Resource

The government has rightly recognised that poverty “scars the lives and life chances” of children and the increase in child poverty needs to be addressed urgently. But this concern appears to not apply to all children. Just two months ago, the government decided to keep a small group of already disadvantaged children stuck in the very poverty it seeks to address, by freezing the rates of financial support given to people seeking protection in the UK. 

Among the thousands who arrive in the UK every year to seek safety from persecution, war and conflict, are children and families.  They have lost everything, having left most of their possessions behind. But as they wait for months or even years for a decision or appeal on their asylum application, they are not allowed to work and have ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF). This is because they are ‘subject to immigration control’.  

During this period, people seeking asylum rely on the abysmal financial support provided by the Home Office – less than £50 a week for those in self-catered accommodation and less than £10 a week for those in hotels. This hostile system deliberately pushes families and children towards destitution, poverty and ill-health. In their joint inquiry on the impact of immigration policy on poverty, both the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Migration and the APPG on Poverty and Inequality found that the NRPF policy is a huge contributor to child poverty, isolation and vulnerability.  

Thousands of children rely on asylum support  

At the end of March 2025, over 106,000 people were reliant on asylum support. The Home Office does not publish data on children in families but based on previous research we estimate there are at least 15,000 children living on asylum support. With the amount being so low, thousands of parents and carers struggle to buy the basic items that their children need, such as nutritious food, clothing and educational items.    

Year after year, NGOs like the Helen Bamber Foundation provide detailed evidence to the Home Office explaining why the meagre financial support given to families seeking asylum denies them their basic needs. But every year, the rates are barely revised. If at all, they are increased by an amount so insignificant that it hardly makes a dent in people’s experiences of poverty.  

People seeking asylum in the UK can apply for financial support and accommodation under section 95 or section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 if they meet the destitution criteria. Section 95 support, for those with an initial asylum claim or appeal, consists of a weekly payment of £49.18 per person loaded onto a pre-paid debit card (ASPEN card) and, if needed, accommodation which can be catered or non-catered. At the end of May, the Home Office announced it would not increase this rate this year at all. For those living in catered accommodation such as hotels, the weekly payment is just £9.95. Extra payments are available for children under 3 (£9.50 for a baby and £5.25 for a child aged 1 to 3). 

Low and stagnant support rates  

Asylum support rates have fallen significantly over the past three decades. Prior to 1999, people seeking asylum accessed mainstream benefits and were paid 90% of the standard rate. The Home Office now sets the rate of asylum support according to its own assessment of what it deems necessary to cover ‘essential living needs’. As a result, asylum support payments are substantially lower than mainstream benefit payments.  

A family of four (with children aged 8 and 10) on universal credit, and in receipt of child benefit, would receive £1,447.55 a month. This is excluding any support for housing, which would be paid in addition, and other possible additional income from working or if the parents had further health needs and were entitled to Personal Independence Payments. By comparison, the same family living off asylum support in self-catered accommodation would receive just £852.45 – under 60% of the mainstream benefit amount.  

No justification is given as to why those on asylum support have different ‘living needs’ to those on mainstream benefits. Arguably, people seeking protection have greater needs because they arrive with no possessions and have additional vulnerabilities, such as physical and mental health problems. Many are living in substandard accommodation with limited facilities that increase their need for essentials such as particular food and warm clothing, adding to their expenses.  

Pushing children towards ill health and malnutrition 

The financial support provided to those living in ‘catered’ accommodation, such as hotels, is even more shocking - just £9.95 a week (this is only 37p a week more than the amount given two years ago). This is in part because they are given no money for food. NGOs regularly highlight that much of the food provided in hotels is wholly inadequate and lacks nutrition, often resulting in the severe deterioration of people’s health – especially those already suffering from  physical ill health. 

The Helen Bamber Foundation regularly sees reports from their clients’ doctors concerned about children losing weight or not growing as expected due to lack of nutrition and poor-quality hotel food. These children have spent months, if not years, in these harmful conditions. In one recent case, a young child living in an East London hotel had lost 5kg due to malnutrition.   

This is not just a policy failure but a moral one.  People seeking asylum should receive the same levels of state support as any other individuals in need, and that support must be sufficient to allow them to live in dignity and uphold their basic human rights. Parliamentarians have called for the redesignating of child benefit so that it falls outside the NRPF policy. The government has confirmed that Child Poverty Strategy will include all children across the UK, including migrant children. Yet, asylum support rates remain below-poverty levels, pushing thousands of children into extreme levels of hardship.

When asked if the impact on children of freezing asylum support rates had been considered, the government’s answer made clear it had not. The Home Office must be meaningfully involved in the development of Child Poverty Strategy, or we risk leaving a group of children destitute solely on the basis of their (or their parents’) immigration status. The government’s commitment to address child poverty must not be selective – it must include lifting all people out of poverty, including those seeking protection. 

Image