58: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“British National (Overseas) visa route: statutory protection(1) Notwithstanding section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, ensure the continuation of the British National (Overseas) visa scheme as set out in the Immigration Rules HC 395 (“the BN(O) route”), including the pathway to settlement after five years of lawful residence.(2) The provisions of this section may not be repealed except by an Act of Parliament.”
Toggle showing location ofColumn 2032
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to place the BN(O) visa route, including the existing five-year path to settlement, on a statutory footing. It would require any substantial restrictions to the route — such as eligibility criteria or the qualifying period for settlement — to be made through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, and would prevent the repeal of the route other than by primary legislation.
My Lords, first, I express my thanks to many noble Lords, both those in the Chamber this evening and others outside it. I felt a tsunami of good wishes and kindness since experiencing a routine bus journey to your Lordships’ House at 8.15 am one morning, after which I ended up with a broken back, concussion and various other things.
The following week, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, responded to a debate about a Joint Committee on Human Rights report, which I should have been moving; the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, moved it in my place. He said that it was odd that someone who was probably the most sanctioned Member of either House of Parliament, with four countries having sanctions against him, should end up being silenced by a London bus.
That meant that I was unable to speak not only in that debate but on the amendments in the group currently before the House. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who is overseas this week, for introducing Amendments 58 and 61 in Committee. I particularly thank my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who kindly said that, if it got too late this evening, I would be released so that I could get a train—not a bus—back to the north of England. I am grateful to her.
I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, on the ministerial Bench. He has been very kind to me over the intervening period in engaging with emails and the usual flurry of things that I tend to inflict on Ministers, so I am grateful to him.
In moving Amendment 58 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I should also mention that I am vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong and a patron of Hong Kong Watch. In 2017, I was part of the team that monitored the last fair and free elections in Hong Kong. As a result of that, I was sanctioned, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, something that I regard as a great honour—to have been sanctioned for something as important as the promotion of democracy in a place such as Hong Kong.
Going right back to my earliest days in the House of Commons, I visited Hong Kong in 1980, and I have huge admiration for people who have been part of the pro-democracy movement. I count Jimmy Lai as a friend. I know many of those who are currently languishing in prison in Hong Kong as pro-democracy activists. I have nothing but huge admiration for those who have been allowed to be settled in this country. I thank the previous Government for opening the way for Hong Kongers to be able to come, settle and play their part here as they continue to defend democracy.
I move this amendment in defence of a promise, made not just by Ministers of this Government, but by the United Kingdom itself. It is a promise rooted in law, in honour and in the moral fabric of our democracy. When Britain and China signed the Sino-British joint declaration in 1984, we pledged to the Hong Kong people, our fellow citizens, that they would enjoy their rights and freedoms under the rule of law.
When that pledge was broken by Beijing through the imposition of the national security law, we created the British national (overseas) visa route as a means of upholding our end of the bargain. That route is more than a bureaucratic mechanism; it is a covenant. It says to the people of Hong Kong, “If your freedoms are eroded, Britain will offer you sanctuary, stability and, ultimately, the chance to rebuild your lives in freedom”. The amendment simply seeks to protect that covenant, to put the BNO visa route on a statutory footing to ensure that the pathway to settlement after five years of lawful residence cannot be changed by ministerial whim or administrative convenience.
This is about trust. Hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers have sold homes, left careers and uprooted their families on the strength of this promise. They have enrolled their children in British schools, invested in our economy and enriched our communities. They have done so believing that this country stands by its word. To allow that route to be weakened, extended or quietly repealed by regulation would be a betrayal, not only of them but of Britain’s reputation as a nation of honour.
We have seen the power of this route. More than 230,000 people have already come to the UK under it. They are starting businesses, serving in the National Health Service, volunteering in our communities and contributing to civic life. They are an asset, not a burden. However, I have heard from many families who now fear uncertainty. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, the right honourable Shabana Mahmood, for the statements she has made to try to reassure people, which have been very constructive and helpful. Nevertheless, there are rumours—unconfirmed but unsettling—about the possible tightening of eligibility or lengthening of the route to settlement, and those have created anxiety. People worry that what was promised as a five-year pathway could become 10; that the cost of visas and fees will rise beyond their reach; and that the scheme might one day close to new applicants altogether.
