Isaac Ho works in the Public Affairs team at DRD Partnership. He has worked for Hong Kong Watch and Steve Baker MP. He writes in a personal capacity. Andrew Yong is a public lawyer, and is the director of Global Britons, a campaigning body for the rights of residual British nationals.
Two weeks ago marked the two-year anniversary of the British National (Overseas) (BNO) visa scheme – the landmark Hong Kong settlement scheme introduced by the Johnson Government for Britain’s former colonial subjects and their dependents. The visa scheme was created following China’s imposition of a draconian National Security Law on Hong Kong, which the UK considers to be a serious violation of the territory’s guarantees of autonomy and freedom under the Sino–British Joint Declaration.
At its second anniversary, the success of the scheme was celebrated by the Home Office. In a video released on Twitter, Robert Jenrick commented that “many Hong Kongers have said that living in Britain is like coming home – and we are so proud to have so many brilliant people choosing to make our great nation their home”. And while it is reassuring to hear these welcoming words, there are various aspects of the scheme that make it unnecessarily difficult for Hong Kongers truly to make Britain their home.
Consider the Chans, a BNO family of two parents and two children: an older brother who has just completed a degree in the UK and a younger one about to start university. Their journey to settlement begins when their visas are approved, and they embark on a five-year pathway to permanent residency or settlement, followed by another year to citizenship. In terms of timeline, this pathway is identical to that followed by foreign migrants who come to the UK on the Skilled Worker and other routes.
Upon arriving in the country, the family reunite with the older brother, who has been studying in the UK for the past four years. They find out that, despite having already been resident in the UK, the older brother’s time on a Student Visa – or indeed on any temporary migrant visa such as the Youth Mobility Visa – does not count towards the five years necessary for settlement. This means that, by the time he can become a British citizen, the older brother will have been resident in the UK for no less than ten years.
According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, the UK last year welcomed 16,655 students like the Chan brothers from Hong Kong- or approximately 50,000 at any time, given the average duration of a bachelor’s degree. The high cost of UK international student fees is a major hurdle for Hong Kong families like the Chans coming to the UK. Despite arriving in the UK as a BNO dependent, the younger brother finds that he will, like his older brother, have to pay international student fees of around £20,000–£30,000 a year (£40,000–50,000 for clinical medicine), with no eligibility for a student loan.
While eligibility for student finance and home student fees generally depends on settled status and three years’ prior residence in the UK, there are various groups that are exempt from this provision, such as refugees and persons under the Ukraine and Afghan resettlement schemes. However, despite BNOs having fled from political oppression in Hong Kong, they do not benefit from a similar international student fee exemption.
The differences between the Ukrainian and BNO schemes do not end there. In order to obtain their five-year BNO visas, the Chans as a family will have had to pay NHS surcharges of £3,125 per adult (a total of £12,500 for four adults), in addition to visa application fees. This is despite the fact that the parents and older brother will all pay income tax and National Insurance contributions from the day they start working in the UK. This is in contrast with the Ukrainian scheme, whose participants have enjoyed exemption from NHS surcharges since the scheme’s inception.
The fact that younger Hong Kongers under the age of 26 (who were born after 1997) are not British nationals, and must instead carry Hong Kong passports, causes several particular problems. Despite being BNO visa-holders, as foreign nationals, the Chan brothers are not allowed to vote or stand for public office, and are also ineligible to seek employment in most of the civil service or to serve in the armed forces of the Crown.
In the event that they face difficulties while abroad, they are also not eligible for British consular protection. For instance, a young Hong Konger who loses his passport in Paris cannot rely on the British Embassy for consular assistance, but must seek assistance at the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, from whose clutches he has only just escaped.
By all accounts, the BNO scheme has been one of the most successful and celebrated immigration policies in recent years. It has received support from across the board, both across Parliament and among the general public.
Be that as it may, nearly all of the difficulties mentioned above could be ameliorated through simple administrative measures, which the Government should now take.
First, BNOs should enjoy the same exemptions from international student fees and NHS surcharges as Ukrainian and other refugees.
Second, there is a strong argument for shortening the number of years needed for settlement under the BNO scheme, given BNOs’ status as British nationals as well as Britain’s responsibilities towards Hong Kong under the Sino–British Joint Declaration,
There are several UK precedents for a shorter pathway to settlement. Until 2012, the UK Spouse visa allowed spouses of British citizens to apply for settlement after only two years’ residence in the UK, and citizenship after only three. More recently, the Investor Visa for high net-worth investors bringing £10 million into the UK also allowed settlement to be obtained after only two years
Shortening the timeline for settlement under the BNO scheme would have several benefits. In the absence of the exemptions mentioned above, it would reduce the cost of the BNO visa by reducing the NHS surcharge from five years to two years. Younger children with settled status would become eligible for home student fees after three years.
BNOs, who as British nationals can already vote but not stand for public office, would once granted settled status be able to participate fully in British democracy by standing for election as a local councillor or MP. In our example, the older Chan brother would be able to swap his Hong Kong passport for a British one after a further three years (a total of seven years instead of ten). In the long run, the timeline for the registration of BNOs and other British nationals as British citizens should also be shortened by legislative amendment.
The Government in creating and expanding the BNO visa scheme has rightly recognised that BNOs are British nationals, and that defending the freedom of Hong Kong is a British moral responsibility. Therefore, it is only right to consider further steps to make it easier for BNOs to become British citizens and integrate more easily into British society – to truly make Britain their home.
