Indefinite Leave to Remain: Healthcare Workers

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for securing this important and informative debate, and indeed for the work that he and colleagues across the House are now doing in the Petitions Committee. I am grateful to him and to colleagues for taking part today.

I want to start by saying that I totally agree with the sentiment underlying so many of the contributions—that everyone should be able to work free from fear and exploitation, and that there should be absolutely no place for hate crime or sentiments from anybody, anywhere in the country. I am sure that all hon. Members across this House take those issues extremely seriously.

I will address several of the issues raised—including tackling the exploitation that we see regarding this route, taking a preventive approach, ensuring trust, making sure that there are escape routes for people if they feel locked in with their employers, and many others—in my remarks this afternoon. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Congleton (Mrs Russell), as well as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), for their contributions today.

The Government do recognise the vital contribution that health and care professionals from overseas make to our NHS and in social care, and indeed to the wider health and wellbeing of the United Kingdom. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford speaks with great personal experience, having worked as a nurse. I know that he, like me, will want to congratulate our mutual friend, Bejoy Sebastian, a critical care nurse, who was recently elected as president of the Royal College of Nursing. Bejoy is a true example of the incredibly important contribution that is made to our wider health sector.

Hon. Members will be aware that in 2020 the previous Government introduced the health and care worker visa, which recognises the crucial contribution that international healthcare workers make, and this Government have kept that offer. The health and care worker visa provides significantly reduced visa fees, as well as a dedicated Home Office team to process applications. Most applicants can expect a decision within three weeks of enrolling biometrics. Applicants are also exempt from having to pay the immigration health surcharge. Those benefits apply to not only the main applicants but their dependants, which I hope is a sign of how much we value the role that those coming here play in our health and care services.

The United Kingdom’s offer to health and care professionals continues to be strong, competing with those of other countries in attracting health and care professionals who may want to work overseas. However, as several hon. Members have said, it is important in that context that we look at net migration overall. Under the previous Government, net migration trebled in five years, driven by a big increase in overseas recruitment.

Our Government are clear that net migration must come down, and we are committed to tackling skills shortages and labour market failures here in the UK to support that effort. That is why the Government’s approach is to link migration policy and visa controls to skills and labour market policies, so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems in the UK. That will be important in ensuring that people have opportunities to gain new skills and access these important jobs, as part of enabling the Government’s broader agenda.

Although I appreciate the arguments about granting health and care workers settlement after two years, the system must be fair to all users. That is why it would not be right to allow health and care workers to qualify after two years, when skilled workers, including those in other much-needed sectors with global demand, would need to wait until they had completed five years on a work route before they were eligible to apply for settlement.

Settlement in the UK is a privilege and not an automatic entitlement. In determining the qualifying period, the Government have to balance what is fair to all applicants with ensuring that individual applicants are able to continue the skilled work they have been issued a visa for, which often aligns so much with their passions and, in this case, with the deep compassion that so many will bring. We must ensure that the period is of a reasonable length, while also recognising the potential impact on public funds of granting settlement sooner.

On balance, the Government consider that five years is the right length of time for people to demonstrate a reasonable contribution to their sector, as well as their commitment to the UK. That is why we have no plans to reduce the length of time that health and care workers, or other skilled workers, need to complete in the UK in order to apply for settlement.

In terms of examples elsewhere, France offered frontline workers fast-track citizenship in 2020 during the covid-19 pandemic, and other countries have offered short-term visas for roles in high-demand sectors. The French offer appeared to go wider than those just in health and social care, but the scheme appears no longer to be operating. So there are examples where there can be short-term changes, but those changes may also come to an end.

However, it is right that we tackle the issues underlying the sentiment behind the petition, which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe powerfully outlined. In my remaining remarks, I want to tackle some of those issues, and particularly those related to displaced workers and exploitation.

