How do asylum seekers’ and temporary migrants’ access to welfare and housing support differ between the UK and leading EU welfare states in 2025?
Executive summary
The UK in 2025 operates a separate “asylum support” system: most asylum seekers cannot access mainstream welfare, are generally not allowed to work, and rely on Home Office-provided accommodation and a small weekly subsistence payment while their claims are decided [1] [2]. Leading EU welfare states offer a more varied picture—many grant cash allowances, earlier work rights, and reception-centre systems that differ by country, with Germany and Scandinavian states generally providing higher monthly support and quicker labour-market access than the UK model [3] [4].
1. How the UK’s system actually works: conditional, centralised, and austere
The UK separates asylum support from mainstream benefits: destitute asylum seekers can apply to UK Visas and Immigration for accommodation and a weekly subsistence amount (set at about £49.18 per person per week in 2025), but otherwise cannot claim mainstream welfare and are usually barred from working while claims are pending [1] [2]. The Home Office directly funds accommodation for the vast majority of supported asylum seekers—around 106,000 were being supported in June 2025 with roughly 103,000 provided accommodation—reflecting a highly centralised approach to housing that has led to mass dispersal and use of “hard to let” properties and temporary sites [5] [6]. The state’s short “move-on” window for newly recognised refugees (28 days for most single adults, with temporary extensions for some groups) has driven many into homelessness and local-authority homelessness assistance after asylum accommodation ends [7] [8].
2. Leading EU welfare states: more variation, generally more cash and earlier work access
Across major EU destinations there is no single model, but a common pattern is greater variation in cash allowances and earlier routes to work and self-provision: Germany, for instance, provides notable monthly benefits (examples cited up to €354 in prior reporting), while other states give smaller sums or in-kind support; many EU states allow asylum applicants to take up employment or access labour markets sooner than the UK does, and EU law requires member states to guarantee basic reception and humanitarian standards [3]. The Migration Observatory’s comparative commentary notes that most European systems resemble the UK’s prior arrangements on protection duration but that welfare generosity can influence migrant decisions and that reforms modeled on Denmark may not replicate European experiences without consequences [4]. Reception conditions in some EU states, however, are uneven—Italy’s reception centres have been criticised for poor quality and restrictive rules that condition benefits on living in state housing [3].
3. Practical effects: homelessness, backlogs, and fiscal pressures
The UK’s high backlog and record application numbers in 2025 have increased housing pressures and costs: record claim volumes and long delays have driven spending—around £2.5 billion of Home Office ODA was spent on asylum accommodation in recent years—and left tens of thousands dependent on state accommodation while awaiting decisions [9] [10] [5]. Refugee-sector groups report substantial numbers of households needing homelessness assistance after leaving asylum accommodation, and the short move-on support period has directly contributed to that flow [7]. In contrast, although EU countries also face backlogs and different fiscal burdens, some provide more sustained cash support or faster labour-market access that can reduce reliance on state housing—but quality and access still vary widely by member state [9] [3].
4. Politics, intended reforms, and hidden agendas shaping access
UK policy in 2025 is explicitly reformist and deterrence-oriented—White Papers and political messaging aim to reduce “pull factors,” inspired by Nordic models and seeking tougher returns and limits on access to support—an agenda that risks further restricting access to mainstream welfare and work for asylum seekers even as evidence on deterrent effects is mixed [4] [5]. Domestic reporting and government statements emphasise legal duty to prevent destitution while also stressing removals and control, reflecting competing priorities between humanitarian obligations and political pressure to reduce arrivals [5] [11]. EU states’ policies are similarly political and uneven: some emulate stricter models, others preserve more generous reception and integration pathways—public finances, bilateral return agreements, and capacity constraints shape what migrants actually receive [4] [3].