These families deserve better; they deserve certainty. That is why Amendment 58 provides that the scheme may not be repealed except by Act of Parliament. If there is ever to be a change, it should be done transparently, through primary legislation—debated and decided by both Houses, not slipped through in secondary regulations or quietly allowed to lapse. The Government have argued that flexibility is necessary to respond to changing global circumstances, but flexibility must not come at the expense of integrity. The Home Secretary should not be able, by regulation, to undo what was solemnly promised in the name of the United Kingdom. This is not an abstract issue. It goes to the heart of who we are as a nation. We stand at a time when the international rules-based order is under strain. From Ukraine to Taiwan, from Hong Kong to Tehran, authoritarian regimes test the world’s resolve. Britain’s word—our credibility—matters more than ever.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, spoke powerfully in Committee about the need for certainty for those who have built their lives here under this route. She reminded us that what we are offering is not a new privilege, but the honouring of a promise, and I entirely agree. We are not creating new rights: we are keeping faith with those who relied on our word. Let us recall what these families have fled. In Hong Kong today, people are imprisoned for peaceful protest, for journalism, or for simply lighting a candle in memory of Tiananmen Square. Civil society has been dismantled. The free press has been silenced. The rule of law has been subverted by decree.
The BNO route has been one of the few lifelines available to those who refuse to live under tyranny. It has been a quiet act of defiance, an assertion that Britain still believes in liberty. To dilute or imperil that route now would send the message not only to Hong Kong but to the world that Britain’s promises can be adjusted when convenient. I hope that we will not do that. There are those who argue that the route creates pressure on public services, and I acknowledge that concern; but we should also recognise the contribution of these new arrivals, which I have alluded to. When I meet Hong Kongers who have come under this scheme, I am struck by their gratitude and determination to give back. They see this country not as a temporary refuge but as a home, and they want to serve it.
By supporting this amendment, we reaffirm a simple truth: the promises made by Parliament should be changed only by Parliament. We would not tolerate a Chancellor quietly revoking a pension guarantee by regulation, nor should we tolerate the quiet dismantling of a visa promise made to hundreds of thousands of lawful residents. Some may ask why the amendment is necessary now. I would answer that it is because the trust of the people affected is not theoretical; it is real, it is personal, and it is fragile. Many of these families have known only broken promises from colonial powers, from authoritarian regimes, and from political leaders who said one thing and did another. Let us not add Britain’s name to that list.
In 1984, we gave our word. In 2021, we offered a route to keep it. In 2025, we must protect that route in law. If we fail to do so, we risk signalling to the world that Britain’s undertakings are conditional; its assurance, reversible; its word, negotiable. This House has often been at its best when standing up for principle over expedience. From the abolition of slavery to the defence of refugees, from Magna Carta to modern human rights, the thread that binds us is the belief that law should protect the vulnerable and restrain the powerful. That is what Amendment 58 seeks to do. It places a shield of legality around a promise of hope. Therefore, I ask noble Lords right across the House—whatever parties or groups they may be members of; whatever their views on broader migration policy—to please join me in supporting this amendment.
I will not detain the House by speaking at length on Amendment 61, but I am a signatory to it, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is for good reasons unable to be here tonight. I commend to the House what was said in Committee and urge the Minister to look again at the position of people who have come from Ukraine and who have no immediate prospect of returning, especially those who are from areas that have been occupied by Putin and may never return to Ukraine. Women and children primarily are involved in that, and I tabled this amendment in Committee at the request of women and children from Ukraine. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his support for it, and I commend that to the House as well. I beg to move.
6.45pm
My Lords, I have signed both Amendment 58 and Amendment 80, which is consequential to Amendment 58. We have just heard very eloquently from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about why it is important. I will just highlight a couple of very brief points.
First, I lived in Hong Kong until 1960 and my family knew Anthony Grey, the Reuters journalist who was imprisoned by Mao Tse-Tung in 1967. As a young teenager, I wrote to him at his home in Peking where he had been imprisoned. Anthony died last week. His family have said that what China did to him, keeping him in solitary confinement with no charges or anything else for over two years, affected him for the rest of his life. We see an echo of that today in the treatment of people such as Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong in prison. Hong Kong is not a safe place for some people to be.
