UK Plans £10,000 Repayment Rule for Asylum Seekers Before Permanent Settlement

The UK government has proposed sweeping reforms that could require some asylum seekers to repay up to £10,000 (about ₦18 million) in state support before they become eligible for permanent settlement in Britain.

The proposal, contained in the newly introduced Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026, would empower the Home Office to recover the costs of accommodation and financial support provided to asylum seekers once they have secured refugee status and are financially able to contribute.

If approved by Parliament, the measure would mark one of the most significant changes to the UK’s asylum system in recent years, shifting part of the financial burden of refugee support from taxpayers to beneficiaries who later become economically stable.

Under the proposed legislation, adults who received asylum support—including accommodation and weekly subsistence payments—could be required to repay around £10,000 before qualifying for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), commonly known as permanent settlement.

The repayment scheme would be means-tested, meaning only those with sufficient financial resources would be expected to contribute. Government officials said the exact repayment thresholds and collection methods would be determined by the Home Secretary through secondary legislation.

The reforms would also apply to former asylum seekers who leave the UK and later wish to return, requiring them to settle any outstanding repayment obligations before becoming eligible under the settlement pathway.

READ ALSO:

• US Withdraws Majority of Troops from Nigeria After Counterterrorism Mission
• Ronaldo Makes World Cup History as Ramos Fires Portugal Past Croatia into Round of 16
• Court of Appeal to Deliver Judgment Friday in UI-ISI Hijab Case

Defending the proposal, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the government had already reduced asylum accommodation costs by £1 billion, but insisted that those who eventually establish themselves financially should help repay the cost of the support they received.

“The cost of asylum accommodation to the British taxpayer is too high.

“We have already reduced asylum costs by £1 billion, but it is also right that we ask those who can contribute to do so.

“Receiving asylum support is a right, but it is also a responsibility. Once people can contribute and repay the generosity of the British people, we expect them to do so.”

The Home Office said the policy is intended to create a fairer and more sustainable asylum system while easing pressure on public finances.

According to government estimates, accommodating an asylum seeker in dispersal accommodation costs an average of £23.25 per person per night, while housing someone in a hotel costs approximately £144 per person each night.

Weekly subsistence payments currently range between £9.95 and £49.18 per person, depending on individual circumstances.

The government says the UK spent billions of pounds on asylum accommodation and support in recent years, making cost recovery a necessary component of broader immigration reforms.

The Home Office argues that many refugees become financially independent after receiving protection.

Government data shows that about 25% of people aged 16 to 64 who were granted asylum between 2015 and 2023 secured employment within the same calendar year they obtained refugee status. That figure increased to 50% within two years.

Among refugees employed eight years after being granted protection, 37% worked full-time with median annual earnings of around £23,000, while approximately 40% earned above the UK’s minimum wage.

Officials say these figures demonstrate that many recognised refugees are capable of contributing financially once they have rebuilt their lives.

The proposal has, however, sparked criticism from refugee advocacy organisations, immigration lawyers and human rights groups.

Critics argue that recognised refugees often spend years waiting for asylum decisions during which they have limited opportunities to work or build savings. They warn that requiring repayments before granting permanent settlement could delay integration, create financial hardship and discourage long-term stability for vulnerable people fleeing conflict and persecution.

Some campaigners have described the proposal as unprecedented, noting that refugees are generally not required to repay asylum support before obtaining permanent residency in most countries.

The repayment proposal forms part of a broader package of immigration reforms introduced through the Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026.

The legislation also includes measures aimed at reforming asylum appeals, strengthening age assessment procedures, revising modern slavery protections and tightening immigration enforcement.

The UK government says the reforms are designed to reduce pressure on public finances, discourage irregular migration and restore public confidence in the country’s asylum system.

The bill is currently before Parliament and must complete the legislative process before the proposed repayment requirement can become law.

UK Plans £10,000 Repayment Rule for Asylum Seekers Before Permanent Settlement

UK Apologises for Historic Forced Adoption, Unveils £4 Million Support Package for Survivors

The United Kingdom government has formally apologised to thousands of people affected by historical forced adoption practices and announced a £4 million support package to help survivors access adoption records, reconnect with relatives and receive specialist mental health support.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer delivered the landmark apology in the House of Commons on behalf of the British state, acknowledging that successive governments failed mothers, children and families through adoption policies that operated largely between 1949 and 1976.

The apology follows years of advocacy by survivors, campaign groups and human rights organisations, as well as recommendations by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), which concluded that many women were coerced into surrendering their babies for adoption rather than making a free and informed choice.

Addressing campaigners who watched from the public gallery, Starmer acknowledged the lasting trauma caused by the historical practices.

“The shame is not yours. The shame was never yours. The shame is ours.”

