medical Association, the NHS in England had a shortage of 12,000 hospital doctors and more than 50,000 nurses and midwives. Cornwall has a super-ageing population with complex health needs, and we struggle to attract medical professionals. As a result of our housing crisis, they sometimes cannot find anywhere to live. We do not want to lose any of those highly skilled medical professionals who are trying to make Cornwall their home.

These people stressed their commitment to their jobs in the way they worked tirelessly on the frontline during covid, the way they have served and contributed to their communities, and the taxes they have paid. Many have children attending school in Cornwall, and they are very concerned about disruption to their children’s education. Some have partners who are Cornish.

Dr Mohamed Abdelazim, who works at the Royal Cornwall hospital in Treliske, has said:

“Ten years is an extraordinarily long time to live on a visa—without the security of citizenship, the right to vote, or the ability to fully settle and plan our futures in the UK.”

The Government have not yet confirmed whether people already on the affected immigration routes will have to wait longer for settlement, as opposed to the change applying only to those arriving after the implementation date, although the White Paper’s annexe suggests that the change will affect those already here.

Many MPs, including me, have been asking questions about this issue, but the responses to written parliamentary questions so far have stated that it will be addressed as part of the consultation process, but without giving a timeline. An idea of that timeline and the parameters of the consultation would be extremely helpful in giving my worried constituents some idea of how long they have to plan for their future, and what representations they can make. For now, they are, as one constituent wrote,

“trusting the UK’s commitment to fairness and stability for migrants who invest their lives here”.

17:30

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the Petitions Committee for securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his opening remarks.

I rise to speak in support of retaining the five-year pathway to indefinite leave to remain for BNO visa holders. My constituency of Broxtowe is home to more than 2,500 BNO visa holders, many of whom have written to me to raise their concerns. Our community is being culturally and socially enriched by our Hongkonger residents, who continue to make a valuable contribution to society. Research shows that 59% of BNO visa holders have a degree or postgraduate degree, but despite their skills and eagerness to settle in the UK, they face challenges to fully integrating, settling and feeling secure here.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that, as employers have told me, increasing the qualifying period will make the UK less attractive to international talent. That is particularly important for science and research in our universities.

[Juliet Campbell]

I absolutely agree that that will impact how we can employ people in our communities.

A report by British Future found that only about half of BNO visa holders of working age are currently employed, and 47% of those working say that their current job status does not match their skills or qualifications. This creates barriers to individuals achieving their full potential and impacts their self-esteem. On top of those challenges, BNO visa holders face heightened anxiety and uncertainty because of the changes proposed in the immigration White Paper.

Although the Government’s proposals to regulate the immigration system are a good step forward, some of the proposed changes have led to a reduction in the trust placed in the Government by those from Hong Kong. My residents in Broxtowe acted in good faith and took the Government at their word when they said, as part of their commitment to Hongkongers who wanted to come to the UK, that they would have indefinite leave to remain after five years. Extending the pathway for indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years means that many will be unable to access retirement saving funds, creating financial insecurity for many.

Without ILR, my Hongkonger residents in Broxtowe cannot qualify for home fee status at UK universities, delaying academic opportunities. Delaying ILR will also lead to delays in acquiring citizenship, which will impact eligibility for consular protection and emergency foreign assistance, and could leave those affected at risk of transnational repression. I urge the Government to retain the five-year pathway for BNO visa holders, who moved to the UK on that promise. That is fair, and it is the right thing to do.

17:34

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his position. I hope that he is enjoying the debate.

I understand why the Government are proposing to extend the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain. I think we all recognise that the immigration numbers are high. This is a complex challenge, not least, let us remember, because of Boris Johnson’s failed Brexit deal—a deal for which the leader of the Reform party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), also bears great responsibility: it opened the door to historically high levels of unskilled net migration. In my view, the leader of the Reform party is as much to blame as the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

The leader of Kent county council has asked the Government to increase the number of visas for healthcare workers, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is a double standard? One minute they are asking to stop the immigration, and the next one they are asking for more health workers to be brought from abroad?

[Ben Coleman]

It will come as no surprise to anybody who has ever dealt with any member of the Reform political party for more than five minutes that double standards are involved. We only have to read what its leader says from one week to the next to realise that its association and commitment to maintaining a close relationship with the truth is very weak.

I go back to what I was saying. When we talk about the high levels of net immigration, we must not lose sight of the human impact of the proposals that the Government have brought forward, especially—as many people have recognised—on those who have already built their lives here and are net contributors to our economy and communities.

Since the publication of the White Paper in May, many residents in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham have got in touch with me. These are skilled workers, and their overwhelming feeling is simply of being blindsided. They came to the UK in good faith and followed the rules, and now they are being told that these rules might change just before they become eligible to settle. They also find it destabilising that, almost four months since the publication of the White Paper, the Government have still not given clear guidance on when the rules will come into effect, who will be affected and how it will work.

One couple told me how they moved from the United States in 2020. They both work for global firms and pay the top rate of tax, and they rightly believed that in April 2026—just down the road—they could apply for settlement. Now they write to me:

“The rug has been pulled from beneath us.”

Their plans are suddenly on indefinite pause. Similarly, I have a young scientist in my constituency who studied in the UK and works in clinical research. She has paid her international student fees and taxes, and she has invested her savings here, but now she still has no certainty about her future. In my constituency there is also a local NHS speech therapist and her husband, who is a data scientist, and they are expecting their first child. They told me that even if they are not caught out by the changes now, they have no faith that, given the way in which this has been handled, the system will not be changed again in the future.

People cannot plan their lives without basic certainty. I am hoping that the Minister today will be able to provide my residents with the clarity they need and tell us when the Government plan to launch the consultation they promised. The previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), said:

“There will be plenty of opportunity for people to comment on and consider the detail”—[Official Report, 12 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 53]

of the proposals. I hope that that will still be the case, and perhaps the Minister can reassure us of that. I would also like to understand whether the consultation will contain a clear and detailed definition of what the White Paper refers to as

“Points-Based contributions to the UK economy and society”.

Who exactly will be eligible for a shorter pathway to indefinite leave to remain?

So many of my residents are literally counting the days until they become eligible for settlement. They deserve decent treatment, not five more years of waiting. I look forward to the Minister’s responses, and to being able to offer my residents the much-needed reassurance to which I think we all agree they are entitled.

17:38

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the support that my office receives from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I want to make a couple of points today, but I also want to pick up on the point that all Members have made about the enormous contribution that both these groups of migrants have made to British society. Nowhere is that more true than in my constituency of Edinburgh East and Musselburgh.

As we are talking about indefinite leave to remain, I think it is important that we recognise that the British immigration system in this country does not really draw a distinction between indefinite leave to remain and citizenship. Almost all the main rights of migrants are accessed at the stage of indefinite leave to remain, but citizenship is important. Madeleine Albright was first a refugee in the UK before she was a refugee in America. She commented that when she came to Britain, people said, “You’re a refugee. You’re welcome here. How long until you leave?”, but in America they said, “You’re a refugee. You’re welcome here. How long until you become a citizen?” It is important that we reflect on whether the Government should be agnostic about someone actually taking that step and becoming a citizen—or is it something that we should incentivise and make meaningful?

My second point is that not only are the Government agnostic on whether migrants gain citizenship or stay with indefinite leave to remain, but they are impassive and uninterested—this is an inherited system—in the path that migrants take to get there. Some migrants make enormous contributions to our countries. They volunteer, stand up for their communities, pay taxes, work hard and follow the rules. However, let us be honest: some do not, and the system is not very strenuous in distinguishing between them. As long as they wait long enough, pay a fee and pass the “Life in the UK” test, which is ridiculously bad, then they get ILR.

We have precious few levers to influence behaviour and precious few opportunities to foster social cohesion and integration. Shouldn’t we be thinking more creatively about that? If we are going to have a distinction between indefinite leave to remain and citizenship, and if the pathway is going to extend from five to 10 years, can the Government not think more creatively about how we build a migration system that works for migrants and for the communities where they settle?