I just want to add that, two years ago, there were a number of incidents with border staff not understanding the British national overseas route and treating Hong Konger arrivals as if they were asylum seekers. They were not. I was grateful that, after our intervention in your Lordships’ House, Ministers ensured that this error was corrected.
Last week in your Lordships’ House we discussed the changes to the extradition arrangements for Hong Kong; again, I am very grateful to the Minister for those discussions. The reason that both these issues were important to the Hong Kongers who have come here to safety as British nationals, holding British national visas, is that their life here is very unsettled. Threats to their personal safety in the UK are bad enough, but their families are also threatened in Hong Kong as well.
The whole point of the BNO visa was to keep our word to fellow British nationals after 1984. We made that real in 2021. The tiny things that have been going wrong also add to the unease that many Hong Kongers feel in this country. Making sure that no decisions are changed on the BNO visa route other than by Parliament is exactly what needs to happen to give them the confidence that the UK still stands by them….
Sharethis specific contribution
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have brought forward this group of amendments concerning safe and legal routes and humanitarian travel permits. We recognise the compassion and concern that underpin these proposals. We cannot dispute that the United Kingdom has played its part in providing refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, but it is important to remind the House that the United Kingdom has a proud record of providing such safe and legal routes, which have brought many people to safety without the need to undertake dangerous journeys or place themselves in the hands of criminal gangs.
Through the Hong Kong British national (overseas) visa route, we have offered a secure and permanent home to those with whom we share deep historical ties. More than 180,000 people from Hong Kong have already come to the United Kingdom under this route, one of the most generous immigration offers in our nation’s history. Likewise, our Ukrainian family scheme and Homes for Ukraine programme have provided sanctuary to more than 200,000 people since 2022. Those fleeing Putin’s brutal invasion have found not just safety but welcome and support in communities across our country. In addition, our resettlement programmes for those affected by the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan remain among the largest of their kind anywhere in Europe. The UK has resettled more than 25,000 vulnerable people through the Syrian scheme and continues to support Afghans who served alongside our forces.
The United Kingdom has therefore demonstrated through actions, not just words, that we are willing to provide safe, legal and managed routes for those in need. What we must now avoid is creating parallel systems that risk undermining the integrity of our immigration framework or diverting resources from routes that are already working effectively. Britain has done and continues to do its part. Our focus must remain on maintaining fairness, control and compassion in our asylum system, ensuring that help is targeted where it is most needed and delivered through routes that are safe, sustainable and properly managed.
My Lords, I thank all contributors to this debate. I am acutely conscious that I stand between noble Lords and the Recess—rather a short Recess, as it happens, but nevertheless. Before I make my remarks, I want to say that it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Alton, back in his place. I thought he sounded on pretty good form, but if he is not fully back to top form, I hope he soon will be.
Amendment 61 deals with the Ukrainian scheme. I hope that everyone in your Lordships’ House knows that the UK remains unwavering in its support for the people of Ukraine and the scheme that we have in place. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked us to look again, and we have done that. Our commitment to the scheme is demonstrated by the Government’s recent 24-month extension to the Ukraine permission extension scheme, providing clarity and reassurance to Ukrainians living in the UK under the visa scheme. However, from the outset the Government have maintained— I think everybody knows this, not just in your Lordships’ House but in the country more widely—that these schemes are temporary and do not provide a direct route to settlement. They reflect a generous and meaningful commitment to support those displaced by the conflict, and they have been widely supported throughout the country. The Ukrainian Government share with us a strong desire for their citizens to return and contribute to Ukraine’s future recovery.
On Amendments 70 and 85, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, let me reaffirm, as acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, the United Kingdom’s proud record of offering sanctuary to those fleeing war, persecution and oppression around the world. We have a strong history of protecting people in those situations. The UK operates global safe and legal routes for refugees, including the UK resettlement scheme in partnership with the UN Refugee Agency, the UNHCR.
