04 Jun 2026
Response from the Chartered Institute of Housing to the Home Office consultation on Reforming Asylum Support
The government has launched a consultation on reforming asylum support and enforcing family returns.
CIH has serious reservations about the proposals, as they are likely to increase destitution and the likelihood of homelessness. Below are recommendations to the Home Office to avoid such outcomes. In brief, they are:
- Keep the current protection (section 95 support) for refused families with dependent children.
- Do not narrow the ‘genuine obstacle’ test in applying for support, in a way that excludes people who are not realistically free to leave the UK.
- Preserve section 17 and Children Act protections.
- Preserve full leaving-care entitlements for care leavers without immigration status until their immigration matters are finally resolved.
- Retain a statutory right of appeal against refusal or withdrawal of support.
- Publish the evidence base before proceeding, including ensuring that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has assessed the impact on homelessness and destitution.
Reforms to Home Office support under the Immigration Act 2016
Currently there are four types of asylum support, of which two are relevant here. The main form of support is under section 95 (either accommodation or subsistence payments), available for all who have made a first claim for asylum and for families who have received asylum refusals. Support continues automatically for children or families who are refused asylum.
Support under section 4 is granted to adults whose asylum claims have been refused and who are considered ‘appeal rights exhausted’.
Under the government’s proposals, section 4 support will no longer exist and will be replaced with a more restrictive ‘section 95a’. People will have a 90-day grace period for families (only 21 days for others) to apply. If they encounter a ‘genuine obstacle’ (according to the Home Office’s definition) to departure during this 90-day ‘grace period’, they can apply for section 95a support.
Families with children under the age of 18 will no longer receive section 95 support if their asylum claim or appeal is refused. They will be eligible for section 95a. There will be no appeal process if section 95a support is refused.
- People receiving asylum support would otherwise be destitute and have no other option to support themselves. The proposals will therefore lead to more destitution and homelessness. They make an already restrictive and minimal system of asylum support even harder to access, increasing the burden on local authorities who are already stretched.
- The proposals deliberately use the threat of destitution to attempt to make families leave the UK. There is no evidence that this approach has ever worked.
- The proposals are targeted at removing support from destitute families with children under 18. The current system, though flawed, prevents children being made homeless and destitute. Removing this safeguard increases child poverty by design and is at odds with the government’s aims as laid out in its child poverty strategy.
- Additionally, the limited grace period for applying for section 95a support is problematic. Inevitably, many will fail to apply in time, e.g. through lack of access to advice services. We propose that there is no limit to when such support can be granted.
The Home Office response to an earlier consultation on the effects of ceasing asylum support said this, in summarising the submissions received:
“The pilot in 2005 of powers in Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to cease support to failed asylum seeker families showed that doing so would not lead to more failed asylum seeker families leaving the UK. They would instead abscond and ‘go to ground’, increasing the welfare risk to their children and their own risk of exploitation.”
The broader impact of destitution and homelessness is well established. The UK Housing Review 2026 recently reported that more than one person in every 100 is affected by ‘core homelessness’ – an astonishingly high rate, which has increased markedly in the last five years. Furthermore, it sets out the evidence that homelessness is ‘one of the most visible expressions of housing-related health inequality’. It therefore behoves government to avoid taking measures – such as those proposed – which will make matters worse.
The government has put a high priority on reducing homelessness and it is imperative that the proposals are judged against this wider government objective. We are concerned that the MHCLG may be unaware of the proposals or may have been unable to assess their effects.
Changes to local authority support
Currently, families without immigration status in the UK can be supported by local authorities where not doing so would be a breach of their human rights (section 17, Children Act 1989). This protects children in families from becoming destitute because of their parents’ immigration status.
The government proposes to retain this support, but not where the sole reason is preventing destitution. There would be no obligation on a local authority to support a family if they are destitute because they are in the UK with no immigration status. Local authorities could only provide support if the family has an ongoing non-asylum immigration application (including an appeal). Or, if they are refused, support could be provided if they are not refusing to leave the UK and are ’complying with the guidance and direction of the Secretary of State’.
- This type of support is integral to the protection provided by the Children Act 1989. The proposals will, in effect, punish children for circumstances outside their control and put them at risk of harm and destitution, including the risk of families going ‘underground’ and of children being exploited.
- Due to the ongoing legal aid crisis, many families are unable to find legal representation to help them make applications.
- Many people lose status due to not being able to afford visa fees, making mistakes in applications, or other circumstances beyond their control. This proposal will penalise them.
- Local authorities should, as now, be able to assess and decide to support a family based on concerns around destitution, regardless of immigration status or willingness to leave the UK. The Home Office should not prevent authorities from making these decisions themselves, risking being at odds with the Local Outcomes Framework.
Changes to support for care leavers
The consultation seeks to change the way care leavers without immigration status in the UK are supported, and in some cases to remove their status as a care leaver.
Young people who have had their claim refused and are now over 18 and ‘appeal rights exhausted’ may see their care leaver status removed and be routed into the adult asylum support system.
CIH opposes the change because it removes care leavers’ rights, enshrined in primary legislation. Home Office immigration control should not affect care-leaver status or care-experienced young people’s rights to support from the local authority. Care leavers without immigration status are especially vulnerable and in particular need of support as young adults.
There is already a mechanism for local authorities to assess whether care leavers who are appeal rights exhausted are eligible for ongoing support through a human rights assessment. This power should remain with the local authority, which is best placed to carry out an individualised assessment, and not be replaced by a generic Home Office policy.
Implementation of the proposals
The consultation questionnaire has questions about the transition to the new arrangements and the information that will be needed.
CIH is concerned that there is no impact assessment of the proposals. Any reform should be preceded by the publication of full Children’s Rights and Equality Impact Assessments, local authority cost modelling, information about the number of people who are estimated to be affected, and the Home Office evidence supporting the necessity of the proposed changes.
CIH believes that it is imperative that, if the changes (or some of them) go ahead, there is meaningful consultation with asylum seekers themselves and with agencies, lawyers and local authorities who assist them. Given the crisis in legal support for immigration cases, there should be very clear information and generous lead-in times for any changes.
The Home Office must ensure that Home Office contractors and local authorities are properly funded to absorb the extra work from these changes. Funding for the legal aid sector must be provided to ensure that there is enough legal advice to fund legal challenges when the Home Office restricts the right of appeal.
For more information on the eligibility for housing and benefits for different categories of migrant, please visit the Housing Rights website.
For more information regarding CIH's response, please contact John Perry at john.perry@cih.org.