I was asked what the Government are doing to more effectively tackle some of the exploitation we have seen, and it is worth laying out some of the protections that are now in place. In March 2024, there was rightly a change to sponsor guidance so that sponsors would need to be carrying out regulated activity and be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The Home Office has continued to act against unscrupulous sponsors and has highlighted bad practices to the sector. It continues to share concerns and intelligence related to bad practice, and since July 2022 has revoked 452 sponsor licences in the care sector, for reasons including underpayment of salary and failing to provide workers with enough hours to maintain salary levels.

For those individuals whose employer’s licence has been revoked, the Home Office has established a joint venture with the Department of Health and Social Care and with directors of social care operating in regional hubs in England, whereby the Department has funded a process allowing the hubs to find alternative employment for those in that position. Further information can be found on the Government website. The scheme has been implemented on an exceptional basis because of the exploitative practices that have been identified in the sector, and to provide protections to victims of those practices. Concerns regarding potentially unethical and illegal employment practices should be reported to the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which will investigate fully. Information on reporting those issues can also be found on the GLAA website.

Colleagues on both sides of the House raised the important issue of having a single enforcement body. In their plan to make work pay, the Government set out a significant and ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, that they empower working people and that they deliver economicgrowth. The Government also introduced the Employment Rights Bill on 10 October 2024. It is important that we talk about this issue in the context of improving rights and protections for all workers.

It is also important to recognise that workers may want to change employer because of exploitation, even though their sponsor may not have lost its sponsor licence. Any worker on the health and care worker visa is able to seek alternative employment, provided they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor, and to make a new application. They are free to do that at any time, and they do not need their employer’s permission to move jobs. We strongly encourage health and care worker visa holders who think they are being exploited—whether they have concerns about pay, working rights or working hours—to come forward and report those concerns to us using the pay and work rights complaints section on the Government website. First and foremost, any worker who believes that they may be in danger should also contact the police.

If a migrant working in care has left their job because of exploitation, they should contact their regional support officer, so that they can help them try to find alternative employment. That includes people who have yet to have their visa cancelled.

In the context of some of the protections we have in place and the ability to move employer, the Government have no plans to extend the period allowed to workers who have lost their jobs, as that could leave them unable to work and support themselves for longer, increasing the risk of destitution or of becoming trapped in illegal working situations.

It is also important to recognise the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton and for Bournemouth East, among others, that staff retention in the care sector remains a long-standing issue that the sector needs to address. That is why we are committed to ending long-term reliance on overseas recruitment by linking our migration, skills and labour market policies, as I mentioned. That includes improving working conditions and bringing in workforce and training plans for sectors such as health and care. That is why it is important that we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill and are looking at the fair work agency becoming a single enforcement body. However, I recognise that there is still much more to do.

The Government will continue to monitor care worker access to the immigration system and act to stop exploitation in the care sector. We do not plan to make any changes to the immigration system at this time, but we will act if needed.

In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for securing this valuable debate, and all those who have spoken. There is no doubt about the important role that health and care staff, and the sector in which they work, play in all our constituencies in supporting communities. This is a matter about which Members on both sides of the House care passionately, as has been demonstrated today. I assure Members that we will reflect carefully on this debate and on the points that have been raised. We will continue to do all we can to support those in our health and care sector and to ensure their safety.

Family and Work Visas

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing this debate. There has been thoughtful consideration of the issues by Members from across the House. I also acknowledge what the hon. Lady did and how she helped her community in August, in those very difficult circumstances. I am grateful to her and to all who have contributed. I will seek to address all the points raised, but I hope that Members will understand that that may be difficult in the time that I have. I will certainly come back in writing if there are outstanding points.

I will deal briefly with a few of the points raised before I go into more detail in my remarks on the contribution of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down. Some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) were reflected by others in terms of the quality of caseworking and the service received. As Members of Parliament, we have all experienced those cases and circumstances, so I am glad that the issue he raised has been resolved. Where there are any issues or concerns about whether the system is being fair and how cases are being dealt with, please write to me on those matters. We will certainly look at them in a way that also enables us to learn from what could be happening better and implement those systems.