However, there is no provision within our Immigration Rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum. While we sympathise with people in many difficult situations around the world, we could not possibly consider a scheme that accepts applications from large numbers of individuals overseas. I hope the noble Lord, Lord German, will forgive me for not commenting on the situation in the United States. Those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. Safe and legal routes are nevertheless an important part of the Government’s wider strategy to restore control over the immigration system. The immigration White Paper published in May 2025 announced a review of refugee sponsorship and resettlement, and further details will be set out in due course.
Amendment 70 includes a provision that relates to biometrics. Biometrics, in the form of fingerprints and facial images, underpin the current UK immigration system to support identity assurance and suitability checks on foreign nationals who are subject to immigration control. They enable us to pay comprehensive checks against immigration and criminal records to help identify those who pose a threat to our national security, public safety or immigration controls, or who are likely to breach our laws if they are allowed to come to the UK.
7.00pm
I stress to the noble Lord, Lord German, that there is already scope to waive or defer the requirement to enrol biometrics in compelling circumstances. It is for these reasons, and the importance of the biometric checks, that I cannot support any amendment which would undermine the steps the Government are already taking. It would create new pressures on our decision-makers, who we all acknowledge are under considerable pressure already, on accommodation available and support systems, as well as the justice system.
The number of people we can support through safe and legal routes depends on a variety of factors, including local authority capacity for supporting refugees. An all-encompassing humanitarian travel permit scheme would undermine our immigration system, and we would need to redistribute considerable resources to support such a route. I trust that the House will be assured of the Government’s position in these areas, as we have set out before, and assure the House that further details will be set out in due course following the immigration White Paper.
I turn finally to Amendments 58 and 80, which relate to the BNO route for people from Hong Kong. The Government are firmly committed to supporting the Hong Kong community in the UK and to maintaining the BNO route, which will continue to welcome Hongkongers. Our position remains, however, that the route is already implemented by the Immigration Rules, which are a long-established and flexible mechanism and, in the Government’s view, therefore, a better mechanism for managing immigration policy. For example, should the situation in Hong Kong deteriorate further, the Immigration Rules would give us the opportunity to react quickly. Implementing the route via regulations would reduce that flexibility, and we are concerned that it could constrain the Government’s ability to respond quickly to the sort of events I have described.
The Government recognise the concerns that the proposals for new-earned settlement rules have raised, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to these. I stress that we take that very seriously, have recognised
Toggle showing location ofColumn 2040
it and know how important the ability to settle is to people from Hong Kong. I can assure noble Lords that we are listening carefully to their views, which were relayed eloquently to Members of the other place in the debate in Westminster Hall on 8 September. We will continue to listen. In the meantime, the current rules for settlement under the BNO route will continue to apply.
Given the unique circumstances of this cohort, the flexibility of the Immigration Rules is in our view the more appropriate way, so I ask the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to withdraw the amendment in his name. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for rather rushing through that; they were important issues, and I hope I have done them justice.
My Lords, the Minister has indeed done the issues justice. I am grateful to him, not least for the tone he adopted in the reply he gave to the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I made in our speeches about Hong Kong.
I heard what the Minister said about flexibility. That is one of the problems outside this place: people are worried about what “flexibility” might imply. However, if they read carefully what the Minister has just said, I think they will be reassured at some level.
I also heard what the Minister said about continuing to listen, and I will convey that message back to the all-party parliamentary group and to others who are interested in this. We might well take him and the team at the Home Office up on what I think was an invitation to continue to engage on this question.
The way in which the noble Lord has dealt with this amendment is exemplary, and I am grateful to him. As I say, I thought the tone was well struck. On the issue of the Ukrainian amendment, I will talk to his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, when he is back here next week, and maybe we can go and see Ministers to talk about that situation. But they are different categories of people and the issues are separate.
If the Minister was worried about standing in the way of noble Lords and the Recess, I would be even more worried, so the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that I have no intention of dividing the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
===
Although time did not allow for a full debate on Amendment 61 on Ukraine – and in the unavoidable absence of the mover, these are the salient points and which will be pursued in meetings with the Ministers:
After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Ukraine humanitarian schemes: settlement
(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must amend the Immigration Rules so that a person becomes eligible for indefinite leave to remain when that person has completed the maximum aggregate period of limited leave (including any extensions) available under the Ukrainian humanitarian scheme or schemes on which that leave was granted.
