Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on his strong advocacy on this topic.

I welcome the Government’s confirmation last week that people with BNO visas will continue to qualify for permanent residence in the UK after five years. That is the right and fair thing to do for people with such unique attachments to this country. However, the Government’s new consultation has left many of my constituents in Bath concerned about their future, particularly our valuable Hong Kong community. As has already been said, BNOs are not economic migrants; many made an irreversible decision to come to the UK to flee political persecution and repression. For many, returning to Hong Kong is not an option. Changes to indefinite leave to remain requirements could put BNOs in an impossible position: unable to settle in the UK and unable to return to Hong Kong.

One of my constituents is a self-funded PhD student on a BNO visa. He is concerned about the proposed income requirement for ILR. Since any part-time work during his studies could be under the taxable income threshold, it is likely that he will not meet the income requirement during that period. He feels that the UK Government are, in effect, encouraging him either to abandon his PhD in favour of entering the job market or to leave the UK after his PhD studies are complete.

BNO families came to the UK seeking safety, stability and the shared values of freedom and democracy. Retrospective changes risk undermining the spirit of the BNO pathway altogether. The potential for a sudden increase to the B2 English language test is particularly concerning to some of my constituents. Thousands of BNOs are due to become eligible for settlement in 2026. They have been planning and preparing—as we have already heard—for the current B1 English requirement. A sudden mandatory increase to the B2 level, which requires near-fluent conversation and complex argument, is a significant step up from B1 and would be difficult to achieve, especially for many older applicants. For my constituents who have begun the process of settlement while contributing to society, it now feels like the Government are throwing additional barriers in their way.

The Government must look at providing flexibility through a transitional period if they are to press ahead with any of these changes. At the very least, the major wave of applicants in April 2026 should be left unaffected by any of those new rules. I urge the Government to listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I thank you for chairing the debate, Sir Edward, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for allowing Members the opportunity to discuss the impact of the reforms on humanitarian visa routes. I also congratulate him on his recent appointment as patron of Hong Kong Watch, an organisation that has done a great deal to scrutinise successive Governments and to help to communicate essential information to those from Hong Kong who have sought refuge. He joins an illustrious collection of individuals, including current and former elected officials from across the House.

The humanitarian visa route set up under the previous Government sought to recognise the scale of the crisis we experienced at the onset of this decade, whether that be the reprehensible invasion of Ukraine or the complete mistreatment of the existing rights of Hongkongers, which breached commitments enshrined in international agreements and law. I think Members from all parties would almost unanimously agree that it was right that such schemes were set up, and that it was necessary to put forward an offer to ensure that those in great danger, and to whom we have a historic responsibility, received protection.

When we reflect on the context of such schemes, it is right that the immigration reforms appreciate the context. As such, I reiterate that the Conservative proposals on the change to settlement, which were made months before the Government’s own, always stated that they would have no impact on BNO visas and those from Ukraine, given the unique nature of those routes. Many constituents have reached out to me in fear that this Government would not continue that position.

As mentioned, the Government announced last week that those on BNO routes would not be impacted by the changes to settlement. That finally gives them and many others the clarity they have been asking for. It also raises the question of why the Government could not have offered sufficient clarity earlier. Despite the unnecessary delay, I welcome the Government’s decision, and I echo the sentiment expressed by those in the community who are very pleased to see it.

As we consider settlement, it is worth acknowledging the work done on the BNO visa. The previous Government not only instituted a scheme that has seen thousands of people come to this country—with over 166,000 people having arrived in the UK as of June 2025—but brought forward support for those who came. That included funding for 12 welcome hubs across the UK and demand-led funding for local authorities to provide English language and destitution support in England. That work underscores the seriousness with which the Conservative party viewed the integration of this community.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Bool]

I think we would like to hear from the Minister, so I will push on.

Although it is unsurprising, given the continuing restrictions on freedom, the fact that the Government assume that those who arrive on the BNO route will settle after five years, and that those who switch on to the route will also settle after five years, demonstrates that the route has been broadly successful. A qualitative study of the visa route for MHCLG showed that participant responses overall suggested they felt supported by the UK Government, and people with BNO visas were grateful for the existence of the route.

