(UK) — The UK government is planning to require some asylum seekers to repay around £10,000 in asylum support costs before they can qualify for settlement under proposals expected in its new Immigration and Asylum Bill.

The plan would apply to adults who received state-funded accommodation and basic living support, then later earn enough to contribute toward those costs. Reports indicate the system would be means-tested, children would be exempt, safeguards would aim to prevent destitution, and the measure would not apply retrospectively.

Ministers are presenting the proposal as a way to cut the cost of the asylum system and shift part of that burden to people who later have sufficient income. The reported annual bill for asylum accommodation and support has reached around £4 billion, with more than 100,000 people living in taxpayer-funded asylum accommodation.

Under the proposed model, repayment would not be demanded from people with no means to pay. The approach has been compared with a student-loan-style system, with deductions linked to income rather than an immediate bill.

That structure matters because the repayment would not sit only as a debt. It may become relevant before a person can apply for settled status in the UK, tying the cost of past asylum support to a later immigration milestone.

Settlement, also known as indefinite leave to remain, gives a person long-term security in Britain. If repayment becomes a condition of that step, refugees who later become financially stable would face an extra test on the route from protection to permanent status.

Adults who used asylum accommodation or other asylum support and later have enough income would be the group most directly affected. Current reports do not describe a blanket charge on every person who claims asylum.

Means testing is central to the proposal as it has been outlined so far. A person’s ability to pay would be considered, children would not be charged, and officials say protections would be built in to avoid pushing people into destitution.

The plan would change the treatment of a system that now covers basic needs during the asylum process. People waiting for a decision may receive housing and financial support if they do not have enough money to support themselves.

At present, asylum seekers usually receive £49.18 per person per week for essential needs such as food, clothing and toiletries. If their accommodation provides meals, the amount is usually £9.95 per person per week.

That support sits outside the mainstream welfare system. Asylum seekers are not generally treated in the same way as settled residents or workers who can access regular benefits.

Work restrictions add another pressure point. In general, asylum seekers in the UK cannot work while their claim is pending, and they may apply for permission to work only if their claim has been outstanding for more than 12 months through no fault of their own.

Even then, permission is restricted under Home Office rules, and dependants do not automatically get permission to work because the main applicant does. Critics say that leaves many people with little chance to build savings before any repayment obligation arrives later.

Refugee and human rights organisations have criticised the proposal, arguing that it would place a financial burden on people who fled war, persecution or serious danger. Their objection is not limited to the headline figure of £10,000.

Groups working with refugees argue that protection status does not remove the barriers to employment that many people face after an asylum claim succeeds. Trauma, interrupted education, lack of UK work experience, English language barriers, difficulty getting documents recognised, and delays in moving from asylum accommodation into stable housing all affect how quickly someone can earn.

Critics have described the idea as a “tax on refugees” and warned that heavy deductions could discourage people from using accommodation support or entering work. Those concerns focus on what happens after recognition, when refugees are trying to move from survival to stability.

The government’s case rests on cost and fairness to taxpayers. Ministers want people who later have sufficient income to contribute toward support that was provided when they had none, placing the policy inside a wider programme of asylum and immigration reform.

That wider reform agenda has already cast asylum accommodation as a heavy call on public funds. The proposed repayment rule would extend that argument beyond the asylum process itself and into the period when a person is trying to secure permanent status.

For refugees, the practical effect could be a longer and more complicated journey to settlement. Financial records, income levels and repayment history would become part of an immigration path that already depends on legal status and timing.

Several parts of the plan remain unresolved in the form now being discussed. Current reports have not settled the income threshold for repayment, whether the £10,000 figure would be fixed or variable, how collection would work, whether repayment would alter settlement timing, what exemptions would apply, how families would be treated, or whether appeal or waiver rights would be available.

Those unanswered questions carry much of the policy’s weight. A low income threshold would widen the number of people affected, while a narrow threshold would limit the rule to refugees with steadier earnings.

The same is true of the settlement link. If repayment must be completed before indefinite leave to remain, the proposal would operate more like a gatekeeping measure than a long-term contribution plan.

Family treatment will also shape the impact. Children are expected to be exempt, but household income, shared accommodation histories and the treatment of adult dependants would determine how the rule works in practice for many refugee families.

The proposal does not appear to mean that people must pay £10,000 before making an asylum claim, and it does not appear to impose charges on children. It is framed instead as a recovery system aimed at adults who used public support and later have the means to repay part of it.

That leaves the Immigration and Asylum Bill carrying a broader question about the purpose of asylum support itself. Britain currently provides housing and small weekly payments during a period when most applicants cannot work; the new proposal would allow the state to revisit that support years later, when a refugee seeks to turn temporary protection into permanent settlement.