Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), who will clearly be a massive asset on this issue. I thank the many organisations that have chipped in on it, but I want to speak to three points raised primarily by constituents who are directly affected as BNO Hongkongers on their practical experience here.

The first point is to reiterate what has been said about university and non-home fees. Many BNO Hongkongers are simply priced out of higher education in the UK, despite the reason why they are here—persecution in Hong Kong. They already have to pay the health surcharge. There are higher fees for being here to begin with, before even looking at paying the overseas student fee rate, which is not applicable to others. This is a doubly egregious issue, because residents from almost all British overseas territories have been eligible for home fee status at UK universities since 2007, but BNOs are not eligible, because they had their rights stripped away in 1997. I hope that the Minister will commit today to at least examining the restoration of those rights, to allow more Hongkongers to benefit from reduced rates.

There is, of course, the parallel with those who are granted leave under other schemes; those for Ukrainians have already been mentioned. I would like to see that generosity extended to those who make a permanent home in my Southwark, London constituency, as well as other constituencies that have been mentioned.

Time is tight, so apologies if I am rattling through this rather fast, but the Mandatory Provident Fund is also of significant concern. Hongkongers are being denied the £3 billion of compulsory retirement savings that has been mentioned, despite proof that they have resettled abroad. The Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority released a statement in March 2021 saying that because the BNO passport was no longer recognised by the Hong Kong Government as a valid travel or identity document, those trying to withdraw funds could not use the BNO system. That has led to funds being frozen, in contradiction to what representatives of some of the firms involved have told our colleagues in the Canadian Parliament. I hope to hear from the Minister that the collapse in Sino-British relations will not prevent Ministers from probing the companies directly involved about delivering on their legal obligations.

No one should be prevented from accessing their funds just because they hold a BNO passport or visa, but there are already examples of that happening in the UK, including to a Hongkonger single mother who was unable to afford a heater for her son. She was denied £57,000-worth of her MPF, and a family of five were unable to afford a wheelchair-accessible property for their disabled child because their MPF was withheld. I think that the Minister is probing some of the companies. Just to give an example, HSBC oversees five MPF schemes and manages approximately 29% of the total MPF market. This should not be ignored. Although I welcome the audit, we cannot wait for the end of it to look at some of the interplaying issues and relationships. We need action on this, and perhaps it would be useful to call in some of these companies to examine how they are supporting BNO Hongkongers now. Hongkongers have asked for documents that they can present to the MPF holder, representing a formalised commitment to apply for British citizenship. I hope that the Minister will look at that.

My final point is on security. We have heard about Manchester, and there are examples in Surrey and in my own constituency of cyber-security issues, as well as physical harassment and intimidation, following, the disruption of meetings and the prevention of the booking of meetings at venues. Those are simple things that are being done to try to deny people the right to rebuild and live a normal life here in the UK. Transnational repression is completely unacceptable. Some of those responsible have been shown to work for the Hong Kong Economic Trade Office here in the UK. Why does it still have diplomatic status? I have asked Ministers about that. Again, the audit is one area that might look at that in the longer term, but we could look at it now. The US has sanctioned 49 Hong Kong representatives. We are yet to move in the same way, and Ministers should look at that now.

Will the Minister give us a steer on protective measures that could come forward sooner? We have the Community Security Trust to protect synagogues and the protective security for mosques scheme. Something similar that specialises in the situation that Hong Kong BNO holders face, as well as training and support for the police authorities involved, would be incredibly useful. I have written to the Security Minister on that specific issue and I hope to hear from him soon that that offer of security will be afforded, because we cannot let those who have fled communist persecution abroad be subject to communist persecution here in the UK.