The point about public confidence raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) about immigration is important, but it comes back to the point raised more broadly about having an immigration system that is fair, humane, transparent and compliant with the law, including international law. I am keen to make the broader point that it is important that we continue to have dialogue across the House on matters such as immigration, which need and want a lot of cross-party support to deal with the challenges. That is in the interest of our economy and of fairness, but is also important for our security, so we need to have open and transparent debate on such matters and take the input from colleagues across the House.

I will come back to other points that have been raised during the debate, but on net migration and some of the changes being made, I want to make it clear that the Government recognise and value the contribution of workers from overseas to our economy and our public services, including our NHS, and they would not function without them. The point has been made, and we are very clear, that the immigration system needs to be properly managed and controlled—and that is important for public confidence too.

We are clear that net migration and reliance on overseas recruitment need to come down, and in addition to bringing down levels of overall net migration, our approach will also help ensure that there are better and higher-paid jobs for those who are already resident in the UK. In April 2024, the previous Government introduced a package of changes aimed at reducing overall levels of net migration and tackling abuse in the social care sector. Those changes included requiring any employer in England wishing to recruit international care workers or senior care workers to be registered with the Care Quality Commission and to carry out regulated activity. They also included removing the ability for care workers and senior workers to apply with dependents. The package also replaced the previous shortage occupation list with the immigration salary list.

The Home Secretary confirmed in July that the Government are retaining those changes. We acknowledge the concerns raised and welcome debates such as this one. I also think it is important, in response to some of the issues, that we lay out where we are going further and taking a different approach. We have established a new framework that will link the Migration Advisory Committee’s work with the newly formed Skills England and skills bodies across the UK, as well as the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Department for Work and Pensions, to support a more coherent approach to migration, skills and labour market issues.

I will make a broad point on the issue raised about particular routes and the appendix for domestic abuse. It is extremely important for Members across the House to ensure that we are tackling abuse on any routes. On what is an important safeguard in the system, we are clear that there has to be a high threshold of evidence and that we take steps to tackle abuse wherever we detect that and wherever that occurs. That is extremely important and a clear approach across the Home Office.

On salary requirements, for too long, immigration has been used as an alternative to tackling skills shortages and labour market issues in the UK. The salary requirements that were raised in the spring related to the median salary for occupations, ensuring people continue to be paid at a higher rate than many in the occupation. That, along with the immigration skills charge, are designed to ensure that employers look first at the resident labour market before looking at employing an international worker.

Points about the threshold were raised, and I will come back on a couple of points. For those new to the route since 4 April 2024, who must be paid £38,700 per year or the going rate for their occupation—whichever is higher—the salary floor can be reduced to just over £30,000, depending on tradeable points such as discounts for new entrants. There is some flexibility. Indeed, for those extending visas in this route or working in healthcare or education, who must be paid £29,000 per year or the going rate for their occupation, again, the salary floor can be lowered for roles on the immigration salary list. Those roles in healthcare and education are based on nationally set pay scales or by using tradeable points.

It is important to say that immigration remains a reserved matter, and we will consider the needs of the UK as a whole. Applying different immigration rules to different parts of the UK can complicate the immigration system, harm its integrity and cause difficulty for employers, who need the flexibility to deploy their staff to other parts of the UK. The independent and expert Migration Advisory Committee has repeatedly recommended that we should not operate different salary thresholds for different regions or nations across the UK.

I am aware of the concerns from the fishing industry about labour shortages. In the interests of time, I will just say that I am looking forward to meeting my counterpart in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I am certainly happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this too. On the Afghan schemes, I will be happy to write to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), but I am very pleased that we were able to open that scheme and see the positive response to it.

Finally, I will speak to family immigration rules. As colleagues will be aware, on 10 September the Home Secretary paused any further increases to the minimum incomes requirement and commissioned the MAC to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. This review will ensure that we reach the right balance and have a solid evidence base for any future changes to the minimum income requirement. We expect that conducting a full review of the financial requirements will take approximately nine months. I urge hon. Members to provide views and evidence in response to the MAC’s call for evidence, because I am sure we can all agree that a rich evidence base is essential to ensure that it can make effective recommendations and that policy is informed by evidence.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts.