My third point is that the immigration system has to be realistic. About a couple of years ago, under the Conservative Government, net migration came up to almost a million a year. That means that a big group of people will soon become eligible for indefinite leave to remain, and that means they become eligible for benefits and for social housing. In her remarks at the end of the debate, I hope the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), will accept responsibility and apologise for the complete lack of grip that the Conservatives left on the immigration system. We have to be realistic that there is a large group of people who will become eligible for benefits and for social housing that is currently unavailable because we have not built it yet.

We have to address public concerns about immigration; people who support immigration understand that. We need to think more creatively about how the immigration system works. If we do not give people indefinite leave to remain, that means they do not become eligible for benefits. If we extend that period, that happens too. Can we think more creatively, and will the Minister look at taking steps to address some of the points that have been made in the debate? For example, access to pensions, home fee status and difficulty travelling are things that can be addressed with those two groups while still taking account of the reality of the system that we inherited from the Conservatives.

My argument is this: if there is no substantive distinction between citizenship and indefinite leave to remain; if the challenge is that a large number of immigrants will become eligible for benefits and housing when they get indefinite leave to remain; if there is no mechanism to account for the contribution that people make or to incentivise their integration into our communities; if the system is blunt, uncreative, impassive and rigid; and if we want people to take the step of becoming one of us and a British citizen, then surely reform of both indefinite leave to remain and citizenship is needed.

I recognise the enormous contributions of both those on skilled worker visas and British national overseas visas, but I have a contention with the premise of the petition: the proposals have implications for fairness and the perceptions of fairness because they suggest that some groups should get a carve-out based on the route through which they entered, not what they have done while they are here.

My view is that the system should look at the contributions that migrants have made in the UK and not the visa that they came in on. I ask the Minister to look with clarity, a proper consultation, creativity and a view to a migrant’s contribution to the UK as these proposals are rolled out.

17:44

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his poignant opening remarks. The White Paper has caused huge fear among many of my constituents who work here, have built lives here and have families and friendships here. They pay tax towards our public services, they volunteer and they play a huge part in our local communities. Many of those workers came here to support our economy. They were invited by UK businesses to fill key skills gaps in defence, manufacturing, transport, aerospace, health, prisons and social care, to name just a few sectors.

The White Paper introduces preferential immigration routes for what it calls high-value contributors, including a shorter qualifying period for ILR and citizenship, but it fails to define what sectors or roles actually qualify and there has not been an impact assessment on the loss of these workers to each sector. Oxford Economics found that in defence alone, in just one north-west manufacturer—BAE Systems—each skilled migrant employee contributes over £84,000 per year to the UK economy. Moreover, as well as being economically valuable, they are integral to our national security and sovereign capability.

Will the Minister provide reassurance today and outline the sectors whose workers will qualify as high-value contributors, and which sectors will be provided with an exemption? The White Paper also fails to provide any transitional protections for current skilled migrants already working here on the five-year skilled worker visa pathway to ILR. That is causing anxiety to workers and businesses alike. Again, will the Minister reassure these workers today and confirm that there will be no attempt to make retrospective changes?

Social care is another sector that would collapse without the support of skilled migrant labour, but it has endemic low pay and exploitation. I have heard at first hand harrowing stories from workers who were brought here on skilled worker visas, and have been threatened, exploited and frequently underpaid—or not paid at all—but because they are reliant on visa support from their employer, they are often forced to keep silent about these abuses or face having their visa removed.

To protect those migrant workers, in addition to the retention of the five-year route to ILR and a commitment not to apply retrospective changes, I also ask the Minister to consider sector-wide visa schemes in social care, enabling them to challenge bad employers without the threat of dismissal and removal. This extends beyond social care; there must also be greater protection for migrant workers in all sectors from exploitation and the strengthening of access to trade union rights.

Finally, the second group of constituents who are most affected in Salford—and have contacted me in great fear—are those within the Hong Kong community. Salford is home to one of the largest Hongkonger communities in the UK, and I was proud to attend their community awards recently, which awarded members of the community for their efforts in doing good for the city of Salford, from litter picks to supporting those most in need. It was clear that all these people were dedicated to giving back to the society and economy that embraced them. Many came as part of the BNO visa scheme set up in recognition of the UK’s historic and moral commitments to the people of Hong Kong. Many were British citizens prior to 1997, and they maintain British nationality via the BNO passport.

I am sure the Minister will agree that the fear that is caused within this community is unnecessary. I hope that today he can finally provide reassurance that the BNO visa scheme will be exempt from the changes proposed, and provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on the other points that I have raised. I welcome him to his new position; I am sure he will do fantastically.

17:48

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Indefinite leave to remain marks a defining moment for individuals seeking to make Wales and the UK their permanent home. It grants the right to work, access to NHS healthcare and eligibility for the benefits system, enabling people to plan for their future, fully integrate and contribute meaningfully to our communities.

The Government’s recent proposal to double the standard qualifying period from five to 10 years would have devastating consequences. A person on the route to settlement is already required to pay thousands of pounds every 30 months to renew their visa in addition to the healthcare surcharge of over £1,000 per year. Doubling the qualifying period doubles those already extortionate costs, pushing individuals and families further into financial insecurity. The extension also prolongs the time families are forced to live with no recourse to public funds. Children in such households are at significantly greater risk of poverty and deep poverty, impacting their health and educational outcomes and creating long-term effects that will harm our society and economy for years to come.

We recently witnessed a rise in anti-migrant rhetoric and assaults on asylum accommodation, home to many families and children. At a time when far-right groups are exploiting fear, weaponising misinformation and stoking division, our Government should be pushing back firmly and proudly, not forcing some of the most vulnerable in our society to live in limbo for a decade. What we need are shorter, more affordable routes to settlement, not simply because it is the right thing to do but because it strengthens our communities, supports our economy and ensures that children can grow up safe, secure and with hope for the future.

The proposals outlined in the White Paper directly undermine the Government’s own aims of tackling child poverty, raising living standards and growing the economy. I urge the Minister to consult directly with those already on the 10-year route and to undertake a full equality impact assessment before proceeding any further with such damaging proposals. Diolch yn fawr.

[Mark Pritchard in the Chair]

17:51

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

We have heard some brilliant points. I want to concentrate on our universities. Imperial College’s White City campus and the University of West London in my seat in Ealing are genuinely world-beating UK universities that generate billions of exports. They are central to UK soft power and global relationships, but almost everyone faces financial challenges, so they have had to diversify income streams to cross-subsidise their work. Attracting globally excellent researchers and international student fee income has helped them to just about manage. Ex-colleagues of mine are closing down degrees reluctantly. Whole institutions face going bust. With competitiveness and growth at the heart of the Government’s missions, if the UK makes it too onerous, our universities will lose talent and market share to Canada, Australia and the US. Settled status is five years in most of the rest of Europe, so unwittingly we are advantaging our rivals.

At Imperial College’s White City innovation incubator, I saw many international postgrads pioneering scientific and technological advances, some on the two-year post-study work visa, which is also being cut. The UK higher education sector’s teaching, research and innovation activities benefit our economy to the tune of £265 billion, but after 14 years of chronic underfunding there is now potentially another blow impacting our constituents, students, staff and those from lower-income backgrounds, who are typically more debt averse and will be put off entering HE at all. PwC found that UK universities expect to increasingly rely on international student fees, and they are vulnerable to reductions in numbers. That is pre White Paper. In fact, this is not just hypothetical; in many cases we are already seeing the UK’s declining attractiveness.

In 2024, Home Office figures showed a 19% decline in student visas from the year before, because of the rules to stop students bringing family. Universities have a vital part to play in growth and productivity across the UK, but we could be sleepwalking into a perfect storm, with straitened circumstances, decreasing international competitiveness and increasing expenditure putting universities under more and more pressure. We need to be honest about the trade-offs involved in reducing immigration, and about culture wars. What I am talking about is a million miles away from illegal boat migrants living it up in hotels and sapping resources from locals.

A skilled talent pathway Hong Kong BNO person from Ealing who contacted me says of her circle:

“We have paid Visa application…fees…Health Surcharge…Income Tax”—

and national insurance roughly amounting to—

“£60,000 per person over five years. Additional spending in the UK economy…rent, council tax, consumer purchases, education and childcare…payments…made in good faith—under a policy we trusted would remain consistent for those already on the pathway.”

