Refugees: Community Sponsorship
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of refugees that will be settled annually through community sponsorship; and what steps they are taking to provide adequate resources and support to sponsors.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I am grateful to have secured this debate, and to those who will speak. Community sponsorship offers a distinctive approach to refugee settlement. It enables people not simply to welcome refugees in principle but to stand alongside them in practice in securing a home, navigating unfamiliar systems and building relationships and new lives. It is a considerable commitment and an expression of the best of our civic life—or, as the Prime Minister might choose to see it, a courageous example of hope, where families are welcomed by their neighbours. It has been a privilege to witness the scheme’s extraordinary capacity to transform the lives of displaced people and enrich communities in my own diocese of Chelmsford, and across the UK, since its launch at Lambeth Palace in 2016. People want to help provide refugee protection.
The Government’s role is to create a safe, managed and sustainable framework that turns that willingness into action; I am grateful for their commitment in wanting to make that work. My understanding is that the Government will open applications to the scheme today. If I am correct, that will be an important milestone. I hope that this debate offers an opportunity for the Minister to share more about the Government’s ambitions for partnership working with communities and sponsors to make this pathway a joint success. Communities need to know what is expected of them, how many refugees the programme hopes to support, and what resources are available. These are questions of ambition, capacity and responsibility, which I hope we can explore a little today.
The Government want to restore public confidence in the migration system. We all see the human tragedy of people risking their lives in small boats and we hear concerns about pressures on services, housing and cohesion, yet these concerns are too often presented as a choice between compassion and control. The model of community sponsorship demonstrates that this is a false choice. It offers a safe, regular and well-managed route for refugees to rebuild their lives while strengthening communities.
In this scheme, communities choose to participate. Numbers are known and arrivals prepared for. Accommodation and support are planned and secured beforehand. This contrasts starkly with disorderly arrivals, emergency hotels and last-minute dispersals, which undermine trust and fuel anxiety. Sponsorship instead encourages cohesion, establishes relationships from the start and leads to faster integration. Evidence shows that sponsored refugees learn English more quickly, find work sooner and rely less on public services, because support helps their independence, reducing the long-term costs associated with homelessness, unemployment and poor health.
It is right that the scale of sponsorship is driven by the willingness and capacity of communities rather than by an arbitrary cap, but how will the Government assess that capacity, and the potential for growth, as infrastructure develops through new pathways for education and employment? How will faith groups, refugee-led organisations, voluntary sector organisations and local authorities be consulted before numbers are determined?
Sponsorship should also be a flexible national asset that can be mobilised rapidly in response to emerging humanitarian disasters. A mature system could provide a durable framework for future crises without requiring entirely new programmes. Homes for Ukraine demonstrated the public’s willingness to respond, with over 175,000 arrivals. The Government have said that arrivals through the resettlement scheme and sponsorship routes will initially number in the hundreds rising to the low thousands. However, they must ensure they do not constrain the ambition of willing sponsors. In time, I hope the scheme will become fully accessible to other parts of the world, not just those currently named. The existing scheme has supported more than 1,200 refugees through over 200 sponsors. Canada’s comparable programme has resettled over 440,000 refugees since 1979.
In preparing for this debate, I contacted organisations supporting refugees, as well as the Church of England, to gauge their interest in participating. I heard from the Salvation Army, Welcome Churches, the Pickwell Foundation, Refugee Education UK, Citizens UK, REST, Rohingya Association UK, the Welsh Refugee Council and Micro Rainbow. That is an impressive and diverse group of potential partners. It is important that government and this House welcome the welcomers. Community sponsorship is emotionally and practically demanding, particularly in divisive times. Those giving their time and resources should be recognised and protected. Civil society and government must work closely together so the welcomers feel confident to provide support effectively. I hope that today is a helpful opportunity for the Minister to place on record the Government’s thanks to these thousands of volunteers who have supported refugees through sponsorship schemes over the past decade and will be integral in the future.
My Question also concerns the support available to sponsors. It would be easy to focus on funding without acknowledging the Government’s considerable investment in the processing requirements, including overseas vetting and logistical arrangements. What plans do the Government have to build societal infrastructure so that community sponsorship becomes a self-sustaining, resilient and community-owned model? Generosity cannot replace professional support, so how will the Government help lead sponsors to offer specialist assistance, including training, safeguarding and administrative support? How will they ensure that sponsorship remains accessible to less affluent groups that wish to participate, including local churches and faith groups?
