Homelessness and destitution are already widespread among people seeking asylum, and the changes to asylum support are designed to deepen this crisis. The UK government has said it expects local authorities to conclude that they have no obligation to support people seeking asylum and families made destitute by these policy changes â but this is not its decision to make. Instead, shifting to discretionary support simply displaces responsibility from central government onto councils, charities and communities that are already overstretched.
Whatâs more, those currently receiving asylum support already fear that it will be taken away from them for perceived failures to follow the rules. The proposed policy changes will exacerbate these everyday fears and anxieties by making it easier for the Home Office to remove support.
A generation locked out of settlement
The proposed âearned settlementâ model would extend the route to Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK from five to 10 years, and in some cases 20 years, depending on a personâs mode of entry.
This decision is misleading in suggesting that refugees are dismissing available resettlement paths to instead arrive in the UK via unauthorised routes to claim asylum (these cannot be called illegal under the Refugee Convention). In reality, there are very few UK resettlement routes currently operational â and even these limited options have been hampered by delays, restrictive eligibility, and inconsistent political support.
Extending the time that most refugees in the UK will have to wait to apply for settled status, therefore represents a calculated punitive action aimed at encouraging people to leave the UK â even if they have refugee status. The earned settlement route to Indefinite Leave to Remain risks locking refugees into prolonged uncertainty and hardship simply based on their means of arrival.
As mentioned above, people seeking asylum are not normally allowed to work whilst they await a claim outcome; most people who gain refugee status in the UK are legally destitute, and it is therefore common for them to rely on public funds and housing support as they face eviction from their asylum accommodation. Under the new earned settlement model, however, any use of public funds would automatically add five years to their baseline qualifying period. As a result, we are likely to see refugees and their families refuse the support they are entitled to â and endure destitution or risk exploitation â simply to shorten their earnedâsettlement waiting time.
The government justifies its proposed policy changes by invoking economic âpull factorsâ, such as the welfare system. Yet decades of research show that people who risk their lives coming to the UK are largely unaware of welfare benefits or settlement timeframes. Where choice exists, people come to the UK because it is seen as âsafeâ, due to family ties, shared language, historic connections â much of which links directly to Britainâs colonial past â and has a reputation for upholding human rights.
The evidence is also unequivocal: secure status is one of the strongest predictors of successful integration. Moreover, integration extends far beyond financial contributions or volunteering, presented by the government as ways to shorten settlement waiting times. Instead, integration works in many directions at once â involving people, communities, institutions, and government all playing a part.
What is at stake?
The UK governmentâs proposals risk harming refugees, undermining integration, and eroding social cohesion. Rather than ârestoring controlâ, they will make systems more disorganised and put more strain on local services. They will push people further into unsafe conditions and hinder opportunities for settling into their communities. They risk intensifying the everyday violence and harm that already shape the lives of refugees and their families.
We urge the home secretary to withdraw these proposals. The record of successive UK governments promoting a hostile environment has shown that chasing quick fixes to reduce immigration based on false assumptions does not deliver control over the immigration system or support integration. Instead, we urge a shift toward longâterm evidence-based solutions centred on humane, effective integration programmes that are led and delivered by regional and local actors â including charities and civic organisations â but underpinned by sustained financial support, infrastructure and accountability from central government.
No credible migration management system can justify practices that continue to expose people to harm, instability, or the deprivation of liberty. Ensuring safety, dignity, and lawful treatment for everyone in the asylum system is not simply compassionate policy â it is the minimum standard of a just society.
This piece was co-authored by Karolina Benghellab, Dan Fisher, Kate Botterill, Teresa Piacentini, Meg Wishart, Gareth Mulvey, Giovanna Fassetta, and Mirna Solic at the Glasgow Refugee, Asylum and Migration Network (GRAMNet)