Much of what is proposed in the White Paper is welcome and sensible, but we should not move the goalposts for those already in the system and trash solemn promises that we made to them. Along with considerations of immigration and universities, we must consider work, vocational education, further education provision, what universities are for and their role in levelling up, and all those sorts of things. We need a realistic strategy for their long-term financial sustainability, and their role in regeneration and growth. It is a graphic equaliser.

This was only a White Paper, so I hope that Ministers can take our points into account. Let us keep to our word, and let us keep the British higher education sector the envy of the world.

17:55

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is a delight to serve under you today, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing the petition, and I thank all my constituents who signed it. I make my comments in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I acknowledge the need to fix our broken immigration system—the one we inherited from the previous Government—but we have to do that in a way that focuses on measures that work, not ones that make life difficult for all of us. Whether the changes to indefinite leave to remain apply retrospectively is unclear, and that is at the core of what we are discussing today. The Government have indicated that it may be retrospective, but legal precedent suggests that retrospective application could be unlawful, and that may well be challenged in court.

Before I entered politics, I worked in higher education. Since the proposals regarding indefinite leave to remain were announced, former colleagues across our universities in Edinburgh have been in touch with me, concerned about the impact on both their current staff and the ability to recruit new staff in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) made clear, if we are serious about growing our economy, we have to support our universities as much as possible, and ensure that they are able to attract the best minds from around the world. I gently ask the Minister—he is sitting right next to me, so I can say it very gently—are any other western nations making it harder for their universities to attract the best minds from around the world? Of course they are not.

It is not just about academics: I have also heard from many constituents, all of whom contribute to Edinburgh, who are deeply worried about these changes, and what they would mean for them, their families, and their futures. I will share two stories to illustrate what I have heard. The first is from Sarah, who came to Scotland from Canada in 2018 to study physiotherapy. She graduated during the pandemic, when she worked in hospital placements at the height of the crisis, facing, let us be honest, unknown risks. Since then, she has stayed and worked in our NHS, one of more than a quarter of a million immigrants working in the NHS across the UK. She has treated patients in some of the toughest circumstances imaginable. She talked about how she supported patients fighting for their lives in intensive care. Physiotherapy is on the shortage occupation list.

I feel grateful that Sarah has chosen to live in Edinburgh South West, but if these changes were to go ahead, her route to settlement would be pushed back until 2033. That means that she would be faced with another five years of expensive visa renewals, which we have heard about, and of insecurity and uncertainty. Sarah was clear that, if that happens, she may well think about leaving the UK and settling elsewhere. That would be to the detriment of us all, particularly the people waiting for physiotherapy.

Sarah’s is not an isolated case; right across many industries in the UK, workers are facing that uncertainty. I was going to give a second example, relating to Calvin, who is here on a BNO visa, but I think that others have spoken better than I can about the impact on that group of residents in the UK. However, I will say that I am proud that so many people came from Hong Kong to live in my constituency, and I am always humbled by the contributions that they make, but I am ashamed by what they are facing in these proposals.

Whether it is a Hong Kong family or a physiotherapist from Canada, we have to be serious about supporting people who contribute to our economy and our communities. Settlement is about trust, stability and fairness. Extending the pathway does not just damage individual lives; it damages our international credibility, our economy and our ability to recruit the best staff. I will end by saying that I welcome the Minister to his place—I know that lots of Ministers are at new desks today, and I welcome that—but this is his chance to start his career with a big bang, grab the headlines and really make a difference, so I look forward to hearing his response.

18:00

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the Minister to his new Department. I worked with him when he was in the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government; he listened, and I got £20 million for the regeneration of Farnworth in my constituency. I hope he is in a listening mood today and will do what we are asking him to do.

It is an absolute privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of many families who have come to the United Kingdom either under the British national overseas visa scheme or on work permits to work in our country, often in areas that are difficult to recruit for—for example, the social care sector. With an ageing population, such jobs are unfilled, as are roles in the IT sector and many other industries.

On Friday, I met the Salford Hongkongers group. They explained to us why many of them left Hong Kong, fleeing from persecution. They have been working hard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned, and they make a great contribution to our economy, as, of course, have others who have come to work in the social care sector, where the jobs are not the nicest and the pay is often not great either. They are all working very hard.

What they have in common is that when they made the decision to come to the United Kingdom, they believed in certain fundamental rules, one of which was that after five years they would be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Of course, it was not guaranteed that they would get leave, because there are other criteria to satisfy—such as having worked for five years, meeting a certain level of pay and being of good character—but at least they knew what they were working towards.

I urge the Government and the Minister to reconsider the proposed changes—we do not yet know exactly what those changes are—for two reasons. It is manifestly unfair to change the rules for people who came on the basis of what they understood the rules to be. Retrospective legislation is always bad legislation. It has been done occasionally, but normally only in a state of immediate national emergency. I do not think this situation falls into that category, by any description,. For me, being British is about knowing the laws, knowing the rules and abiding by them. That is exactly what these people have done.

[Jamie Stone]

The hon. Lady mentions, quite correctly, the role of these wonderful people caring for the elderly. Let me give one example. I have cases in my constituency in the far north of Scotland where the care package has fallen through for lack of care workers, and those poor old people have been readmitted to hospital. That is a disgrace, and it is precisely one of the reasons why I completely back what she is saying.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the Chair of the Petitions Committee for that helpful intervention. In all honesty, what people are asking for is fairness. That is it—simple fairness.

18:03

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on his excellent speech introducing this petition. I am grateful to the 292 constituents of mine who signed the petition urging that any changes to indefinite leave to remain should not apply to those already in the UK or on a skilled worker visa.

As we all know, the NHS is reliant on overseas workers. As of September 2023, around 20% of NHS England roles were filled by non-UK nationals. That includes one in three doctors and three in 10 nurses. In both the NHS and the social care sector, recruitment of overseas staff increased after the pandemic, with campaigns run in places such as Kerala in India. In 2022, 73,000 skilled worker visa applicants were sponsored in the health and care sector.

While I support efforts to end the long-term reliance on recruiting internationally to fill such roles, it is important to acknowledge the invaluable role that skilled overseas workers play in our health and social care sector. As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care, and as someone who came to this House from working in the NHS, I understand how important it is that we do not lose the skills of those who are already working in our health and social care sector.

My constituents who work in the NHS have made the point that the cost of recruiting and training an overseas nurse is anywhere between £50,000 and £60,000, and roughly £250,000 for a doctor. They argue that this country has made that investment so that people can train, learn and work in our healthcare sector. However, the certainty they had about their lives in the UK has been thrown into doubt, and now they cannot plan for the future.

I am grateful to the 168 constituents who signed the e-petition calling for Hong Kong British national overseas visa holders to be exempted from any change to the indefinite leave to remain. I am particularly grateful to one constituent who came to a recent surgery with a letter signed by 80 Hong Kong BNO visa holders living in Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages. Those who live in my constituency are making a positive contribution to our community. Many of them have joined the workforce, finding employment in healthcare, education and trade, with some opening their own businesses. They have enriched local towns and villages by volunteering and becoming actively involved with local groups. As most of them have young families, their children have joined and become settled in local schools. They left Hong Kong due to the suppression of freedoms, and came to the UK to rebuild their lives.

In their letter to me, my constituents spoke about the current uncertainty in their lives, especially for those with school-age children. They hope that the Minister’s response to this debate might go some way towards giving them clarity about their status. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that I and others have made.

18:07

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to support from trade unions.

I welcome the expression of concerns by the Trades Union Congress this week, as well as migrant rights campaigners. I add my support to what they have said about the Government’s plan to double the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain for work visas, as well as to end to overseas recruitment in the NHS and social care for any role below degree level. I raise that matter because I have been made aware that health staff in my constituency at the James Cook University hospital have faced acts of racist abuse in recent weeks. I offer them my support, and I am reaching out to the hospital CEO, Stacey Hunter, and staff unions.

