Refugees granted permission to stay in the United Kingdom will be required to repay up to around £10,000 towards the cost of the accommodation they were given while their claims were being processed, under plans set out by the government as part of a wider overhaul of the immigration system. The new law is expected to come into force by the end of next year, and would mark a significant change in how those who are eventually allowed to remain are expected to contribute to the cost of the system that supported them.
The requirement would apply to people who have already been granted refugee status, a designation that allows them to work legally in the country. Under the proposals, migrants who are working and earning above a certain level would be expected to pay a total sum of around £10,000, although the precise income threshold at which the charge kicks in has yet to be announced. Crucially, those affected would only become eligible to apply for settlement, the right to remain permanently, once they had paid back the full amount owed.
The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has framed the measure as a matter of fairness to the public purse, arguing that the cost of asylum accommodation borne by the British taxpayer is simply too high. The government has pointed to the substantial sums involved in housing and supporting asylum seekers, a figure put at around £4 billion, and says that asking those who go on to work and build a life in Britain to contribute would help to counter the perception that the system is being misused.
A central question hanging over the plan is how much money it could realistically raise. Analysts have suggested that only a relatively small share of refugees would ever end up paying the charge, because their incomes in the UK tend to be low. Of those granted refugee status back in 2018, the analysis found, only around 13 percent were earning more than £20,000 a year five years later, while many were not employed at all or were making very little, in some cases below £10,000 a year.
Megan Benton, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said she understood the reasoning behind the proposal and agreed it was important to signal fairness and reduce the sense that the system is being abused. However, she did not expect the scheme to significantly boost the public finances, nor did she believe it would deter people from attempting the dangerous Channel crossing in small boats in search of a better life in Britain.
Benton also drew a distinction between symbolic gestures and evidence-based policy, noting that the plan appeared to take inspiration from measures introduced in Denmark. Policies of this kind, she cautioned, can produce striking headlines and a strong sense of action while changing relatively little in practice, and she warned against assuming that a high-profile announcement would translate into substantial savings for the state.
As a cautionary example, she pointed to Denmark's so-called jewellery law, which allowed the authorities to strip arriving migrants of valuable assets to help offset the cost of supporting them. In practice, she said, the measure ended up being applied to only a very small number of people and brought in little extra money for the public purse, a precedent she suggested British ministers would do well to weigh carefully before placing too much faith in the new approach.
The proposals have already drawn criticism from some charities, which argue that imposing what amounts to an extra tax on refugees who are working and trying to establish themselves is unfair. With the income threshold still to be confirmed and the law not due to take effect until the end of next year, much of the detail that will determine the policy's real impact, both on the public finances and on the people it targets, remains to be set out.