Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Rand]

Yes, absolutely. I thank the right hon. Member for making that important point, which I will come on to later in my remarks.

On the BNO visa scheme, for the sake of fairness, I should start my remarks by giving credit where it is due: the scheme is one of the best things that the Conservative party did in its 14 years of government. Even though it is top of what I might consider a vanishingly small list of achievements, that should not distract from what a resounding success it has been. About 150,000 Hongkongers have been able to flee tyranny because of the scheme. Our country should be deeply proud of that. I will be grateful if, when the Minister responds, she could spell out that this Government’s commitment to the scheme matches that of the previous Government.

I also want the Government to consider the loopholes within the BNO visa scheme. We know that the scheme was initially designed for Hongkongers who, as adults, had applied for BNO status prior to the handover of Hong Kong in 1997. In 2022, the scheme was expanded to allow younger Hongkongers born after the 1997 handover, who never had the chance to apply for that status themselves, to come to the UK as part of the visa. However, there is a group in the middle.

Thousands of Hongkongers born between 1979 and 1997 are caught by a loophole as they are not old enough to have applied for BNO status before the handover, but not young enough to qualify under the 2022 expansion. I encourage the Minister to engage on this issue with Hong Kong Watch, which has proposed practical ways to close the loophole and open up the path to escaping oppression for thousands of Hongkongers, allowing family reunions that would mean so much to those living in the United Kingdom.

On the subject of design flaws with the visa scheme, I also encourage the Minister to look at visa and asylum applications that have been refused on the grounds of the applicant having a criminal record. Although that may be perfectly reasonable in other circumstances, we know that some pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong are getting criminal records, and that in and of itself should not be a reason to deny them safe passage to the United Kingdom, as I am sure all colleagues would agree.

Although the visa scheme is important, it is also vital, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, that we ensure Hongkongers living in the United Kingdom can live happy, safe and prosperous lives. The point on safety is particularly crucial. Members will be aware of the long arm of the Chinese state, which is a daily source of fear and anxiety for many Hongkongers, including those in my constituency—both for themselves and for the fate of loved ones they have left behind.

Each act of Chinese aggression—political interference in this place, sanctions against parliamentarians, or outright acts of espionage, as we have seen—heightens the fear of Hongkongers that they might be next. In July and December, under the Hong Kong national security policy, arrest warrants with £100,000 bounties were issued for six exiled Hong Kong activists living in the United Kingdom. Closer to home, we had the incident at the Chinese consulate in Manchester. I hope that the Minister will reassure Hongkongers in my constituency today by setting out the measures the Home Office has in place to ensure their safety, given the unique threats they face.

As well as guaranteeing the safety of Hongkongers in the United Kingdom, we must work to ensure that their lives can be as happy and prosperous as possible. I will briefly touch on two related points before wrapping up. The first is the issue of accessing retirement savings. The Mandatory Provident Fund is a compulsory retirement scheme for the people of Hong Kong, which, for most Hongkongers, is their main pension pot. In theory, they should be able to withdraw it in full even if they choose to leave Hong Kong; in practice, vindictive policies stop them doing so, and have made it almost impossible for Hongkongers who have fled their homeland to access vital money for rebuilding their new lives. It is estimated by Hong Kong Watch that Hongkongers who have fled to the UK are being denied access to £3 billion in savings. Would the Minister be willing to have a conversation with colleagues in the Treasury about what more can be done to tackle this grave injustice?

I also encourage the Minister to have conversations with colleagues in the Department for Education on the issue of tuition fees. For many Hongkongers in England and Wales, higher education is rendered unaffordable by the requirement to pay the international rate of tuition fees, which stands in contrast with students who have come to the UK on other humanitarian pathways, such as those from Ukraine and Afghanistan, who have home fee status. This feels like an unfair discrepancy, and if we want Hongkongers to thrive in the UK, it is something that we should seriously look at.

I know that I have several asks of the Minister today, and that many of my colleagues will no doubt have done the same about various other important causes, at a time when, I know, asks of the Home Office are extremely significant, but we must not lose sight of Hong Kong. It cannot be forgotten about or pushed to the margins. That is not just because of what supporting Hongkongers says about our country’s commitment to the fundamental value of freedom, but because I know, from my own constituency, that if those who arrive from Hong Kong are given the support that they need, they can make an immense contribution to the communities that they now call home.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. To allow Mr Rand two minutes at the end to wind up, I will be calling the Front Benchers from 2.28 pm. If Members could limit their contribution to five minutes, I will have no need to impose a time limit.