Unison has documented case after case of exploitation of migrant workers. Over 320,000 NHS staff are overseas workers—20% of the workforce. In adult social care, around 20% of workers nationwide, and up to 50% in London, are migrants. There are care workers, tied to exploitative contracts, trapped in overcrowded housing and threatened with deportation if they dare to speak out. Some have even been forced to pay huge sums to take up jobs in this country, only to be told that they must repay those fees if they challenge poor conditions. By binding visas to a single employer, the system hands unscrupulous bosses extraordinary power. Doubling the settlement period will only extend that power.

On migration we have been following a dangerous script, rather than setting out our own agenda. That is a mistake. It concedes the terrain of debate to malign political actors and their ilk, and distracts from the real crises shaping people’s lives.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on. We are entering dangerous territory with some of this debate, but I am immensely encouraged that so many Labour MPs have turned up today to say something positive about immigration and the positive impacts and effects it has on our society. Will he join me in encouraging them to go further? Say good things about asylum seekers. Stop stripping people of their human rights. Let us make sure that a positive case for immigration and asylum is given in this House.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his contribution. We have heard speaker after speaker extolling the virtues of and making a positive case for immigration. Of course it is not the immigrant minority who hold our social care services together who are the problem; it is the minority of those with extreme wealth who go to huge lengths to avoid paying their proper taxes. They attend overseas conferences addressed by the leader of the Reform party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), to learn how to collect multiple citizenships and avoid taxes through webs of multinational corporate arrangements. The question is: who are the patriots? The tax avoiders or the health workers?

Being thousands of workers short, the care sector is unable to provide care packages for all those who need support, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned a few moments ago. The Government must get on with making their fair pay agreement in the health sector a reality, and ensure that social care is funded properly. That element of the Employment Rights Bill will be a great boon, fillip, support and protection for those workers.

I urge retention of the five-year route to ILR, a commitment not to apply any change retrospectively, and a sector-wide visa scheme in social care that enables migrant workers to challenge bad employers without the threat of dismissal and removal. I am particularly concerned about reports that the Government intend to apply the new policy on settlement retroactively to those already in the UK who applied and continue to reside under old settlement rules. I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government’s position, because behind these rules are human lives. We owe these workers a debt of gratitude, not new barriers, insecurity and betrayal.

18:12

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening the debate. I will focus on the issue of BNO visas; I declare an interest as a member of Labour Friends of Hong Kong. I have 403 constituents in Bolton West who signed the petition to keep five-year ILR terms for Hong Kong British national overseas visa holders. Those 403 people are asking us to keep faith with Hongkongers who came here under certain promises, and they are right to make that demand.

To be clear, I back the Government’s immigration plan. We must reduce irregular migration, stop the dangerous small boats crossings and build a fair system that works for the law-abiding majority. Bolton West backs secure borders, but my constituents also know that the BNO visa issue is different. This is a safe and legal route, rooted in our history and our reputation as a global leader in human rights and democracy. When Beijing ripped up its promises to Hong Kong, this country stepped up. We told Hong Kong families, “If you come here legally, play your part, integrate into your community and contribute for five years, you can make Britain your permanent home.” That seems like a fair deal to me.

I would like to take a moment to share a personal story from a constituent who wishes to remain anonymous. My constituent was a teacher in Hong Kong for more than 20 years, but new laws designed to crack down on criticism of the regime meant that the genuine critical thinking that my constituent was trying to impart to their students was no longer possible. They took up the BNO visa in 2021 to start a new life. It restored their freedom of speech, which is no longer possible in Hong Kong without fear of repercussion.

I am proud that my constituent, like many other Hongkongers, chose Bolton West as their home. Many of my Hongkonger constituents have bought homes, sent their children to our schools, set up businesses and taken up jobs in the constituency. They are not here to take; they are here to give, to build and to belong. But when I speak to many of these families, it is clear to me that they live under a shadow.

We have all read about activists in Britain, such as Carmen Lau, who now has a $1 million bounty on her head from the Hong Kong authorities. Imagine trying to rebuild a life in Horwich, Lostock or Westhoughton while being hunted by an authoritarian regime on the other side of the world. That is the reality of transnational repression.

Transnational repression takes other forms with which we have to get to grips. The journalist Calum Muirhead has reported in This is Money on how Hong Kong exiles here are being denied access to more than £1 billion of their own pensions, as other hon. Members have mentioned. In total, up to £3 billion of retirement savings cannot be accessed until families secure indefinite leave to remain. That is money that could be spent in local shops, backing Bolton businesses, or be put towards children’s futures. The banks responsible for holding these pensions need to step up, do the right thing and release hard-earned pensions back to those who have earned them.

For people to have to deal with all that while their very right to stay in their home, at school or in work is thrown into jeopardy is not fair in any way whatever. I am particularly concerned about the impact that these proposals would have on the lives of young Hongkongers. Currently, under the five-year pathway, students can qualify for home fee status at university after settlement. Stretching that to 10 years would mean a whole generation facing prohibitively high international fees that they simply have not planned for. Families who have already sacrificed so much would see their dreams simply vanish.

Several Members today have used the analogy of moving the goalposts. If you will indulge me, Mr Pritchard, I will mention it as well. I recently had the pleasure of hosting a number of my constituents from Hong Kong at a Bolton Wanderers match. For the record, the mighty Wanderers crushed Bristol Rovers 1-0. Even colleagues with limited knowledge of football will know that if someone had moved the goalposts at half time, it would have caused chaos. The same principle applies here. Hongkongers quite rightly expect us to keep our word. When we made this promise, we said to Hongkongers, “This is your lifeline. This is your chance.” To change the rules at half time would betray not just them, but the trust that underpins all immigration policy.

In conclusion, let us get immigration under control, let us smash the gangs, let us back the Government’s plan to reduce irregular migration, but let us also keep faith with those who came here this way. On behalf of my 403 constituents in Bolton West who signed the petition, I join colleagues in urging the Government to exempt BNO Hongkongers from any extension of the settlement period in their forthcoming immigration plan, to keep our promise and to keep Britain’s word.

18:18

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on sitting through such eloquent speeches on his first day in the job. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for securing the debate.

I am proud that people from all over the world have put down roots in Stratford and Bow. Some of them came bringing skills and experience, while others came seeking safe haven, but wherever they are from, they are welcome in Stratford and Bow. The story of Stratford and Bow is a story that can be found in every corner of Britain. It is about the very best of Britain—our humanity, our compassion, our fairness. It is a story that my own family know well. Fleeing pogroms in search of safety, my parents were given refuge in the UK, and they made east London their first home. That was nearly 50 years ago, and now they are proud British citizens.

I hear that story echoed by my BNO and Hongkonger constituents who came to the UK fleeing persecution. Since the publication of the Government’s immigration White Paper, dozens of my constituents who are currently already on the pathway to settlement have written to me to share their stories and concerns, specifically those about transnational arrangements for those who are already in the UK and on the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain. This is one of my constituent’s messages to me:

“Changing settlement requirements for those who are already in the UK risks a harmful message: that even those who play by the rules are not guaranteed fairness.”

I was struck by how so many of those who wrote to me introduced themselves and described their families as hard-working and law-abiding. They wanted to tell me about their incredible professions, from caring for our most vulnerable to driving innovation in the UK’s tech sector, and about how much tax they are paying, about how they contribute to the UK economy, about how they have made Britain their home and about the community groups they volunteer with.

Although it was nice to read their emails, it saddened me that we have reached a place in Britain where our neighbours and constituents—those who came here legally—feel the need to defend the fact that they belong here. Their stories also show me something else: pride—pride in participating in British life, pride in British values and pride in contributing to and playing their part in our national story. My constituent Chelsea wrote to share her pride in her own efforts to, in her words, uphold British values and integrate in British society. It is a pride that so many of us in this place know and share: a pride in contributing to our communities and playing an active role in shaping local and national life.

Another constituent wrote to me about bringing years of experience to work here in a highly specialised tech job. He told me that he declined offers in other countries and chose to come here,

“following the rules in good faith, trusting the commitments made when I arrived would be honoured.”