(2) “Ukraine humanitarian scheme” means— (a) the Ukraine Family Scheme; (b) the Homes for Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme, including the super-sponsor variants operated by the Scottish and Welsh Governments; (c) the Ukraine Extension Scheme and any successor or related Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme.”
Member’s explanatory statement. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State amends Immigration Rules so that individuals on Ukraine humanitarian schemes have a pathway to indefinite leave to remain after completing a maximum aggregate period of limited leave available under the schemes on which that leave was granted.
—-
Amendment 61 was drafted following a meeting with Ukrainian women who came to the UK after Putin unleashed his full-scale invasion of Ukraine. During that meeting, Lord Alton was told about the challenges Ukrainians face with the uncertainty of the current resettlement models.
While Ukrainians who were provided with a safe haven in the UK knew that the resettlement was always meant to be temporary, as the war has been raging on for four years now and with no end in sight, it is crucial to consider how to ensure that the approaches taken are victim/survivors-centric, humane and take the best interest of the vulnerable individuals into account.
Ukraine will need its people to rebuild the country after the war. However, we are far from that place in time, with Putin showing zero willingness to negotiate a ceasefire or a peace agreement. Indeed, as evidenced by the UN, recent weeks and months have seen an escalation of the attacks across Ukraine.
This lived reality in Ukraine requires us to ask ourselves questions on how best to support the Ukrainians who came to this country.
Children who came here at the age of two will not be six. They will speak better English than Ukrainian and not know any other place than the UK.
Young families who came here at the beginning of the war, within the four years, found apartments, jobs, contributed to society, and built their new lives here. There will be many stories like that.
Voluntary return is what one would hope for these families. However, this will not happen before the end of the war and no guarantee of safety and protection.
Amendment 61 was first moved by Baroness Kennedy, on 8th September 2025, during the committee stage
The amendment had not been tested in the House of Commons, as it came into being after the Bill was sent to the House of Lords.
However, a significant cross-party group has been supporting some form of long-term resettlement options for Ukrainians, which again is reflected in the reality that, after four years of the war, the end is not in sight.
Support for long-term resettlement for Ukrainians has been expressed in both Houses over recent months, and indeed, for a permanent right to remain. In the other place, this includes at least 16 members of the Labour Party, seven from the Conservative Party, 14 from the Lib Dems, among others.
Again, many of their interventions were based on the lived reality of the Ukrainian refugees and the challenges faced with the temporary support offered in the UK.
When presented with the amendment at Committee Stage, the Minister who responded reemphasised the importance of providing clarity and reassurance to Ukrainians living in the UK under the Ukrainian visa schemes.
The Minister, however, referred to the Ukraine permission extension scheme, which will be extended to offer those eligible a further period of permission of 24 months. In the current situation, the 24 months will not provide the clarity and reassurance to which HMG is committed. In 24 months, these people will face the same challenges yet again.
As it stands, it is unlikely that the war will end by then and/or the Ukrainian living in the UK will be able to return within such a short period of time. Indeed, we must remember that:
- Many regions of Ukraine remain occupied, and many proposed plans suggest giving these territories to Russia, thereby blocking people from returning to their homes.
- Many regions of Ukraine have been destroyed, and rebuilding them will take time.
- The majority of the people who resettled to the UK are women and children, and the elderly, people who require humane conditions of living to be able to return; they cannot be sent to rubble.
As Putin’s war rages on, other countries have been adjusting to this new reality and ensuring that their resettlement options are more suitable.
On 8th September, Baroness Kennedy and others raised the example of the Council of the European Union’s coordinated approach to the transition out of temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine.
Their recent document makes it very clear that it is crucial to ‘prepare a gradual, sustainable and well-coordinated transition out of that status for when the conditions in Ukraine are conducive to allowing temporary protection to end, while taking into account the capacity and reconstruction needs of Ukraine.’ It further adds that ‘even in a situation of peace, Ukraine will need time to rebuild its capacity to be able to welcome back all those persons displaced by the war. In order to support Ukraine in its efforts to reintegrate displaced persons, it is therefore important that the transition process is managed flexibly, gradually and by taking into consideration the individual situations of the persons concerned. That transition process should therefore cater for the needs of those currently benefitting from temporary protection in the Union as well as the needs of Ukraine, while preserving the integrity of the Member States’ asylum systems.’