The draft order will introduce a power to charge a fee for UK visa qualification equivalency and English language proficiency assessment services and sets the maximum fee that can be charged. Before I explain the services, I will provide the Committee with some background on the Home Office’s fee structure.

In order for the Home Office to charge for immigration and nationality functions, the Immigration Act 2014 requires that fees must be set in secondary legislation. The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, an amendment to which we are discussing, sets out the functions for which a fee can be charged and sets a maximum fee that can be charged. Fee levels are then set in separate secondary legislation, the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018, which is subject to parliamentary agreement through the negative procedure.

Fees for the services we seek to regulate are for assessments used on certain visa and nationality routes, which include family, skilled worker, settlement and student, where the requirements of that route require an applicant to demonstrate proficiency in the English language at a specified level, or that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK. An applicant can demonstrate in a number of ways their proficiency in the English language, oneof which is to use an academic qualification obtained in English awarded by an educational establishment outside the UK.

Where an applicant is seeking to demonstrate that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK, or their proficiency in English language by using an academic qualification obtained outside the UK, those must be provided by Ecctis Ltd. Ecctis Ltd is our third-party supplier, which provides those services through a concession contract with the Home Office. It has been providing the services for more than a decade. This is not a new requirement being introduced for applicants on the work, study and nationality routes. The requirement for applicants to use those services has been specified in the immigration rules since 2008.

Where a visa or nationality applicant uses the services provided by Ecctis, they apply through its website and pay the appropriate fee. The outcome of the assessment can take in the region of 10 working days for the English language assessment, unless the applicant opts for an optional fast-track service, and about 30 working days for the qualification equivalency assessment. The use of the assessment is not limited to the Home Office and the visa application.

The maximum fee we are setting in the draft order for the qualification equivalency and the English language proficiency assessment is being set at £400. That will allow the Home Office to set fee levels later this year at their current levels, which are £140 for the English language assessment and £210 for the qualification equivalency assessment. By setting the maximums above that level, we have a reasonable degree of headroom to adjust fees if, for example, there is an increase in the cost of providing the services.

I will now turn to the question of why the Home Office is bringing forward legislation to regulate the fees now, when they are already being charged and where neither the nature of the service itself nor the requirements in the immigration rules have changed. In the course of preparing for a reprocurement of the existing service earlier this year, however, the Department identified that the fees should have already been regulated due to the requirement to use the service in respect of applications on certain routes. Having identified that fact, the Department sought to legislate at the earliest opportunity; legislation had originally been considered for the summer, but was postponed due to the general election. That is why we are working to ensure that the fees have an appropriate statutory footing in future.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew special attention to the explanatory memorandum that was published alongside this order. In its report published on 10 October, the Committee raised concerns that the explanatory memorandum did not provide a clear and open statement of why this instrument was brought forward. I fully appreciate the importance of transparency in the Department’s interactions with Parliament, including in the explanatory memorandums that it lays alongside legislation. I also recognise the Committee’s view that a fuller explanation of the context of the legislation and the associated issue was required in this case, including the status of and approach to fees charged prior to the appropriate regulations’ being brought into force.

As I set out in my response to the correspondence from the Committee on 15 October, in which I responded in some detail, some of which we are covering in my speech today, the treatment of those previously charged fees is also subject to a range of complex and ongoing considerations, which makes the position fundamentally uncertain at this stage. It includes exploration of the possibility of pursuing retrospective legislation that would put fees paid to date on a statutory footing.

Although I am not yet in a position to confirm the specific approach to be taken on this issue, the options under consideration have the potential to impact fundamentally the bearing of the previously charged fees. Given that uncertainty, I did not consider that it would be appropriate or helpful to go into further detail on this point in the explanatory memorandum, which is otherwise clear on the necessity of laying legislation to put the fees on a statutory footing and the rationale for the specific provisions being made.