In a nation obsessed with queuing and fair play, what could be more British than a respect for the rules, standing in line and asking for one thing in return—fairness? Changing settlement requirements for those who are already in the UK risks sending a harmful message that undermines trust in legal routes: that even those who play by the rules are not guaranteed fairness in Britain.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Over the summer, I held a drop-in surgery for the Hong Kong community in Epsom and Ewell—there are over 1,000 of them—and I heard from many residents who were concerned about the proposal to extend the qualifying period from five to 10 years. They told me that this could have a profound impact, including disrupting their financial planning and causing increased stress and uncertainty for those individuals and their families. Does the hon. Member feel that it is imperative that this Government provide urgent clarity and reassurance to those affected?

[Uma Kumaran]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. That is what so many of us in this room, across the parties, are asking for at the moment. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point.

My BNO constituent put it best:

“British nationality is a privilege not a right.”

I am sure that all in this room agree. However, it is also our right, as Members, to ensure that our system is fair. That means that we cannot treat migration like a sticking plaster on deep-rooted domestic issues such as skills shortages. It also means honouring the settlement expectations that people had when we welcomed them here legally, and honouring our historical obligation to Hongkongers who are claiming humanitarian protection and fleeing political repression.

As the Government prepare to set out their plans this autumn, I urge the Minister to consider the cause of constituents in Stratford and Bow and ensure that those who arrived under the five-year rule are allowed to complete the route to settlement without changes being applied retroactively. Allowing them to do so would reflect the British values that my constituents of all nationalities cherish. It would reflect the story of our fair, outward-looking and compassionate country, which we all hold so dear.

18:23

[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.

18:28

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, thank the Petitions Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for bringing forward this debate.

When the Government introduced their immigration White Paper, they proposed increasing the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10. The intent was to dissuade people from coming to settle in the UK and to convince those who are here to leave. Welcoming the Minister—and his socks—to his place, I ask him who it is that they are hoping to dissuade from coming here and who they are hoping will leave. Is it the doctors, nurses, teachers, transport workers and cleaners who kept this country moving during the pandemic and for whom many of us clapped as they put their lives at risk while we stayed safely at home? I ask because it is those sectors, which are reliant on international workers, that will be hit the hardest by this policy.

The Government have suggested that

“high-skilled, high-contributing individuals…such as nurses, doctors, engineers and AI leaders”

could be fast-tracked for settlement, but it remains unclear what that means in practice. For example, it is clear that changing the ILR period from five years to 10 will have a negative impact on the NHS workforce specifically; it risks an exodus of international healthcare staff, which would undermine the Government’s 10-year plan for the NHS.

We are talking about the one in five NHS staff who are non-UK nationals and the 45% of licensed doctors in the NHS who are international medical graduates, a large number of whom are leaving the UK, mostly due to low pay, the high cost of living and the declining quality of life. Many also cite visa requirements as a reason for leaving. We are talking about the 43.7% of international nurses who left the Nursing and Midwifery Council register in the last year who had been on the register for less than five years. Some 40% of them said that immigration policy was an important factor in that. Those departures will have a profound impact on the NHS workforce, which is already depleted and struggling. Instead of taking steps to make it harder for international medical staff to come and stay in the UK, we should be taking steps to encourage them and, for the sake of our NHS, making it easier for them to stay.

I am also deeply concerned that the Government have not yet indicated whether the change would apply to those already in the UK. International doctors and healthcare professionals need reassurance now that their status will not be affected. That means Hongkongers and all other migrants, too. It would be simply unfair and frankly cruel to apply an extension to the ILR pathway retrospectively, and it would significantly impact those already on the pathway, as well as their families, employers and communities. We have to start being frank that the pursuit of net migration targets has undermined our economy and our public services and created a hostile environment in our communities. Changing immigration rules in this way will undo the work that has been done so far to repair our NHS. I urge the Government to reconsider.

I want to end by saying two things. First, although the topic of this debate is the changes to indefinite leave to remain for skilled worker visa holders in particular, it should go without saying that a person should not have to belong to a critical sector just to deserve compassion in our immigration system. Secondly, I want to remind Members of something my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said. She mentioned the top five nationalities in applications to be in this country over the past five years: Nigerian, Pakistani, Indian, Ghanaian and Bangladeshi—all Commonwealth nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) pointed out the rights that they are afforded: in this country, Commonwealth nationals on any length of visa can register to vote in both local and national elections, and I expect that they and their British national family members and friends will have views on these issues. We should take note of that.

The UK has always boasted a diverse workforce in every single sector, and those who come to establish their lives in the UK are a benefit to our society. We should bear in mind that they vote here. Our immigration policy should reflect the fact that we value them.

18:32

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. Some months ago, I led a debate in this Chamber on the merits of a certificate of common sponsorship in relation to the social care sector. In that debate, I highlighted the unfair and precarious nature of having an employment visa linked to a single employer, rather than to the sector as a whole. I mention that because that campaign, which is ongoing, is of course linked to today’s debate on indefinite leave to remain.

Overseas workers have made, and continue to make, a massive contribution to the UK’s health and social care sector. Because of those dedicated staff, we have been able to provide much-needed care for some of our most vulnerable individuals, but the proposed changes to the ILR rules could put all that at risk. The adult social care sector is already experiencing a crisis in recruitment. In England, for example, 7% of roles are unfilled; that represented about 111,000 vacancies in March this year. These proposals will make filling those vacancies even more difficult.

I have raised before with the Government how the current sponsorship arrangements leave migrant workers open to abuse. Some are locked into unfair contracts; when they raise concerns about their working conditions, they can be threatened with deportation. Employers already have undue power over migrant care workers, because their work visa is tied to their employment status.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

That is an important point, which is related to one made earlier by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and it is about the stability that people have in their life if they know that they have indefinite leave to remain. The industry that I have the most to do with is the fishing industry, and we have seen an increasing presence of transient workers in recent years, outwith immigration rules a lot of the time. In a handful of cases—I stress that it is just a handful—there has been egregious abuse, and that can happen because these people are forced to live in the shadows. Giving them stability allows them to have the same rights and security that we all take for granted.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Any employment status that traps workers in those conditions has to be addressed, and the proposed extension of the ILR period from five years to 10 will potentially trap those workers in what we can only describe as long-term exploitation.

The immigration White Paper also suggests sweeping changes to the skilled worker visa system. A constituent of mine, Olabanjo, wrote to me:

“If implemented, this proposed change would create unnecessary instability for thousands of families, including mine. It would prolong uncertainty, increase financial and emotional strain, and discourage people who are already working hard, paying taxes, and contributing positively to the UK. Migrants are not just statistics; we are carers, professionals, volunteers, and parents raising children who already call this country home. We want to belong, to integrate fully, and to continue giving our best to the UK. This proposal would make that harder, not easier.”

Olabanjo is right to point out that the plans to retrospectively change the settlement rules feel like a betrayal. The suggestion that we can change the rules halfway through is grossly unfair. Behind the debate about immigration are real people, and the proposed changes have caused considerable upheaval for many overseas workers who are already here. In fact, virtually all migrant workers will in some way be affected by the changes to salary thresholds and new visa conditions.

The Government have described settlement as a privilege to be earned, but that ignores the valuable contribution that these workers have already made to our country, the economy and their local communities. That is why I urge the Government to reject the negative rhetoric around immigration, retain the five-year route for ILR, scrap plans to apply extended qualifying periods retrospectively, and reform the visa system to ensure that sponsorship is sector-wide, rather than linked to an individual employer.

18:38

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening this important debate. As we know, over 100,000 people signed each of these petitions, including a number from my constituency of Chesterfield. I will also take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his new post and wish him well.

Members have expressed strongly in this debate the sentiment that many migrants have made a huge contribution in our constituencies and the country. I think there is nothing inconsistent in saying that, on the one hand, we absolutely recognise that contribution but, on the other, we recognise the Government’s desire to reduce net migration and that the number of people coming into our country is unsustainable. We can absolutely recognise the huge contribution that migrants make without in any way undermining the positive steps the Government are trying to take to get the system under control.

I agree entirely that Britain is a country that keeps its word, and we should continue to keep our word to the Hongkongers who have come here. I echo the comment that many others have made that it will be a huge propaganda victory for the Chinese Government if they are able to say that we are undermining that commitment. I also support what has been said about those who have already started down a path. We should not be changing the rules that we have made for those people.