The document further recognises that many persons displaced from Ukraine and enjoying temporary protection have now been in the European countries for several years, and they have integrated into their host societies by learning their languages, finding employment, and enrolling in education.
It further adds, ‘Where already possible under national law or administrative practice, [EU] Member States should make use of every possibility to allow those persons to transition to national legal statuses that better reflect their current situation in the Union where the conditions for continuing legal residence on other grounds are met.’
Indeed, several countries in Europe have already introduced more comprehensive resettlement pathways for Ukrainians, including:
- In February 2025, the Czech Republic adopted a new law, Lex Ukraine VII, which introduced the possibility to obtain a special long-term residence permit, under certain conditions, for temporary protection holders who wish to transit from temporary protection to long-term residency in Czechia. The residence status is valid for 5 years with the possibility to apply for a permanent residence permit in the future. https://help.unhcr.org/czech/information-for-people-from-ukraine/special-long-term-residence/
- In Poland, a permanent residence card may be available after five years of legal residency, provided income and housing are stable and Polish language skills meet a certain level.
- In Italy, a long-term residence permit may be available after five years of legal residence under certain conditions, including financial stability and language proficiency.
- Current Situation in Ukraine
More than three years after Putin unleashed the war on Ukraine, Ukrainian refugees remain without prospects of a safe return. Those who stayed behind face deadly attacks every single day.
According to the World Bank, the damage caused by Russia’s invasion is estimated to amount to $57 billion. One in every 10 homes in Ukraine has been damaged, affecting nearly 2.5 million households.
The provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk, known as the Donbas, as well as Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, have been entirely annexed by Russia and have since passed under full Russian control, preventing any return for people who fled these regions. These regions are now subjected to the Russification programme.
The rest of the country continues to be in a state of war, with daily bombardments targeting infrastructure, homes and civilian objects, and spreading terror among the population. Some of the recent attacks include:
- On 31 July 2025, large-scale attacks on Kyiv caused the city’s highest verified child-casualty toll since 24 February 2022, killing five children and injuring 17 others. These attacks caused widespread damage to homes, hospitals, schools and critical civilian infrastructure
- By the end of June 2025, UNICEF verified at least 240 attacks on educational facilities, including nearly 30 in June alone.
- On 22 October 2025, Russia bombed a kindergarten in Kharkiv, killing one adult and leaving 48 young children deeply distressed.
This is in addition to a litany of atrocity crimes perpetrated by Russia, including the abduction of children and the use of sexual and/or reproductive violence as a weapon of war.
Despite talks of peace and Trump’s ambition to put an end to the conflict, the hostilities continue.
While some peace talks took place in July, Ukraine recorded the highest level of civilian casualties of 2025 in June and July.
According to the Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU), 530 people were killed and 2,772 were injured in these two months.[9] A peace agreement seems, for now, impossible to achieve as Russia refuses to engage in any dialogue and indeed, intensifies the attacks.
Ukraine will need its nationals to help rebuild the country when it’s safe. However, rebuilding will not happen as the war is still raging on.
- The Ukrainian humanitarian schemes in the UK
In March 2022, the UK introduced its primary settlement scheme for refugees. The scheme allows Ukrainians to work, educate, and gives them access to the NHS or social services they may be needed.
- Homes for Ukraine scheme (the only one still open)
- Allows Ukrainian nationals and their immediate relatives to come to the UK for three years if they have a UK sponsor.
- Sponsors are UK-based and can provide accommodation for at least six months. They can be British citizens or ‘settled in the UK.’
- Ukraine Family scheme (closed to new applicants on 19 February 2024): Allowed eligible Ukrainian nationals to join family members or extend their stay in the UK.
- Ukraine Extension Scheme (now closed): Ukrainian citizens could apply if they were living in the UK on a normal visa or without permission.
