From Vulnerability to Affordability, the Disparity among UK’s Bespoke Resettlement Schemes

Different perceptions, different outcomes?

Each year Social Policy Review publishes leading social policy scholarship exploring contemporary trends. Haya Fakoush
(Knowledge Exchange and Impact Officer, Nottingham Civic Exchange) and Richard Machin (Associate Professor, School of Social Sciences) drew on their expertise on UK immigration policy to author a chapter
for the Social Policy Review focusing on UK government resettlement schemes for forced migrants.  We reviewed three schemes: the Syrian Vulnerable Resettlement Scheme (VPRS), The Hong Kong British Nationals (Overseas) visa, and Homes for Ukraine scheme.

Resettlement schemes as policy outliers

"The disparity in these three ad hoc and reactive schemes reflects the political realities of immigration policy and the way in which it serves electoral agendas. The concern is that these schemes are merely outliers and are marginal to the broader, now well-established, hostile attitudes to migrants and forced migrants." (Fakoush and Machin, 2024)

Resettlement schemes remain one of the top outcomes for forced migrants, providing a legal and safe pathway to the UK. However, a wide gap exists between those granted resettlement through these schemes and the many who are still seeking resettlement. These policies are not only reflective of the government’s
overall stance towards immigration but also influenced by how migrants are perceived based on their demographics. In our review of the three schemes, we argue that the bespoke UK resettlement programs quickly grant rights to certain groups but reflect a larger move away from an equitable international
refugee protection. We rely on the global lens of policy analysis, considering three elements: contextual issues; policy and textual issues; and implementation and outcome issues (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010).

The following table presents a comparison of the three schemes:

Source: (Fakoush and Machin, 2024)

Problems created by the differing scheme rules

The significant differences in the scheme rules create real problems. While the schemes do provide accelerated rights compared to the general asylum system, they also lead to confusion on the ground for migrants and advocates and create a patchwork of different provisions which leads to issues with
integration.

The emphasis of the VPRS was on ‘vulnerability’ and this may have led to friction between migrants and members of the community. Research demonstrates that both education providers and employers find the Hong Kong visa rules confusing and this can lead to delays in school enrolment and barriers to employment.
Visa holders themselves report high levels of financial insecurity and isolation in the workplace. The most striking integration issue for the Homes for Ukraine scheme is caused by a break down in hosting arrangements and difficulty finding alternative accommodation. Many hosts report that they are unable
to provide accommodation beyond the minimum six-month period and find hosting to be challenging.

For people arriving in the UK under all three schemes navigating the UK social welfare system can be difficult. Telephony and online systems can be hard to navigate when English is not the first language and basic requirements such as securing a National Insurance number and opening a bank account are
not always easy.

The book chapter reveals unequal treatment among Syrians, Hong Kongers with BN(O) status, and Ukrainians. The Hong Kong visa scheme and Homes for Ukraine policy, based on hospitality, contrasted with the Syrian VPRS, which highlighted vulnerability and offered more robust support. Syrians under VPRS
benefitted from secure accommodation, welfare access, and extended leave to remain, shielding them from homelessness. These disparities in ad hoc schemes highlight how immigration policy is shaped by political and electoral interests, raising concerns that such programs are exceptions in a broader context
of increasingly hostile attitudes towards migrants.

There is uncertainty over whether a future Labour government will fully honour its promises to continue with bespoke resettlement schemes for refugees and asylum seekers. While Labour has expressed support for such initiatives, including the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme and the Ukraine Family
Scheme, it remains unclear whether these commitments will be upheld in practice. There is the worry that political pressures, economic constraints, or shifting priorities could lead to scaled-back efforts or a departure from the current resettlement frameworks, leaving vulnerable groups uncertain about
their future under Labour's leadership.

Richard Machin has written extensively on social welfare support for Ukrainian refugees:

• ‘The UK – a home for Ukrainians? An analysis of social security and housing policy’, Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 31(2): 298–305. https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/view/journals/jpsj/31/2/article-p298.xml?tab_body=fulltext
• ‘Why thousands of Ukrainian refugees in the UK are now homeless’, The New European, 27 August. www.theneweuropean.co.uk/thousands-of-ukrainian-refugees-in-the-uk-are-now-homeless-why/
• ‘How can UK social welfare provision be improved for displaced Ukrainians?’. Available at: www.stisonbooks.com/media/BUP_Machin-Policy-Briefing.pdf

References:  

Fakoush, H. and Machin, R., 2024. Countering dominant immigration trends: an evaluation of the implication of bespoke UK resettlement schemes. In: B. Sojka, S. Köppe, A. Parma and R. Cefalo, eds., Analysis and debate in social policy, 2024. Social Policy Review (36). Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 172-193. ISBN 9781447373575

Rizvi, F. and Lingard, B. (2010) Globalizing Education Policy, London and New York, NY: Routledge.