It is important to recognise that many people now have real uncertainty. We are in a competitive environment for many of these skilled migrants. There are many other countries that would like to attract them, and if we start pushing them away and making them believe that their commitment to this country will not be honoured, we risk losing people who are crucial to our public services and economy. We should consider that very seriously indeed.

My constituent Erinda came to see me. Her family are from Albania and have been in the UK for several years. She came here on the skilled worker visa, and her husband and son were brought here as dependants. They have made their life here; they have joined the local church and have made a huge contribution to the local community. There is real concern among her church community that they now might not have the stability that they believed they should. We should offer that certainty to people who have come here on the five-year route.

I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) about the danger of exploitation of some people on the skilled visa route. I have seen appalling situations, including people working in the care industry who are being forced into doing, in effect, 70 or 75-hour shifts over the course of a week, and being told, “If you’re not willing to do it, we’ll scrap the basis on which you’ve come here and you’ll lose your right to be in the UK.” We need to make sure that those people, who are making an important contribution, are properly protected.

I support what the Government are doing in trying to tighten up our immigration rules, but I also hope that at the end of the consultation they will support what the people who signed the petitions have asked for.

18:42

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing the debate and thank my great friend the Minister for taking his position today.

When the Hong Kong UK welcome programme was established in 2021, Long Eaton in my constituency was chosen as one of the preferred resettlement locations for Hongkongers. Local people in Long Eaton have very much welcomed our new neighbours to our community. I have spoken to teachers at local schools about how new students from Hong Kong are getting on and doing well, and I have been very pleased to see Hongkongers establishing new businesses in our town centre. Since being elected as the Member of Parliament for Erewash a little over a year ago, I have sought to engage with Long Eaton’s already very active Hongkonger community. I was very pleased recently to host an event in Long Eaton town hall with the Nottingham branch of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation.

We must all have watched on with admiration in 2019 and 2020 as the people of Hong Kong took to the streets of their city in their millions to defend their civil rights and liberties, their democracy and their fundamental freedoms. Over the past decade, the situation across China has only worsened. Modest gains for the rule of law have been quashed, there has been renewed aggression towards Taiwan and its people, and the appalling persecution of the Uyghur minority has continued. Sadly, terribly, those scenes of heroic bravery on the streets of Hong Kong ended in heartbreak. The national security law was imposed, granting Beijing unprecedented powers to police the speech and actions of Hongkongers. Elections were delayed, democracy functionally ended and harsh laws against protesters enacted.

The crackdown saw horrendous scenes of police brutality and human rights abuses. As a result, over 500,000 people fled Hong Kong. Hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers came here to the United Kingdom to seek sanctuary. I happily say, and I know that many hon. Members from across the House will agree, that Hong Kong and China’s loss has been very much our gain. I am very glad to have welcomed these Hongkongers, who are fleeing oppression, violence and injustice, to my constituency.

Sadly, the Government in Beijing are not content with forcing these people from their homes; they still wish to terrorise them here in the United Kingdom. We cannot allow that to happen to people to whom we have promised safety and security in our country and who want to feel comfortable here.

It is important that we remember those points as we consider any alterations to visa regulations in the coming months. Clearly, arrest warrants issued in Hong Kong against Hongkongers living in Britain are unacceptable. The operation of illegal and unsanctioned police stations in British cities, which are used to intimidate and even kidnap people, are both a deep moral wrong and a grievous violation of our national sovereignty.

I was shocked and deeply saddened that when I welcomed local Hongkongers to Long Eaton town hall recently, many of them said that they were afraid to be photographed or videoed on the CCTV. They also raised serious concerns about the proposed new Chinese embassy in London, because they felt it could become a hub for spying and mass surveillance, and perhaps even house a far larger illegal prison than those that have so far operated.

I greatly commend the bravery of the people of Hong Kong. I will always speak up for and defend the rights of Hongkongers who have moved to Long Eaton and the rest of my constituency, to Greater Nottingham and indeed to anywhere in the United Kingdom. We must protect those who have sought sanctuary in our community from the Chinese Government, both now and well into the future. I look forward to many more years of being a Member of Parliament and speaking up further for our new Hongkonger neighbours and their families.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Votes in the House are always, as we know, a moveable feast. However, it is likely that there will be eight votes later this evening, so perhaps everybody here in Westminster Hall could keep an eye on the main Chamber, unless they want to come back here later in—I don’t know—95 minutes. It is entirely up to Members, because I will not be here, but they will.

18:46

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I echo the welcome that has already been extended to the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), in his new post. I know that he will bring to this position the same qualities of diligence and collegiate working that characterised his approach at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Given the level of interest in today’s debate, I will speak only about and in support of the second petition that we are considering, which is on the Hong Kong BNO visa. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for the able way in which he has led this debate, and the Petitions Committee for making it possible.

I also thank the 635 people in Birmingham Northfield who signed the petition, and the dozens of people who have made representations at constituency surgeries and in writing. I can do no better than to quote one of them:

“Since settling in Birmingham, we have purchased our own home and integrated into the community. Two of us are working in the NHS. We made this move not out of convenience but out of necessity, fleeing the erosion of human rights in Hong Kong. Incidents such as the firing of pro-democracy campaigners, prosecution of journalists and the enactment of the article 23 law have only reinforced the difficult choice we made to leave.”

Our Hongkonger constituents who are watching this debate should know that they are welcome here and are valued members of our communities.

We should also recognise that Hong Kong is clearly a special case. The statement that I have just quoted is not only a commentary on the deep links of culture and history that bind us together, as important as those links are. The practical reality is that although we might wish that the Chinese Government’s tightening repression at home and abroad might lessen within the next 10 years, such hope is contradicted by all the available evidence.

We need only look at the fate of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, the organising centre of independent labour, which was linked indelibly to the democracy movement. It was coerced into dissolving itself in 2021. Its leaders are now prosecuted and persecuted, including through abuse of the international arrest warrant system. They are people such as Christopher Siu-tat Mung. Some Members of this House will have heard him speak at the conferences of the TUC, the GMB and other UK labour organisations. He was forced into hiding here in the UK under the protection of the Home Office after a bounty was issued for his arrest.

I have spoken to a number of my constituents who share the concern that they may themselves be targeted and subjected to surveillance. They deserve to have that fear lifted—the fear of return to Hong Kong or relocation to another country that may offer lesser levels of protection.

There are other important issues that we could talk about today, such as the need for progress towards greater UK recognition of Hong Kong qualifications, but, on the substantive issue—the subject of the petition—the Government have said that they will set out their approach to particular visa routes over the coming months. While I do not necessarily expect the Minister to pre-empt that announcement today, I do ask that he acknowledges the strength of feeling shared by so many Members in this debate, that he makes sure that the arguments made today are given full attention by the Home Office, and that our constituents will be given that certainty as soon as possible.

18:50

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on his opening remarks, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his place.

Earlier this year, I held a surgery with Hongkongers living in my constituency, alongside Alison Lowe, the deputy mayor of West Yorkshire, who is responsible for policing and crime. While I was so pleased to see the room absolutely packed out—standing room only—it was clear from the questions I was being asked that the No. 1 concern was the immigration White Paper and its potential impact on Hongkongers and their families—people we invited to live here.

I need to make it very clear that we must take extremely strong action on immigration—the British people demand it—and that having functioning borders should be a basic function of the state. The level of immigration to the UK, both legal and illegal, has been too high, and the White Paper is a decent package of measures to try to bring the numbers down, which should be welcomed. However, we do not want to unfairly penalise those who we have invited here, or who make a huge contribution to the UK.

When the BNO visa scheme was introduced in 2020 by the previous Government, it was in response to the imposition of the national security law on Hongkongers, to help them escape political repression. To change the rules now, when the first BNO visa holders are just months away from qualifying for settled status, would be a devastating blow to the Hong Kong community. It would constitute a broken promise. These people have come to the UK under a set of conditions that we determined, and at our request. At the very least, even if we were to change the rules, they should never be applied retrospectively.

What would happen if we did change the rules? First, extending the indefinite leave to remain period for BNO visa holders would have very little impact on immigration figures. Government data shows that most BNO visa holders arrived in the first two years of the scheme, between 2021 and 2023, and, since then, the numbers have been falling. Currently, BNOs represent about 1.65% of total visa grants, so changing the rules in this area will do very little to change immigration trends.