Isaac Ho works in the Public Affairs team at DRD Partnership. He has worked for Hong Kong Watch and Steve Baker MP. He writes in a personal capacity. Andrew Yong is a public lawyer, and is the director of Global Britons, a campaigning body for the rights of residual British nationals.
Two weeks ago marked the two-year anniversary of the British National (Overseas) (BNO) visa scheme – the landmark Hong Kong settlement scheme introduced by the Johnson Government for Britain’s former colonial subjects and their dependents. The visa scheme was created following China’s imposition of a draconian National Security Law on Hong Kong, which the UK considers to be a serious violation of the territory’s guarantees of autonomy and freedom under the Sino–British Joint Declaration.
At its second anniversary, the success of the scheme was celebrated by the Home Office. In a video released on Twitter, Robert Jenrick commented that “many Hong Kongers have said that living in Britain is like coming home – and we are so proud to have so many brilliant people choosing to make our great nation their home”. And while it is reassuring to hear these welcoming words, there are various aspects of the scheme that make it unnecessarily difficult for Hong Kongers truly to make Britain their home.
Consider the Chans, a BNO family of two parents and two children: an older brother who has just completed a degree in the UK and a younger one about to start university. Their journey to settlement begins when their visas are approved, and they embark on a five-year pathway to permanent residency or settlement, followed by another year to citizenship. In terms of timeline, this pathway is identical to that followed by foreign migrants who come to the UK on the Skilled Worker and other routes.
Upon arriving in the country, the family reunite with the older brother, who has been studying in the UK for the past four years. They find out that, despite having already been resident in the UK, the older brother’s time on a Student Visa – or indeed on any temporary migrant visa such as the Youth Mobility Visa – does not count towards the five years necessary for settlement. This means that, by the time he can become a British citizen, the older brother will have been resident in the UK for no less than ten years.
According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, the UK last year welcomed 16,655 students like the Chan brothers from Hong Kong- or approximately 50,000 at any time, given the average duration of a bachelor’s degree. The high cost of UK international student fees is a major hurdle for Hong Kong families like the Chans coming to the UK. Despite arriving in the UK as a BNO dependent, the younger brother finds that he will, like his older brother, have to pay international student fees of around £20,000–£30,000 a year (£40,000–50,000 for clinical medicine), with no eligibility for a student loan.
While eligibility for student finance and home student fees generally depends on settled status and three years’ prior residence in the UK, there are various groups that are exempt from this provision, such as refugees and persons under the Ukraine and Afghan resettlement schemes. However, despite BNOs having fled from political oppression in Hong Kong, they do not benefit from a similar international student fee exemption.
The differences between the Ukrainian and BNO schemes do not end there. In order to obtain their five-year BNO visas, the Chans as a family will have had to pay NHS surcharges of £3,125 per adult (a total of £12,500 for four adults), in addition to visa application fees. This is despite the fact that the parents and older brother will all pay income tax and National Insurance contributions from the day they start working in the UK. This is in contrast with the Ukrainian scheme, whose participants have enjoyed exemption from NHS surcharges since the scheme’s inception.
The fact that younger Hong Kongers under the age of 26 (who were born after 1997) are not British nationals, and must instead carry Hong Kong passports, causes several particular problems. Despite being BNO visa-holders, as foreign nationals, the Chan brothers are not allowed to vote or stand for public office, and are also ineligible to seek employment in most of the civil service or to serve in the armed forces of the Crown.
In the event that they face difficulties while abroad, they are also not eligible for British consular protection. For instance, a young Hong Konger who loses his passport in Paris cannot rely on the British Embassy for consular assistance, but must seek assistance at the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, from whose clutches he has only just escaped.
By all accounts, the BNO scheme has been one of the most successful and celebrated immigration policies in recent years. It has received support from across the board, both across Parliament and among the general public.
Be that as it may, nearly all of the difficulties mentioned above could be ameliorated through simple administrative measures, which the Government should now take.
First, BNOs should enjoy the same exemptions from international student fees and NHS surcharges as Ukrainian and other refugees.
Second, there is a strong argument for shortening the number of years needed for settlement under the BNO scheme, given BNOs’ status as British nationals as well as Britain’s responsibilities towards Hong Kong under the Sino–British Joint Declaration,
There are several UK precedents for a shorter pathway to settlement. Until 2012, the UK Spouse visa allowed spouses of British citizens to apply for settlement after only two years’ residence in the UK, and citizenship after only three. More recently, the Investor Visa for high net-worth investors bringing £10 million into the UK also allowed settlement to be obtained after only two years
Shortening the timeline for settlement under the BNO scheme would have several benefits. In the absence of the exemptions mentioned above, it would reduce the cost of the BNO visa by reducing the NHS surcharge from five years to two years. Younger children with settled status would become eligible for home student fees after three years.
BNOs, who as British nationals can already vote but not stand for public office, would once granted settled status be able to participate fully in British democracy by standing for election as a local councillor or MP. In our example, the older Chan brother would be able to swap his Hong Kong passport for a British one after a further three years (a total of seven years instead of ten). In the long run, the timeline for the registration of BNOs and other British nationals as British citizens should also be shortened by legislative amendment.
The Government in creating and expanding the BNO visa scheme has rightly recognised that BNOs are British nationals, and that defending the freedom of Hong Kong is a British moral responsibility. Therefore, it is only right to consider further steps to make it easier for BNOs to become British citizens and integrate more easily into British society – to truly make Britain their home.