I will, however, emphasise again that I take the Department’s responsibilities in respect of parliamentary transparency seriously, and assure hon. Members that we are taking forward those considerations in respect of previously charged fees as a priority. It is important to note that all fees paid were on receipt of services that were also received.

Finally, I would like to be clear that although the purpose of the order is to put the fees on a statutory footing, it is the first of two statutory instruments that need to be laid to ensure that future fees are charged for these services with the appropriate legislation in place. Our intention is, subject to the approval of this order by the House, to lay an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations in December that will set fee levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

It may be more helpful for me to write to the shadow Minister on a number of his questions. However, I thank him for his constructive response in that this issue pre-dated the general election, and, for clarity, it is important that we move forward in the way that has been proposed.

It is important to say that, as I have outlined, we are still considering the best approach to take in relation to legislation or other responses to the issue retrospectively. As a result, it is a bit more challenging to announce a timetable for legislation when there is still an important process to go through, but I am happy to keep the shadow Minister informed—in writing, if need be.

It is worth saying a couple of points in response to the shadow Minister. Over the lifespan of this order, immigration fees will be kept under review and will be updated within the parameters that we have set. In the event that fee levels are changed, they will need to be approved by the House, and will be accompanied by an economic assessment. It is helpful to remind Members that this order will not put fees for the services on a statutory footing; it is the first of two pieces of required secondary legislation, the second being the amendment to the 2018 regulations that we expect to lay in December, subject to Parliament’s approving this order. The regulations will set the fees for immigration and nationality-related services provided by Ecctis at the level that customers are currently charged.

Question put and agreed to.

Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing the debate, which has given rise to powerful speeches by hon. Members from all parties.

Members have spoken up for their constituents and about their experiences and I will try to address as many of the points made as possible. Many issues were covered, whether that was the BNO visa route, security issues at home and in Hong Kong, pensions, home university fees, democratic freedoms, police stations and more.

I also thank the Front-Bench speakers, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for their contributions. The issue has had cross-party support in the past, and I am sure we will continue to work in that spirit in support of Hongkongers in the UK and those who may come here in the future.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will recognise that I may not be able to address all the issues raised today. Some of these complex matters need cross-departmental work, whether that is with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or the DFE. I hope that I will cover most of the issues in my comments today, but I assure all hon. and right hon. Members that we will look at all the issues raised. I also pay tribute to the work of Hong Kong Watch and others in sharing their experience and research.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will be aware, the Government are deeply committed to supporting members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK. I think I speak for all of us when I say that Hongkongers have become an integral part of our economy and local communities, and make fantastic contributions to our national life.

I will speak first about the Hong Kong BNO visa route. The route was established in 2021 in response to the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong, which significantly impacts the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic and moral responsibility for and commitment to the people of Hong Kong. Since its launch, more than 209,000 people have been granted a BNO visa, of whom more than 150,000 have arrived in the UK. Those Hongkongers are free to live, work and study in virtually any capacity on a pathway to British citizenship. I am sure we will welcome many more Hongkongers to the UK in future so that they can also build a new life for themselves here.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I asked about students across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and here in England, as well—the Minister may be coming to it, but if she is not, I hope she will. I underlined that there is a clear issue relating to students from Hong Kong having the same opportunities as those who are born here. I urge the Minister to give us an answer on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and will come on to that point.

I will deal first with questions around the expansion of the BNO route, in particular to people born between 1979 and 1997. A number of Members have suggested that the BNO route should be expanded to include those who were children at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997 but whose parents did not register them for BNO status. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic commitment to those who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BNO status, and we continue to uphold those commitments. Those not eligible for the BNO route need to consider other available UK immigration routes, for example as a student, graduate or skilled worker. I am sure that Members will understand that I am unable to make any policy commitments in this forum, but I want to give assurances that I will take their comments away and consider the points that have been raised today.

