As the Labour government grapples with a £4 billion annual bill for asylum accommodation and support, ministers are set to debate proposals that could see asylum seekers granted protection in the UK being required to repay up to £10,000 towards their state-funded living costs. The means-tested scheme, likened by officials to student loans, is part of the new immigration and asylum bill and would mandate successful claimants to settle this amount before becoming eligible for settled status in the United Kingdom.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has defended the plans, saying, “Receiving asylum support is a right, but it is also a responsibility. Once people can contribute and repay the generosity of the British people, we expect them to do so.” The Home Office confirmed that while the total repayment is expected to be around £10,000, the Home Secretary will retain the power to adjust this charge. A flat rate will be applied to successful asylum seekers deemed to possess sufficient funds.
The proposals have been met with fierce criticism from charities, who describe the scheme as an “extra tax on refugees” who have fled persecution, torture, and war. Imran Hussain, Director of External Affairs at the Refugee Council, argued that it is “unfair, impractical and makes it much harder for families to rebuild their lives and stand on their own feet.” Many asylum seekers rely on state support due to restrictions imposed by the Home Office preventing them from working while their claims are being processed.
Zoe Dexter, Housing and Welfare Manager at the Helen Bamber Foundation, echoed these concerns, labelling the proposal as “performative cruelty” lacking in detail or a credible plan to address existing chronic delays within the asylum system. Experts have also questioned the cost-efficiency of the scheme, with Madeleine Sumption, Director of the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory, noting that data suggests a relatively small proportion of people granted asylum earn enough to make significant contributions.
Ms Sumption concluded that the overall impact of the scheme on public finances is likely to be “relatively small” given it targets a very low-income population. Furthermore, she warned that the scheme could inadvertently discourage successful asylum claimants from seeking employment or compel them to find alternative accommodation, potentially leading to a higher effective tax rate for those who do work.