Written evidence submitted by Cheshire, Halton & Warrington Race & Equality Centre (RTS3569)
 

Call for Evidence – Routes to Settlement

Background

We are a charity based in Chester, Cheshire that provides support and assistance to Black and Minority Ethnic communities, including those seeking asylum, refugees and migrants. As part of our work we offer an Immigration Advice Service regulated by the IAA, we also run drop ins for asylum seekers and refugees as well as offering a wide range of ESOL classes. We therefore have a lot of engagement with people who will be affected by the changes that are proposed to the immigration system. We have sought views from our staff, volunteers and service users which have been used to inform this response.

Questions

Given the nature of our work, our response will focus on select questions in the call for evidence.

What is the likely impact of longer routes and stricter requirements for settlement on migrant households already in the UK?

The impact of the proposed changes is already being felt amongst our service users, many of whom have not qualified as yet for settlement and are now concerned and anxious about their future within the UK.

Refugees & those seeking asylum

A longer wait for ILR will keep people in uncertainty for years. Many of our service users already struggle with anxiety and instability, so this could make things much harder for them.

• Temporary status limits what people can do, work, study, housing, long-term plans. A longer route to ILR will slow down integration and keep people in a more fragile position.
• More renewals mean more costs, more paperwork, and more chances for things to go wrong, especially for those who already find the system difficult to navigate.
• Family life will be affected too. Delays in settlement often mean delays in family reunion, which adds to stress and trauma.
• Overall, this change risks increasing financial and emotional pressure on some of the most vulnerable people we support.

Although Hong Kong Communities through the BNO route have been told that the route will remain at 5 years, the mandatory changes to both language and financial standing will have a significant impact. The following is the result of consultation with the communities we work with in the Cheshire area:

1 Impact on HK BN(O) Holders - The newly proposed mandatory ILR requirements would significantly affect the majority of Hong Kong BN(O) visa holders. According to a survey conducted by Labour MP James Naish, only 8% of BN(O) visa holders would fully meet the new mandatory requirements, demonstrating that the vast majority would struggle to qualify under the revised criteria.

2. Integration Requirement, English Language Level Raised From B1 to B2 - Raising the English language requirement from CEFR B1 to B2 introduces a major barrier, particularly for:

• Older BN(O) arrivals who may struggle with higher-level language exams.
• Individuals who have been focusing on childcare, caring responsibilities, or work that does not require advanced English.

The current B1 requirement was reasonable and achievable. Increasing it now creates an unfair and unexpected hurdle. Some people might have already completed their B1 test in accordance to the original requirement, not to mention effort and cost in fulfilling it, only to be advised that they might need to do B2 instead in a short span of time.

3. Contribution Requirement - Under the proposed rules, applicants must earn at least £12,570 for three years before applying for ILR. This is problematic because:

• Many BN(O) holders chose part-time, flexible, or lower-paid roles due to childcare, family responsibilities, or retraining.
• Some have significant savings or assets, meaning they are financially secure without needing full-time employment.
• Others are in education, volunteering roles, or occupations not measured purely by income.

This requirement assumes full-time, continuous work as the default, which does not reflect the diverse circumstances of BN(O) families.

4. Impact on Hong Kong BN(O) Holders - Many Will Become Ineligible for ILR - A large proportion of Hong Kong BN(O) visa holders—despite complying fully with all their original obligations—would suddenly be unable to secure settlement.

Original Conditions Did Not Require Work or Income

When the BN(O) visa route opened:

• No work or minimum income requirement existed.
• Applicants were only required to provide proof of savings for six months.
• Many relied on these assurances in making the life-changing decision to relocate to the UK.

Non-working BN(O) Holders Still Contribute

Many individuals do not work because:

• They are caring for children, elderly parents, or disabled family members.
• They have sufficient savings or assets to live independently.
• They are full-time students building future careers.

Crucially, they do not claim public funds, yet they would now be penalised under the proposed system. 

5. Negative Consequences Beyond ILR - A delay in ILR directly delays citizenship. For Hongkongers, this has a unique financial consequence: They cannot withdraw their Hong Kong Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) until they become British citizens or permanent residents.

The MPF often contains substantial lifetime savings, which many planned to transfer to the UK to:

• buy homes,
• invest,
• start businesses,
• and contribute to the UK economy.

Blocking BN(O) holders from settlement also blocks this inflow of capital, weakening economic benefits to the UK.

Severe Impact on Hong Kong Students

Hong Kong BN(O) young people studying in the UK will also face devastating consequences:

• If they cannot achieve ILR on time due to the new mandatory rules, they will lose eligibility for home fees, student finance, and accessible university pathways.
• Many families cannot afford international fees, which are dramatically higher.
• This could force students to drop out of university entirely, jeopardising their long-term future.