More importantly, the Hong Kong community make an immense contribution to the UK, even though they are often prevented from giving their full talents to society because of the limitations they face without settled status or citizenship. Take university-age students, for example, who we have heard about today: without settled status, they will not qualify for home fees, making university unaffordable for most of them. Delaying that settled status for a total of 10 years would have a hugely detrimental impact on those young BNO visa holders. They will still go on to contribute to the UK throughout their working lives, but why would we not want to increase that contribution as much as we can?

It is also true that a huge number of Hongkongers in the UK are working far below their qualification or training levels, or are potentially unemployed entirely. There are accountants, journalists and engineers, for example, working in roles that do not necessarily match their skills. We have heard that there are some practical steps that the Government could take to alleviate some of those problems, which would be in our interests, but extending the ILR route for Hongkongers to 10 years—further delaying their access to further education, training, citizenship, Government support and integration into UK society—will obviously make the problem worse. Despite all the obstacles they face today, they are still making a huge contribution to the UK.

With one eye on the time, I will draw my remarks to a close. I urge the Minister to exempt BNO visa holders from any changes to the ILR route or other qualifications for settled status. This country made a promise to the people of Hong Kong, and we should honour it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Front Benchers, an update from the Chamber: there are apparently more Members standing now than there were even 10 minutes ago. At the discretion of the shadow Minister and the Minister, we can run the debate for the full time to 7.30 pm, which is great.

18:55

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his excellent speech in opening the debate, and hon. Members around the Chamber for their contributions. We have all made very clear our similar feelings on this, and I hope the Government Minister is ready to jump up and answer all our queries positively.

I rise to speak on behalf of more than 265,000 people who have collectively signed these two petitions. Many of the signatures will be from the very people who would be impacted by the change being considered by the Government—people who pay their taxes, keep our hospitals running, manage local businesses and serve our communities. Families who came to Britain in good faith now face extreme uncertainty about their livelihoods. The Government’s immigration White Paper, published in May, proposes to double the wait for permanent British settlement status from five years to 10, except for those who qualify under earned settlement, among other key changes.

This sudden decision has left hundreds of BNO passport holders and skilled immigrant workers in my constituency, and across the country, understandably anxious about their futures. I am in no doubt that, after years of Conservative mismanagement, the immigration system needs to change. It is completely right that the Home Office takes the necessary steps to fix a framework left in tatters. However, for months, potentially abrupt changes to qualifying for indefinite leave to remain have been shrouded in mystery for BNO and skilled worker visas. At the very least, those visa holders deserve clarity, yet since the publication of the White Paper, clarity is exactly what they have been denied. The Government cannot keep people in the dark; we need answers today.

I am proud that my constituency of Sutton and Cheam is home to such a vibrant and inspiring Hong Kong diaspora—some of the more than 160,000 Hongkongers who have come to the UK under the scheme implemented by the last Conservative Government. Where I live, I see at first hand the contributions they make to my community every day. They serve as business owners, teachers, doctors and community leaders—and since May, one is my colleague, serving on Sutton council.

Many fled repression by the CCP and put their trust in a life in Sutton. That trust was not abstract; for many, it was rooted in a promise that the BNO visa scheme would provide a safe pathway to rebuild their lives here, with settlement after five years and citizenship after six. The scheme was not an act of charity but a solemn commitment, born of Britain’s obligations under the Sino-British joint declaration and made when Beijing began to tear away Hongkongers’ freedoms in 2019. It was a recognition of more than 150 years of British control of Hong Kong, and of how our histories and futures are inextricably linked.

In a world of transnational repression orchestrated by the CCP, permanent settlement in Britain is a vital safeguard for Hongkongers on this visa route. For those who have grasped the BNO lifeline, the prospect of doubling the wait for indefinite leave to remain could be devastating. So many families I have spoken to have built their futures around the promise of a five-year route. They have made the ultimate sacrifice in uprooting their lives in Hong Kong and moving to this country, because they believed Britain would stand by its word.

To extend the pathway for BNO passport holders to 10 years for ILR would have brutal consequences for my constituents. Without ILR or a UK passport, many BNO holders are left with the Hong Kong special administrative region passport. Once that expires, they face major barriers to international mobility. For some, travel would become impossible without risking interaction with PRC authorities. Families would be cut off from loved ones, and careers requiring international travel would be closed off. Even children born here to BNO parents could be left waiting until they are 11 years old before gaining a passport.

The consequences for education are equally stark. BNO students must secure settled status before qualifying for home fee status at UK universities. Under the new proposals, a 10-year wait would result in most BNO students facing international fees that their families simply cannot afford. When the decision was made to take up the BNO route and travel to and settle in the UK, this timing would have been considered and understood—an important consideration for families fleeing persecution, yet not wanting to compromise their children’s future and their access to affordable further education. That timing and opportunity now risk being torn up by the Government. This change would see the shutting down of futures and the door closed on an entire generation of young Hongkongers who want nothing more than to study, work and contribute to this country. Hongkongers came to places like Sutton to escape censorship, surveillance and persecution. Do we really want to answer their courage with confusion?

Recent correspondence from the Home Office to a Labour MP, which I am sure many of us have seen, suggested that the existing pathway would remain unchanged for those already holding BNO visas, and that the proposed changes to the language requirements would apply to new applicants only from April 2026 onwards. However, that was contradicted by later correspondence, released in a number of letters issued to Members—including, I am sure, some around this room—so I would like assurances. I urge the Minister to reflect carefully before making any changes to ILR for BNO visa holders. Hongkongers’ lives are already clouded in so much uncertainty. They need clear guidance on how any changes to immigration policy will affect them. The impact of the White Paper on Hongkongers would be immense. Assurances must be provided when so much is at stake for so many of my constituents.

And what of skilled worker visas, the UK’s primary visa route for individuals seeking to work here? It includes the health and care worker sub-category—the very nurses, doctors and carers who keep hospitals such as St Helier in our borough running every day and who look after our constituents in their homes. Britain cannot hope to attract the best and brightest talent while leaving thousands of those on skilled worker visas in limbo. The immigration White Paper was published four months ago, but those on this immigration visa still have no clarity about what lies ahead for them here in Britain. These are people who keep institutions like our NHS afloat, who fill critical shortages across our economy and who contribute to Britain from day one of their arrival. They deserved certainty about what changes to immigration policy meant for them from the very beginning.

The Government cannot claim to fix our immigration system by pulling the rug out from under those who put their faith in it. Hongkongers and skilled workers deserve fairness and stability. I urge the Minister to stop changing the rules mid-game and play fair. As Members around this room have all made clear, the Minister should stand by his word and the word of the previous Conservative Government, who, in all fairness, brought the scheme in with foresight and compassion for the people of Hong Kong. Let us give people the certainty to build their lives as fully as they can in this country by retaining the five-plus-one time limits for BNO and skilled workers. I hope the Minister will give us that reassurance when he winds up.

19:03

[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.

[Mr Perkins]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Katie Lam]

I am closing; I apologise.

Will the Minister confirm that applying any changed rules to those already here will be within the scope of the Government’s planned consultation on ILR? Will he commit to ensuring that that consultation is open to responses from members of the public?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, and congratulate him on his new position.

19:09

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Alex Norris)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I express my sincere gratitude for all the kind words from colleagues on this, my first day in the Home Office. What a welcoming party they have proffered me. I greatly enjoyed it.

I also express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough). Being on the Petitions Committee in this place is a very special and difficult role because, of course, he started the debate not only in the spirit of things that he knows and feels, but by giving voice to the many hundreds of thousands of people who signed that petition and earned the right to have their issue debated in Parliament by their representatives. To the British public, that is very profound connection. He made an effort not just in preparing his speech—the words on the piece of paper—but in engaging with people to ensure that they can hear their voice in this debate. They very much will have, so I commend him for the spirit in which he did that.

Both petitions relate to the earned settlement proposals set out in the immigration White Paper, which the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), introduced in Parliament on 12 May, so I will keep my remarks within the spirit of those two petitions. The proposals in the White Paper more generally are important changes, and we have seen, from the strength of feeling from colleagues in Westminster Hall today, just how important they are to them and their constituents.