- Super Sponsor Scheme (officially paused for new applicants since mid-2022): the Scottish and Welsh governments previously operated their own visa routes, in which they acted directly as sponsors for Homes for Ukraine applicants, meaning they could come to the UK before being matched with a host rather than afterwards.
On 4 February 2025, the Ukraine permission extension (UPE) scheme opened, allowing refugees under existing schemes to apply for an additional 18 months of leave.
- Over 80,000 people had extended their visas under the scheme by 30 June 2025
- Allows Ukrainians to remain in the UK until the end of 2026.
Although well-meaning, these programmes have been insufficient in delivering security and stability to Ukrainians, especially as conditions tightened over time.
Initially, the Home Office made the schemes more generous. On 8 March 2022, the Family Scheme was extended to allow aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, and in-laws to be sponsored. The requirement to attend a visa application centre in a neighbouring country to provide fingerprints was also suspended following complaints that this was impractical and slowing down visa issuances
The Work Rights Centre, a charity which supports Ukrainians, says this is insufficient and has urged the government to fully reverse the 2024 restrictions.
Additionally, processing times have gradually increased since mid-2022, in part because staff have been moved back into other roles. The advertised processing time is now three weeks.
Finally, to guarantee that Ukrainians would not be able to apply for permanent residence, time spent on a Ukrainian visa does not count towards settlement on the basis of ten years’ continuous lawful residence. It does not count for citizenship applications either, unlike for most other refugee groups, and for Ukrainians in some other EU countries.
- Why do Ukrainians need long-term residency in the UK?
The current Ukrainian humanitarian scheme creates insecurity, leaving Ukrainians uncertain in relation to their right to stay in the UK. This also affects their employment and other aspects of their lives:
- According to a BBC survey of 1,333 Ukrainians, 41% of them lost a new job opportunity due to visa uncertainty, and 26% didn’t have their tenancy renewed.
- Others have been told they will have to stop working during the extension process as landlords and employers fear hefty fines and criminal sanctions.
- The Guardian reported on the case of Pedram Panbehchi, an engineer who arrived in the UK in January 2023 and has been told by his company that it would temporarily halt his work until his visa status is updated, potentially leaving him eight weeks without a job, and risking making him homeless. Despite a successful professional career in Ukraine, Panbehchi has struggled to find stable employment after applying for more than 1,000 jobs.
Because of the insecurity created by the current visa systems, Ukrainians face real risks of homelessness and struggle to find long-term housing:
- Homes for Ukraine hosts are asked to provide accommodation for only six months.
- Council homelessness services in England dealt with around 11,700 Ukrainian households from February 2022 to March 2024.
- The Committee of Public Accounts has warned that the risk of homelessness is likely to increase as hosting arrangements end or break down.
- Half of Ukrainians on the special visa schemes (50%) say they experienced barriers to renting privately, while 49% of those said they had no guarantor or references, and 42% simply found it unaffordable
While the UK Government has provided financial support for housing, it fails to address to root causes of the issue.
Many Ukrainians who came to the UK are women and children. For children who arrived as infants, the UK is the only country they have really known.
- How Amendment 61 responds to these shortfalls
Amendment 61 presents the opportunity to bring more security and stability to Ukrainians and guarantee them a future when they have been robbed of any in their own country.
The Ukraine visa schemes were an unusual assistance. There are other examples of safe and routes for people to come to the UK for humanitarian reasons, but these involve the resettlement of people formally recognised as refugees under the UN Refugee Convention (such as the 2014-2021 Syrian scheme), or who have a particular claim to the UK’s protection (such as Hongkongers with BN(O) and Afghans assisting British forces).
By contrast, the Ukrainians arriving since 2022 were not granted refugee status and have no prior ties to the British state.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State amends Immigration Rules so that individuals on Ukraine humanitarian schemes have a pathway to indefinite leave to remain after completing a maximum aggregate period of limited leave available under the schemes on which that leave was granted.
By granting permanent leave to Ukrainians, this amendment will close the legal gap created by the current Ukrainian humanitarian schemes. Permanent leave will provide Ukrainians with economic stability, which will, in turn, ensure long-term housing and allow continuity for children who now regard the UK as their home.
ps://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9630/