The proposed policy risks creating an entire generation of lost talent.

6. Unfairness and Loss of Trust - These sudden changes create a deep sense of injustice. Many BNO holders are in fact qualifying for applying for ILR starting next year, based on the original rule. BN(O) holders made major life decisions—selling homes, leaving careers, uprooting families—based on the original rules.

To change these conditions without fair notice:

• Breaches the trust between Hongkongers and the UK,
• Causes emotional distress and uncertainty,
• Undermines integrity and the UK’s reputation as a stable and reliable haven.

Trust, Once Lost, Cannot Be Rebuilt

If rules can change suddenly once, what assurance is there that they will not change again?

• Even if BN(O) holders eventually meet new requirements, they may fear further unexpected changes.
• This risk undermines confidence in long-term settlement and belonging.
   

7. Economic Impact of Losing Hong Kong BN(O) Families - Hongkongers have:

• Brought substantial savings into the UK,
• Purchased properties,
• Contributed to the workforce during critical times such as post-Brexit labour shortages and pandemic recovery,
• Started businesses and supported local economies.
• Paid the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) contributing revenue to the NHS.

Forced Departures Would Harm the UK Economy

If BN(O) holders are unable to remain:

• Families may need to sell their UK homes, potentially destabilising local housing markets.
• They would transfer their savings out of the UK, reversing the economic benefits.
• Workforce participation would fall, especially in sectors facing shortages.

Sudden removal of thousands of contributing residents is not only unjust — it is economically damaging.

8. A Fair and Trustworthy Way Forward: A Transition Period - To maintain fairness and trust, there should be a transition period or grandfathering arrangement:

• All BN(O) visa holders who arrived under the original scheme should be allowed to apply for ILR under the original rules.
• New rules should only apply to future applicants, not those who have already committed to life in the UK.

This approach aligns with good governance, fairness, and the principles upon which the BN(O) pathway was created.

How should “long-term contribution” to the UK be defined and quantified, when considering pathways to settlement?

We were very concerned to read about the automatic extension of settlement to 10 years with many potentially not being able to settle for 20 years. This can only be devasting to families who have made the UK their home and now face huge insecurities about their future and their children’s futures, many of whom have now been born in the UK and now face struggles to be recognised as British citizens as their parents may have to wait up to 20 years for settlement.

The current proposals suggest that pathways to settlement will be reduced by ‘positive’ contributions of earnings, speaking English or volunteering. However, the earnings which would allow for a reduction in time for settlement are far in excess of the average wage in the UK. To reduce by 5 years under the current proposals require an earned income for 3 years immediately prior to settlement of £50,270 whereas the average income in the UK is only £37,430. We noted that there will be a reduction of 3-5 years for working in the community, but volunteering we believe should not be linked to settlement in any way. Not only does incentivising potentially put additional pressure on individuals, who may not wish to volunteer and prefer to work (but don’t meet the earnings threshold for a reduction). It also could put significant pressure on already overstretched voluntary sector organisations who have to manage volunteers. Ultimately, we believe that volunteering should be purely voluntary and not for people to essentially prove their worth.

What exemptions should there be to the new rules? 

There are currently exceptions for refugees in terms of English language requirements and these should remain. We have worked with many refugee families and it takes many years to reach proficiency in English, especially for those who have not been schooled in their country of origin.

We are also concerned to see the proposals for additional time of 5 years for claiming public benefits for less than 12 months, essentially penalising people for falling into poverty, regardless of the situation they find themselves in.

As we have referred to above regarding Hong Kongers, we believe consideration should be given to reduction in requirements for those of retirement age – across the board.

General Issues/Concerns

Those who haven’t applied for settlement as yet but are in the country we understand will be affected, but we do not believe that people should face retrospective rule changes. This is not the mark of a fair government.

We are concerned about the financial impact of these changes - will they have to pay each time for renewal of their visa, the health surcharge etc? This brings us to the issue of constant renewals and effective immigration advice. The immigration sector is in crisis. Free immigration advice is few and far between, and the pressure constant renewals will cost on immigration charities like ours.

Pushing people into more precarious status – repeated visa applications, lack of legal support and complex immigration rules makes renewing and keeping status a major challenge. Increasing the qualifying period for settlement greatly increases the chances of missing their application window and their status. There is a risk of homelessness, destitution and gives greater potential for exploitation. These changes also undermine employer confidence in taking on migrants.

We hope this response is useful.

Dec 2025