I appreciate that specific challenges and difficulties remain, such as the need for greater engagement with programmes to improve integration. Nevertheless, we can already see some of the immense contributions that those who came through the pathway are making both to this country and to the Hong Kong diaspora. For example, only recently Chloe Cheung won the 2025 Magnitsky award for outstanding young human rights activist. She is one of the numerous people, including young individuals, who have had bounties placed on their heads by the Chinese Government for exercising their democratic rights. The complete undermining of the safety of those individuals and of the UK’s sovereignty is wholly unacceptable, but it is welcome that those individuals are resolutely fighting for the values that underpin the necessity of the visa.

However, as has been expressed in the debate, questions still remain about what the Government’s broader changes will mean for this community. What will BNO visa holders and their dependants need to demonstrate in respect of new income or economic contribution requirements? Will the current English language standard for settlement on the BNO route be maintained at B1, or will it be B2? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those born after 1997 have protection? I appreciate that those questions do not necessarily have simple answers but, given the concerns about the lack of clarity expressed recently by the community, it would be helpful if the Minister could outline answers to those matters.

Ultimately, we believe there is a great deal more to do to reduce levels of legal migration, so changes to settlement are appropriate. However, as is the case with many such changes, there will be an impact, and transparency about the precise impact will always be welcome. I hope the Minister will agree that the Government should do as much as possible to express clearly the impact of the changes on people who have come to the UK through humanitarian routes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their considered contributions. I know this topic is of significant interest and concern to my hon. Friend, and that has come through clearly in his and others’ contributions, for which I am grateful.

A fair amount of ground has been covered, and I will address as many of the points raised in the debate as possible, but first I want to set the discussion in its wider context. That means acknowledging that the immigration and asylum systems that this Government inherited were not working as they should. After years of chaos and dysfunction, the British people had lost confidence in the state’s ability to fulfil one of its most basic functions: deciding who can come to our country and who must leave. It has fallen to this Government to put that right, and that is what we have been working to do ever since the general election.

We have taken decisive and important steps to stabilise the systems. The foundations are much stronger thanks to those efforts, but now we have to go further. That is why we published our immigration White Paper earlier this year, and why last week we brought forward the most significant asylum reform package in modern times. Through those plans, we are determined to restore order and control. We cannot go on as we have with systems that are failing or broken. Change is urgently needed, but I assure hon. Members that we pursue these reforms with a keen sense of our international and historical responsibilities, and a recognition that this is a fair and tolerant country that welcomes those who come here legally to contribute and that is compassionate to the plight of those fleeing peril.

Last week the Home Secretary announced a fairer pathway to settlement and launched a public consultation on the proposed new earned settlement model, and earlier this year the immigration White Paper set out an increase to the default qualifying period from five years to 10 years. That, in general, is not open to consultation, and individuals will need to meet certain requirements to be granted settlement. They must have a clean criminal record, speak English to the higher A-level standard, have made national insurance contributions for at least three to five years, and have no debt in this country.

Individuals will have the opportunity to reduce the length of the qualifying period to settlement based on their contribution to the UK’s economy and society. Those who make a sustained and measurable contribution to this country will be rewarded with a shorter path to settlement. A reduction in years may also be earned by speaking English at an advanced level, known as C1.

We propose that settlement is delayed for those who contribute less to our public life, including those who have claimed benefit payments. A long penalty would also be applied to those who have entered the country illegally, which aims to strongly discourage entering the country via those routes. That follows the announcement of a new 20-year settlement path for refugees who remain on the new core protection route.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) did not let me ask this question earlier, but is it not true that the safe and legal routes have been all but destroyed except for BNO and for Ukrainians? It is really important that the Government restore safe and legal routes to this country to make sure that everybody can actually benefit from our safety and our respect for human rights.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for that good point. Safe and legal routes are part of the solution. We are not making these changes to the immigration system to please any part of the political spectrum; they are about solutions, such as safe and legal routes and harsher penalties for those arriving illegally. I will talk more about safe and legal routes shortly.