UK Parliament Debates Raising Immigration Thresholds with Majority of MPs Supporting Retention of 5+1 Scheme

Following the impact of the UK government's new immigration policy white paper, Hong Kong people and skilled workers in the UK launched an online petition that garnered over 100,000 signatures, prompting Parliament to debate the relevant issues on September 8. During the session, most MPs across party lines supported maintaining the "BNO 5+1" policy, with 36 out of 48 attending MPs expressing opposition to raising the threshold.

Jacky Fung compiled and analysed the speaking records, concluding that cross-party support for BNO 5+1 stems from historical and political factors rather than purely "humanitarian" reasons, and noted that lobbying and action by Hong Kong people in the UK proved highly effective in persuading MPs to oppose extending the BNO scheme.

Fung: Not humanitarian, but historical and economic reasons are primary drivers; key constituencies also have particularly large Hong Kong populations

According to Jacky Fung's statistics, in this debate, humanitarian concerns were mentioned only four times, while economics/economy was mentioned 44 times and historical/commitment 27 times. The session also mentioned MPF, transnational repression and the National Security Law several times. Fung believes this shows that on immigration policy issues, BNO migrants differ from traditional "humanitarian refugees", with MPs specifically highlighting that BNO immigration policy has historical and economic justifications worth preserving.

Jacky Fung cited Minister of State Alex Norris's concluding remarks: "This country has always had a long and unique connection with the people of Hong Kong. As a former British territory, many Hong Kong people hold British National (Overseas) passport (BNO) status, which is recognition of this shared history. Through this arrangement, the UK fulfils its historical and moral commitments.

Hong Kong people have quickly become an integral part of our economy and local communities, performing exceptionally in employment, educational participation and community engagement, and settling in important cities and regions across the UK. I believe that in Nottingham (Ben Goldsborough's constituency), the extraordinary contributions made by Hong Kong people, whether in public service, the private sector, or community and voluntary sectors, are highly significant."

Ben Goldsborough MP, who delivered the opening remarks, stated: "BNO represents an important moral case that arose because the Chinese government violated the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Many Hong Kong people who moved to the UK worry that the BNO commitment will not continue, which is why we are debating this here."

Other MPs also frequently cited the National Security Law, arguing that failing to continue assisting Hong Kong people would pose moral and political ethical problems. For example, James Frith MP said: "Extending BNO to 10+1 risks handing Beijing a propaganda victory"; Sarah Olney MP also noted: "The UK government has a moral obligation regarding the National Security Law and Hong Kong's disappearing freedom of speech."

Two new arguments: MPF and transnational repression

In this debate, MPs used outstanding MPF debts as an argument supporting the retention of the BNO 5+1 policy. Bobby Dean MP stated: "If we extend the policy to 10+1, it could prevent many families from accessing pensions totalling up to £3bn due to Hong Kong government restrictions." He also mentioned that "due to the emergence of transnational repression, the BNO 5+1 scheme has a continuing need to exist."

This debate also featured MPs frequently mentioning that constituents or relevant organisations had met with them, or stating that their constituencies have large Hong Kong populations, demonstrating the effectiveness of current advocacy activities.

MPs' separate treatment of BNO migrants and humanitarian refugees reveals how they 'define' and 'understand' Hong Kong people in the UK

Jacky Fung pointed out: "The discourse around Hong Kong people moving to the UK can actually transcend anti-immigration and anti-refugee frameworks. The BNO Visa 5+1 scheme is clearly not influenced by humanitarianism." He supplemented this with examples from several MPs' speeches, such as Emily Darlington MP noting: "We are discussing a group of people who, due to historical reasons, are recognised as British Nationals (Overseas). Don't you think we should more clearly show how the UK should properly treat this group under the existing system?"

Pippa Heyling MP also raised an important point about the current contributions of Hong Kong people in the UK. She stated: "Two Hong Kong constituents in my area wrote to me, telling me they run kindergartens, helping children who are still learning English. These people are law-abiding, hardworking and deeply responsible to society. I see no reason to change their existing rights."

Although the Minister of State, having been in office for only two days, could not directly comment on policy, judging from cross-party MP reactions, Hong Kong people have now gained MPs' trust, who are willing to publicly support maintaining the BNO 5+1 policy. This is deeply rooted in discourse about "historical obligations and the National Security Law", indicating that BNO 5+1 issues do not completely align with traditional low-skilled migration and refugee issues, and that past direct mobilisation in constituencies has been highly effective, successfully prompting many MPs to speak out for Hong Kong people in their areas.