He added:

“And I say that on behalf of the whole country, I say it to every single person impacted: we are deeply and profoundly sorry.”

The Prime Minister admitted that many unmarried women were subjected to intense social stigma and pressure from hospitals, adoption agencies, religious institutions, social workers and even family members to give up their babies. In many cases, mothers were made to believe they were unfit to raise their children or were persuaded to sign adoption documents shortly after childbirth without meaningful support or genuine consent.

READ ALSO:

• Bandits Kill Chief Imam, Two Others in Coordinated Sokoto Village Attacks
• Court Affirms David Mark-Led ADC Leadership, Dismisses Abejide’s Suit
• FG Explains Why NYSC Khaki Will Be Replaced With Adire Fabric

The government estimates that about 185,000 mothers, adopted people and their families were directly affected by these practices. It also acknowledged the pain experienced by fathers, siblings, grandparents and extended family members who were separated from loved ones for decades.

Alongside the apology, the government announced a £4 million fund, which will be distributed over the next three years to provide practical and emotional support for those affected by forced adoption.

According to ministers, the funding will improve access to adoption records through CoramBAAF, expand intermediary services such as Family Connect to help reunite biological families where appropriate, provide specialist counselling and mental health support, strengthen peer-support networks, fund academic research into the long-term effects of forced adoption, and finance a national testimonials project to preserve survivors’ experiences.

The government said the support package was developed following extensive consultations with survivors, many of whom identified access to personal records, family reunification and emotional support as their greatest needs.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson described the historical practices as “an appalling injustice” that denied families precious moments and lifelong relationships.

“The pain carried by mothers, adopted children and their families who suffered this appalling injustice is unimaginable. They were cruelly denied irreplaceable moments, shared experiences and relationships which should have been theirs, and were made to feel ashamed.

“Today, on behalf of the British state, we say with one voice: this was wrong, and we are sorry. An apology cannot undo what happened, but it can be the start of real change, alongside providing the practical action, care and support that people need.”

The government also accepted responsibility for the failures of previous administrations, admitting that the state funded, enabled and legitimised systems that did not adequately protect vulnerable women and children.

Officials acknowledged that some adoption records were lost, altered or withheld, leaving many adopted people unable to trace their biological families or understand their personal histories.

“The state did not do enough to protect mothers, children and families and it failed to prevent harm from continuing. It bears responsibility for the systems it funded and legitimised, which enabled these practices to take place,” the government said.

Beyond the financial package, ministers announced several additional measures, including improving access to adoption records, expanding family reconnection services, working with NHS England to improve physical and mental healthcare for survivors, increasing awareness of historical forced adoption across public services, establishing a Lived Experience Reference Group to monitor implementation of the reforms, and commissioning a national testimonials project to preserve survivors’ stories.

The government said it would continuously assess the effectiveness of the programme and consider further research and support where necessary.

READ ALSO:

• Alleged Coup Plot: DSS Arraigns Five Over Concealment of Ex-Gov Timipre Sylva
• MURIC Commends NSCIA Over Appointment of Abbas Jimoh as Spokesperson
• Presidency Dismisses Allegation Against Gbajabiamila, Says Accuser Is an ‘Impostor’ Facing Trial

Campaign groups welcomed the apology as a historic and long-overdue acknowledgment of the suffering endured by thousands of families. However, many organisations stressed that the announcement should be the beginning—not the end—of efforts to address the lasting impact of historical forced adoption.

Several survivor groups have renewed calls for financial compensation, easier access to adoption records and expanded therapeutic services, arguing that many victims continue to live with unresolved grief, trauma and identity issues decades after being separated from their families.

The apology applies specifically to historical adoption practices in England. The government noted that Scotland and Wales have already issued formal apologies, while Northern Ireland is establishing a statutory public inquiry into Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses, where similar abuses are alleged to have occurred.

Although officials acknowledged that some coercive adoption practices extended beyond 1976, they stressed that today’s adoption system operates under stronger legal safeguards, judicial oversight and clear consent requirements designed to protect both children and birth parents.

The government encouraged anyone affected by historical forced adoption to seek assistance through organisations such as Family Connect, CoramBAAF, NHS services and specialist counselling providers.

For many survivors, the apology represents a significant step towards national recognition of a painful chapter in British history, offering hope that greater support and accountability will follow.

UK Apologises for Historic Forced Adoption, Unveils £4 Million Support Package for Survivors

US-Iran ceasefire under threat as fresh strikes rock Middle East

Fresh military exchanges between the United States and Iran have renewed fears that the fragile Middle East ceasefire could collapse, with both countries accusing each other of violating the truce even as negotiations continue toward a broader peace agreement.

