From Exclusion to Contribution: Repealing the UK’s Asylum Work Ban

Asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the United Kingdom. In fact, most European countries ban asylum seekers from entering the labor market while awaiting a decision on their case. In general, in the EU, asylum seekers can access the labor market after nine months if no decision is made regarding their asylum status.

The result is numerous bureaucratic, political, and social factors impeding asylum seekers’ integration into society. With processing times for asylum often exceeding twelve months, without access to work, asylum seekers are dependent on minimal state support. Out of necessity to supplement these limited funds, some people work illegally in precarious jobs, such as "gigs" or "platforms," risking being liable to up to 6 months imprisonment, a fine, or both.

The employment ban is a contentious issue in the UK, and it's currently fueling the latest anti-immigration rhetoric, lately centered on the government's use of hotels for accommodation.

An initiative to change the current state of migration relations in the UK is the advocacy campaign #LiftTheBan, led by Refugee Action and Asylum Matters. This calls for people seeking asylum to be given the right to work without being restricted to the Shortage Occupation List. In Parliament, an amendment proposed by the House of Lords in 2022, which later failed to pass in the House of Commons, intended to reduce the ban from 12 to 6 months. Therefore, in this context, the Home Secretary has the decision power to change the policy, as it is possible for the Home Office to grant permission to work in “exceptional cases.”

Although there is a prevailing inclination to reduce the waiting period for asylum seekers to enter the labor market, immediate access is arguably the most effective solution. Initial delays can significantly impact long-term labor market integration, adding unnecessary complexity and cost to counselling and training programs for refugees and asylum seekers.

However, this approach is currently politically unviable. Public opinion is polarized, and political narratives continue to treat labor access as a “pull factor,” despite the public support for allowing asylum seekers to work.

To overcome this contradiction, this proposal advances an incremental strategy comprising a series of locally based monitored pilot programs designed to build evidence, reduce perceived risks, and create political momentum for reforms.

This proposed policy focuses on granting asylum seekers the right to work or volunteer while awaiting their asylum decisions, a policy that is both fair and practical.

1. Campaigning and coalition-building

   The process begins with campaigning and coalition-building across various sectors, including NGOs, local councils, small businesses, and media outlets. This stage focuses on reframing the narrative surrounding asylum seekers by presenting them as contributors to local economies rather than competitors in the job market. By engaging a diverse range of actors, including those typically skeptical of migration, the campaign seeks to create shared consensus.

2. Framework

   In the second stage, the coalition would formalize its proposal by publishing a policy paper supported by data from local councils, matching local labor shortages with asylum seekers willing and able to work. The framework would then align these needs with asylum seekers’ skills and interests, providing an evidence-based foundation for reform. It would be submitted to the Home Secretary and made public to ensure transparency and accountability.

3. Policy Change

   Once approved, Policy Change would enable selected councils to pilot the scheme. Councils would conduct skills assessments to match asylum seekers with appropriate employment opportunities beyond those in the Shortage Occupation List. Participants would receive remuneration for their contributions, providing them with agency and the means to support themselves while awaiting their asylum decision. Data from these pilots would also serve as evidence to inform national adoption.

4. Implementation

   Finally, asylum seekers will be integrated into their communities through meaningful work. Their participation would strengthen local economies, reduce reliance on public funds, and foster social cohesion.

Proponents of restrictive asylum policies argue that allowing asylum seekers to work would make deportation more difficult if their application is rejected, attract more applicants, and risk public backlash from voters who fear job competition. The Home Office's reluctance to revise its policy is partly explained by the risks of political backlash, which is amplified by political and media narratives. However, these concerns are based more on perception than evidence.

What the evidence shows is that a ban on arrival reduces the employment prospects of refugees by 15% in the years following the ban, with the negative effects persisting for up to ten years. On the other side, estimates suggest that allowing asylum seekers to work could contribute over £1.2 billion to the UK economy within five years.

Therefore, this proposal offers a pragmatic, evidence-based, low-risk alternative. This approach would not require legal reform but would instead generate concrete evidence regarding the economic benefits, community acceptance, and reduced reliance on welfare. This way, it would be possible to make policy adjustments and minimize political exposition.

Additionally, through the coalition of traditional supporters of integration and skeptical actors, it would be possible to depoliticize the issue and reduce implementation risks. This way, the Home Office could be seen as the coordinator of a cross-sector initiative, anticipate challenges, and share responsibility.

Lessons can be learned from the pitfalls and challenges observed in the experiences of Sweden and Portugal, such as disparities in skill recognition, inadequate coordination, and employer non-compliance. Labor market competition could be effectively limited through equal access to employment accompanied by robust safeguards to protect asylum seekers from exploitation, administrative barriers, discrimination, and restrictions on skill recognition. These safeguards would also ensure fair pay, reasonable working hours, and decent work conditions.

The UK cannot afford a system that traps people in enforced idleness, mismanages resources, and fuels public resentment. Allowing asylum seekers to work until their applications are processed is humane and compatible with public interests. Not only would this approach mitigate the adverse impacts of the current system, but it would also produce tangible economic benefits. And, as a signatory to the 1971 UN Refugee Convention and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the UK is obligated to implement robust and effective mechanisms to ensure that asylum seekers have access to meaningful employment.