I will also address the point about criminality. The standard immigration rules on criminality and other adverse behaviours apply to applications through the BNO route. However, all applications are carefully assessed against the latest country information, and guidance for caseworkers provides flexibility to ensure that overseas convictions for offences—particularly those not recognised in the UK—do not result in the automatic refusal of an application. I am aware of the concerns of those applying through the BNO route, and of the risk of their being refused on suitability grounds because of a conviction for what I think we can describe as politically motivated or trumped-up criminal charges in Hong Kong. I assure hon. Members that I am keeping the issue under review.

On the question of access to services, I thank hon. Members for their comments about the Government’s welcome programme, which we have remained committed to and which is now entering its fourth year of funding. That very important programme enables Hongkongers to access support on a range of issues, including employment, education, housing and the English language. It helps them seek employment, build skills and learn more about life in the UK so they can play a bigger part in their local communities.

As the shadow Minister said, there is currently £1 million of funding for voluntary and community-sector organisations to deliver projects focused on employability and mental health and wellbeing. The Growth Company has been funded to deliver the Jobs for Hongkongers initiative, which will help BNOs in England find employment. I am aware of other good examples. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) talked about a scheme, and I would be interested to hear more about how those local initiatives are working.

International fees are a concern for those on the BNO route, who can study and work in virtually any capacity. Generally, to be eligible for student support, home fee status and fee caps, a student must have settled status in the UK, and ordinarily they must have been resident in the UK for three years prior to the start of their course. The majority of BNO status holders will be able to qualify for home fee status and student finance once they have obtained settlement in the UK, subject to meeting the normal eligibility requirements. The eligibility criteria apply to all students, except persons granted international protection by the Home Office, but I have heard what hon. Members have said today.

On the Mandatory Provident Fund, hon. Members raised the very serious matter of the estimated £3 billion of funds alleged to have been frozen. We know that individuals who have chosen to take up the BNO visa route have difficulty drawing down early their pensions held in the Hong Kong Mandatory Provident Fund. Although documentary requirements for withdrawing funds early are a matter for the Hong Kong authorities, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has raised the issue directly with the Hong Kong Government and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority. We have urged them to facilitate the early drawdown of funds, as is the case for other Hong Kong residents who move overseas permanently, and we have made it clear that such discrimination against BNOs is unacceptable. I will certainly keep that under review.

On security, we take the protection of Hongkongers’ rights, freedoms and safety in the UK very seriously, and we continue to assess potential threats in the UK. We work closely across Government, as well as with the relevant agencies and law enforcement bodies, to protect persons identified as being at risk and ensure the UK is a safe and welcoming place for those who choose to settle here. I want to be clear that attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm critics overseas are unacceptable. Freedom of speech and the other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law, regardless of nationality. We will challenge where we must to protect our national security and values. We are also working to improve the UK’s capability to understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities that China poses through an audit of the UK’s relationship with China as a bilateral and global actor.

It is also worth saying in response to the cyber-security issues that have been raised that the National Security Act 2023 gives the police new powers to protect the public from these malign threats, including those actions that amount to transnational repression—I take the point about the need for a clear definition. The Act brings together vital new measures to protect the UK’s national security, creating a whole suite of measures to enable our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies to deter, detect and disrupt the full range of modern state threats.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am conscious of time and I want to make a couple of final points before wrapping up.

A concern was raised about whether there were plans to shut down the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, but its status is enshrined in primary legislation and there are no plans to change that framework.

On Jimmy Lai, we continue to call on Hong Kong authorities to immediately release British national Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai’s case, as has been mentioned by the Prime Minister this week, is a priority for the Government. The Foreign Secretary raised Jimmy Lai’s case in his first meeting with China’s Foreign Minister at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in July. We continue to raise his case. UK diplomats from our consulate general in Hong Kong continue to attend his court proceedings on a regular basis and will continue to do so when the trial resumes in November. We are deeply concerned about the allegations about his treatment in prison and have sought reassurances on appropriate medical treatment.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West for securing the debate, and all hon. Members for their contributions. It has been an incredibly important, thoughtful and well-informed debate. It is important that we take this opportunity to reaffirm this Government’s commitment to the people of Hong Kong and to the BNO route, which provides long-term safety and stability for Hongkongers in the UK.