The latest escalation is seen as the most serious challenge yet to the interim ceasefire reached earlier this month, raising concerns that months of diplomatic efforts could unravel despite mediation by regional and international partners.

Iranian state media reported on Saturday that Tehran launched retaliatory attacks against American-linked positions in the Gulf after US forces struck several Iranian military installations along the country’s southern coastline.

The United States, however, insisted its military action was a direct response to an Iranian drone attack on a commercial cargo vessel navigating the strategic Strait of Hormuz, describing the incident as a clear breach of the ceasefire agreement.

According to the US Central Command (CENTCOM), American forces targeted Iranian missile and drone storage facilities, coastal radar installations and other military infrastructure in a precision operation aimed at protecting international shipping routes.

CENTCOM described the strikes as a “powerful response” to what it called “unwarranted aggression against commercial shipping by Iranian forces” that “clearly violated the ceasefire.”

US officials said the military operation lasted about 90 minutes and focused on degrading Iran’s capability to threaten maritime traffic in the Gulf.

US President Donald Trump condemned the reported Iranian drone attack on the commercial vessel, describing it as “a foolish violation of our ceasefire agreement.”

READ ALSO:

• “DPO Gave Kaduna Mob My Wife to Kill” – Husband Alleges Police Complicity in Lynching
• “I Gave Her 15 Strokes” – Pastor Confesses to Flogging 13-Year-Old to Death
• Release Sowore and Hausa activist Maisango, By Farooq Kperogi

Vice President JD Vance also warned Tehran against further escalation, saying on X that “violence will be met with violence” if additional attacks were carried out.

Iran rejected Washington’s account, insisting its military actions were defensive and accusing the United States of violating international law by attacking Iranian territory.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry maintained that Tehran’s response was legitimate self-defence, while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) later announced retaliatory strikes against American positions across the Gulf.

In a statement carried by Iranian state television, the Guards warned that any repeat of US military action would trigger an even broader response.

Iranian state television also reported an explosion at Taherouyeh Pier near the southern port city of Sirik, attributing the blast to a projectile strike. However, the Mehr News Agency later reported that port operations continued normally and no significant damage had been recorded.

The renewed confrontation has once again drawn international attention to the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas exports pass.

Although Iran continues to insist that vessels obtain its approval before transiting the waterway, commercial shipping has gradually resumed following earlier disruptions.

Several shipping companies have adopted alternative routes or delayed voyages due to heightened security concerns, while naval patrols by Western and regional forces have increased to safeguard commercial vessels.

Despite the latest military exchanges, global oil prices have continued to decline amid expectations that maritime traffic through the strategic waterway will continue and that both Washington and Tehran remain committed to preserving the broader ceasefire.

Amid the renewed tensions, Israel and Lebanon signed a US-brokered framework agreement on Friday aimed at laying the foundation for lasting peace along their shared border.

The agreement followed five rounds of negotiations in Washington and is expected to serve as a roadmap for reducing hostilities between both neighbours.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the agreement as “the beginning of the beginning,” saying it creates a framework for lasting peace and security while acknowledging that significant work remains.

Under the arrangement, Lebanese armed forces will gradually assume control of pilot areas currently occupied by Israeli troops, while Israel will maintain a limited security presence until the disarmament of Hezbollah can be independently verified.

The United States also announced plans to establish a Military Coordination Group to oversee implementation of the agreement, alongside an additional $100 million humanitarian assistance package for affected communities.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the agreement as a diplomatic victory over Iran, insisting Tehran should have no role in Lebanon’s future security arrangements.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun welcomed the accord as a “first step” toward restoring state sovereignty and allowing displaced civilians to return home safely.

However, the Iran-backed Hezbollah movement rejected the framework, with senior lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah arguing that the agreement was intended to weaken the broader regional ceasefire involving Iran.

Supporters of Hezbollah later staged protests in Beirut following the announcement.

Meanwhile, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi stressed that any permanent agreement between Washington and Tehran must include rigorous international verification to ensure Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.

Grossi said Iran has repeatedly insisted that developing nuclear weapons is not its intention.

“Intentions are not enough,” he said, adding that a strong verification mechanism must be established as soon as possible.

Iran’s nuclear programme remains one of the most contentious issues in ongoing negotiations, with Tehran and Washington still divided over future access for international inspectors.

Under the interim agreement, Iran’s estimated 440-kilogram stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 per cent is expected to be downblended under IAEA supervision.

Diplomatic sources say the coming days will be crucial in determining whether the latest exchange of military strikes proves to be an isolated incident or marks the beginning of a broader regional conflict capable of disrupting global energy supplies and one of the world’s busiest maritime trade routes.

US-Iran ceasefire under threat as fresh strikes rock Middle East