Asylum support: discretion in practice

Ali Ahmadi, Catherine Barnard and Fiona Costello argue that government plans to revoke the duty to provide support to destitute asylum seekers will probably not significantly reduce costs or deter new arrivals but could push even more asylum seekers into destitution and illegal work.

Under the current 2005 Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations, the Home Office has a statutory duty to provide support (i.e., accommodation and financial help) to destitute asylum seekers. However, from June 2026, the government will revoke this duty and revert to a discretionary power under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. A duty means the Home Office must provide support if the legal criteria are met, while a power means the Home Office may provide support, giving it more choice about whether and how support continues.

This change is intended to reduce the numbers who can claim asylum support. According to the Home Secretary, the support will be conditional and reserved ‘only for those who play by our rules’. Under the new system, support will be denied to those who work illegally, have the right to work, ‘have the ability to support themselves,’ or break the law. This change (part of the Home Secretary’s Restoring Order and Control Policy) aims to cut costs, deter asylum seekers, and ensure compliance.

What difference, if any, will this change make in practice?

It is in fact difficult to answer that question, in part due to lack of current data. We do not know, for example, how many of the 107,000 asylum seekers currently receiving support will fall into the category of those whose support can be withdrawn.

Take the case of those with a right to work. In the year ending June 2025, 37% (41,100) of asylum seekers had previously arrived on a visa (e.g. work or study). Under current rules, if a person claims asylum before their existing visa expires, their visa conditions (e.g., right to work) are automatically extended until an initial decision is made on their claim. Recent data revealed that about 17,500 people are living in asylum accommodation after arriving on a visa and it is thought that about 8,500 of them have visas with a right to work.

Around 21,000 asylum seekers may have the right to work because they have been waiting more than 12 months for their asylum claims. The Home Office does not publish data on the number of asylum seekers actually granted permission to work. However, they are limited to jobs on RQF level 6 and above (graduate-level roles) of the Skilled Occupations (such as doctors, lawyers, software developers). One NGO survey reported that only a small number of asylum seekers can find jobs due to these restrictions. Many asylum seekers lack UK-recognised qualifications, fluency in English and/or the professional network to secure such jobs. Even experienced refugee and asylum seeking healthcare professionals struggle to find jobs in the NHS despite initiatives to support their inclusion.

Given this, the permission to work remains largely symbolic, and without unrestricted work rights (as recommended by the Commission on the Integration of Refugees), the policy of removing asylum benefits from this group risks creating a class of asylum seekers who are neither supported nor employable. This risks making them destitute. Any enforced destitution would be contrary to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The ECHR is given effect in the UK by the Human Rights Act 1998. It is well established that denying asylum seekers food, shelter, and basic needs can breach the article 3 threshold.

The new policy also risks pushing asylum seekers further towards illegal work (and exploitation), and/or turning to food banks and third sector organisations for their basic living needs. It might also exacerbate asylum seekers’ mental and physical health with long term consequences for them and the NHS. So this would shift rather than reduce costs. Illegal working would, of course, make it even more likely that asylum support is removed.

Another area where data is lacking is as to how many asylum seekers commit crime and/or work illegally. The Ministry of Justice does not record crime data by immigration status nor is there a breakdown of illegal working arrests. The Home Office announced that in 2025 about 9,000 illegal working arrests were made, ‘some of which were asylum seekers.’

The Home Office will also withdraw asylum support from those with the ‘ability to support themselves’. This is something of a puzzle as asylum support is already means-tested. It is available only to those who are destitute (or likely to become so within 14 days). The Home Office indicated that asylum seekers’ assets such as jewellery, cars, and e-bikes could be taken to contribute towards their accommodation cost. It is difficult to know how many asylum seekers hold such valuables and the extent of their potential contribution to asylum cost, but it is expected to be negligible as most asylum seekers meet the destitution test which already requires them to disclose their assets.

According to the Home Secretary, the UK’s ‘generous’ asylum offer is a pull factor, encouraging more asylum seekers to head to the UK. However, research shows that restrictive asylum support and employment bans have a ‘modest’ or no impact on arrivals. As we have discussed before, asylum support is already minimal and many asylum seekers rely on the third sector and illegal work for their basic necessities.

To conclude, the shift from duty to power will probably not significantly reduce costs, deter new arrivals or promote compliance. It may push even more asylum seekers into destitution and illegal work. And individual decisions under the discretionary power could be subject to judicial review, particularly on grounds of unfairness, irrationality or incompatibility with human rights. As we have argued before, a better option would be an earlier and broader access to work that would save billions for the Home Office, improve wellbeing, and promote long-term integration.

By Ali Ahmadi, Research Associate, University of Cambridge and PhD student at Anglia Ruskin University, Catherine Barnard, Senior Fellow, UK in a Changing Europe & Professor of EU Law and Employment Law, University of Cambridge and Fiona Costello, Assistant Professor, University of Birmingham.