That is why we are taking the approach we are taking. We want to listen to what people are telling us about this issue. That is why we have committed to a consultation. I can say to colleagues that the consultation is coming later this year, and that we will make the final decisions and provide details of how the scheme will work after that consultation. I apologise in advance that, for many of the issues that have been raised, I have to say that they will be subject to consultation, but that is the right way to ensure that we get to the right position.

[Mr Perkins]

The Minister is absolutely right that we are all here to respond to petitions that hundreds of thousands of people have signed. Does he think, as I do, that given the huge public interest in this matter, it is absolutely extraordinary that one person has turned up to speak from the main Opposition party, and that that person, the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—barely talked about the items raised by the petitioners? Does it not say absolutely everything about the modern Conservative party that they do not think today’s debate is even worth turning up for?

[Alex Norris]

It was quite interesting that the Chamber was so full at the beginning of the debate; indeed, we had the very unlikely spectacle of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) crossing the floor. People can see who has shown an interest in this debate, and they may well draw their own conclusions.

[Luke Taylor]

I am not rising to defend the Opposition in any way, but can we just remember why we are here? We are talking about a Government who are planning to move the goalposts for people who are halfway through an application for ILR. We can point at who is at fault around the room, but let us not forget that the Government are considering moving the goalposts, so that people will now face uncertainty for further months. Let us focus on who is being challenged here. Can we remember that, Minister?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for harking back to the 2010-to-2015 period—it truly felt like we were back in other times—but I will address his points as I go along.

My intention is to set out our stall as a Government and address the points that colleagues have raised—there have been some clear themes, and I certainly should be able to do so in the time available. As we set out in the White Paper, we strongly recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country. If people want to come to Britain to start a new life, they can do so, but they must contribute, learn our language and seek to integrate. Similarly, if employers want to bring workers from overseas, they must also invest in the skills of workers already in Britain.

As we have heard, the previous Government lost control not just of the number of people arriving but of the entire system, with serious consequences for public confidence, which play out—I am absolutely certain—in all our mailbags every day. That also impacts the working of our economy, public services, the housing market and community cohesion. We are debating this matter today because, in the space of just four years, net migration quadrupled to a record high. Overseas recruitment shot up, while training in the UK was cut. Lower-skilled migration soared, while the proportion of UK residents in work plummeted. Hundreds of thousands of people were given visas to arrive and stay in the UK, but without the requirements for them to speak or learn English, so that they could get the best out of their time here.

We hear from our constituents that migration needs to be managed so that we can support families, support communities and create cohesion. We need proper support for integration and for people to seek a better life, but there have to be clear rules about contributing to the UK. Where the pace of migration is too fast or integration is too weak, it is harder to maintain confidence, community bonds and relationships. Fundamentally, people must see the rules being clearly expressed, clearly respected and properly enforced. For the system to be credible, decisions must be fair, and misuse and exploitation must be tackled fast, as we have heard from many colleagues, and along the way we must prevent illegal migration, overstaying, exploitation and undercutting. It is our position as a Government that the immigration system must be properly controlled and managed.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

I will in a second. I appreciate the strength of feeling that colleagues have expressed today. I would caution them about defending a status quo that does not work. I ask them to engage in the spirit of how we might improve that status quo.

[Andy McDonald]

On the reasonable point about English language, the bar has been raised, as the Minister has set out. Is the Minister content that there are sufficient resources devoted to the teaching of the English language? That will be a charge that is put to us if we make that demand but do not put in the resources to match.

[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?

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend seeks to tempt me off topic slightly, but he has made an excellent point, and I have heard it. However, I want to go back to the fundamental point around consultation. We have heard from colleagues about its importance to people all over the country. It is only right that those who may be affected by the proposals have a fair and equal opportunity to make their voices heard. That is precisely why we are moving forward with the consultation: to ensure that any decision made is rooted in evidence, made with fairness and based on a clear understanding of its real-world impact. I hope that Members will accept that I will not prejudge the outcome of the consultation before it has taken place.

[James Naish]

I thank the Minister for his speech. The clock is ticking, and I would like him to recognise that. It is really important that the consultation is done quickly. With that in mind, does he know at this stage whether different groups will be carved out within the consultation? Will there be separate opportunities to comment on the BNO scheme, for example, and on other routes?

[Alex Norris]

We will be opening the consultation up for everybody to make important points about how the system relates to them. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), asked for clarity, and I can give it to her: everybody will get that important opportunity to say how the proposals would affect them. That takes me to some of the things that colleagues have said.

[Bobby Dean]

Clearly, if there is to be consultation, that will entail a further few months of uncertainty for many people on the scheme. Does the Minister have an ambition for when the consultation will be concluded and for when we will hear the results?

[Alex Norris]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a timeframe today, but I appreciate and accept his point about the time pressures that people will feel.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

Given the unanimity of feeling in the Chamber today on the importance of BNO visas and the uncertainty that the consultation is creating, will the Minister put it on record that he recognises that uncertainty, and that it will be foremost in his mind as he develops policy going forward?

[Alex Norris]

I absolutely do. When we talk about a system—and this is a system—there is a danger that we forget the fact that these are individual people with lives, hopes and dreams. We always want to treat those people with the utmost dignity and make sure there is no more uncertainty than is necessary. This is my eighth year in this place, and I have watched seven years of immigration policies just fall out of the sky—many times, they were chasing headlines rather than trying to change the system. The question everybody asked was “Why on earth didn’t you consult on this?” There is good reason for engaging with people properly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) all talked about the scope of the changes and who will be affected. That is the point of having a consultation: because we appreciate that people’s circumstances can be very different. That is why we want people to come forward to say how the proposals might affect them.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk talked about transition in general, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). Again, we appreciate the strength of feeling that has been expressed, and feedback on that point is very helpful. We have also had some feedback since the publication of the White Paper, which is helping us to frame the consultation before we finalise any policy following it.

I have clearly heard the strength of feeling regarding Hongkongers, and our profound connection with them, from my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Rushcliffe, for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), for Birmingham Northfield, for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Erewash, as well as from the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). I hope they see that I share that feeling, as well as their pride in that connection—a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards).

Before I finish, I want to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and the racism that his constituents have endured in their NHS service. That is totally unacceptable, and I would like to add my solidarity to his, which is coming from the TUC. I also want to address a couple of final questions before I hand back to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk with enough time for him to sum up. He talked about diplomatic consequences; I want to assure him that we have engaged with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the issue and that we recognise the diplomatic interests in the BNO route and will continue to consider those impacts carefully.

My hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk and for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) mentioned impact assessments. It is right that colleagues see impact assessments after we have finalised proposals. However, the point of the consultation is that we do not yet know that final stage, which is why we are having those conversations, and impact assessments will of course be carried out at the right moment.

Finally, my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) raised the issue of study. International students are crucial to the UK, the city of Nottingham, our universities and our economy. They allow us to have a world-class connection to our higher education sector, and they are an important pillar of growth. It is essential that opportunities to study in the UK are given to individuals who are genuinely here to do just that. The universities that sponsor those individuals to study here must treat that responsibility with the seriousness that it deserves. That is crucial to public confidence.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk and other colleagues on what has been a brilliant debate. There has been a lot of interest, for good reason, and there is a lot more work to do, for good reason. I hope that those who are watching have seen that we want to get this right. We will be moving forward with a consultation, and I look forward to engaging along the way in that process.

19:27

[Ben Goldsborough]

Today’s debate has been a perfect example of what the Petitions Committee is very good at. It has brought these topics to the fore, in front of a brand-new Minister, so the two e-petitions are now at the top of his box. I give huge thanks not only to the Petitions Committee itself, for all the hard work and effort that went into setting up the process, but also for the stamina of our guests in the Gallery who stayed for the full three-hour debate. I hope that those who are watching at home will realise that this is the best of Parliament, where we speak with more light than heat; where we look at the instruments in front of us and take them issue by issue; and where, instead of deciding to turn them into a mud-slinging match, we actually look at these projects and at how we can make our country better.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 727360 and 727356 relating to the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain.

19:28

Sitting adjourned.