I will be brief. Not surprisingly, we wholeheartedly support this amendment, in the same way as we were among those who raised this issue during the Commons stages of the Bill. As has been said, this is not a party-political issue; there is huge cross-party support for the BNO scheme, and there is obviously the same strong cross-party support for this necessary extension to that scheme.
Currently, those born after 1997—24 year-olds or younger—cannot access the scheme, as has been said. I believe that is unless they are a dependant of a BNO passport holder, but I am not entirely sure whether that is the case. What has been said on more than one occasion during this debate is that 93% of those who face process charges in Hong Kong were born in or after 1997. We certainly do not believe that it was the Government’s intention to exclude a significant number of the people who are protesting against oppression and fighting for democracy. Our argument is that the
scheme, in practice, is not working as the Government intended it to, and today is an opportunity for them to make it clear that they do intend that the scheme should work—as I am sure they did when they originally introduced it.
The Minister in the Commons raised drafting issues with the amendment that was considered there. As I understand it, those have been dealt with in the amendment before this House. The draft now includes an age limit and applies only to those who are resident in Hong Kong or the UK. On Report in the Commons, Damian Green MP, who led the cross-party amendment on this issue, said:
“I want to give Ministers more time to work out better details of a mobility scheme that is suitable for young people in Hong Kong.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 233.]
We hope, as do other Members who have taken part in this discussion, that the Government have taken that time and that, on their behalf, the Minister will be able to respond favourably to this amendment.
I conclude by saying that there was an article in the Times recently—a reference has already been made to it—which stated:
“One in five of those granted indefinite leave to remain as part of the bespoke visa scheme for Hong Kong citizens were under-25.”
So that is already the situation. The article also said:
“The Home Office expects about 300,000 people to apply in the first five years of the scheme.”
I do not know whether that figure, which was mentioned in the Times on 1 February, is accurate or not. It might be helpful, if the Minister was in a position to do so, if he would say by how many the Government think that figure of 300,000 would increase if, as they should, they accepted the terms of this amendment and extended the scheme so that those younger people who are the ones facing protest charges in Hong Kong—or have faced them—and who clearly have a desire, in many cases, to leave and to come here are able to do so.