The Question before us today is not simply how many refugees the Government intend to welcome through sponsorship; it is whether they are ready to build a programme that communities can participate in confidently and on which refugees can rely. Community sponsorship can be a powerful expression of shared responsibility. It is a safe and controlled model and, importantly, it is rooted in the best of who we are as a society. With proper planning, sustained support and a clear commitment from government, it can offer refugees not only safety but the opportunity to belong, to flourish and to contribute.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I am incredibly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for bringing this vital issue before the House today and for the excellent and eloquent introduction to the debate. The question of how we resource, support and scale our resettlement programmes goes to the very heart of who we are as a nation. I welcome the Government’s commitment to expanding our safe and legal routes, specifically through the introduction of the new community sponsorship, refugee study and refugee work streams. These are commendable steps in the right direction.
However, having had the privilege of serving as a Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement, I know at first hand that a policy framework is only as strong as the infrastructure supporting it. During my time in office, I was consistently humbled by the immense, untapped generosity and operational capacity of our civil society. From churches and mosques to local neighbourhood coalitions and secular charities, the British public have a profound desire to step up and welcome those fleeing conflict and persecution.
Community sponsorship is not merely an alternative delivery model for immigration policy; it is a gold standard for integration. Traditional state-led resettlement provides a roof and basic safety net, which is vital, but community sponsorship provides a community. When a local group wraps its arms around a refugee family, the results are transformative. We see accelerated language acquisition, swifter entry into meaningful employment and deep-rooted social connections. Neighbours do not just hand over keys; they help to register children at the local school, navigate GP appointments and introduce new arrivals to local employers. This model actively fosters social cohesion, bridging cultural divides and building shared purpose at a grass-roots level.
If we want to see the true transformative potential of this model when it is backed by real government ambition, we need only to look across the Atlantic to Canada, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. For nearly five decades, Canada’s private sponsorship of refugees programme has been the global benchmark. Since its inception, ordinary Canadian citizens, faith groups and community associations have directly sponsored more than 400,000 refugees.
The Canadian data speaks for itself. Decades of independent longitudinal studies show that privately sponsored refugees consistently find employment faster, learn the local language more rapidly and report a higher sense of belonging than those entering through standard government assistance routes. Why? It is because they arrive with a ready-made social network of citizens completely invested in their success. Canada proved to the world that when you trust civil society and you build a robust partnership between the state and the community, you create an engine for successful integration that scales naturally.
Yet if we are to unlock that same potential here, the Government must match the ambition of our international peers. The recent indication from the Home Office that initial arrivals across the UK resettlement scheme and these new streams will number only in the low hundreds is, frankly, overly cautious. While I understand the need for careful management, we must remember that community sponsorship is uniquely scalable because it relies heavily on civil society’s energy and private good will. It alleviates, rather than exacerbates, the immediate strain on hard-pressed local authority budgets. The low hundreds should not be treated as a comfortable ceiling; it must be a strict baseline for year one backed by a clear road map for growth.
Furthermore, we must address the bureaucratic barriers that historically caused enthusiastic local groups to lose momentum. If we are to open these routes to non-profits and charities, the accreditation and vetting processes must be rigorous but accessible. Overly complex financial checks and prolonged processing delays can smother community good will before a single family even arrives.
Our finest asset in integrating refugees is the open hearts and operational capability of our faith and community groups. Let us give them the tools, the streamlined processes and the long-term certainty they need to succeed. I urge the Government to expand their vision, resource our sponsors adequately and allow British communities to do what they do best: welcome, integrate and heal.
To ensure that our communities are truly empowered to deliver this vision, I put four specific, brief questions to my noble friend the Minister. My noble friend has noted previously that initial arrivals across the UKRS and the new community sponsorship routes will be in the low hundreds, as I have mentioned. Can the Government outline what specific criteria or milestones will be used to trigger an expansion of these numbers as more charities and non-profits achieve accredited status?
Secondly, as the Government open up the new community sponsorship streams, what steps are being taken to streamline the application and vetting processes so that smaller grass-roots community groups are not inadvertently locked out by prohibitive administrative red tape? Thirdly, will the Government consider establishing a dedicated regional Home Office liaison unit tasked specifically with providing ongoing operational advice, training resources and troubleshooting support to accredited sponsors during their first critical year of hosting? Finally, while community sponsorship leverages immense voluntary resources, local statutory services like ESOL and healthcare still experience impacts. Can my noble friend the Minister clarify how the funding architecture for these new routes will ensure that local authorities are adequately compensated alongside voluntary sponsors? I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s response.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as someone who hosted a family from Ukraine for four years. They have recently moved on and I am expecting another family to arrive just before Christmas.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford that we need to be certain that steps are taken to provide adequate support and resources to sponsors. It is in that context that it is worth looking at the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which has supported thousands of Ukrainians, with individual families opening their homes and hearts to welcome them in. Hosts were originally allocated £500 a month to help with extra costs. Last year, this was reduced to £350 a month, and now the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has said that the monthly rate is going to be reduced to £100 a month from 1 January next year.
Ostensibly, this is based on the view that Ukrainian families should by now have been able to develop their own resources here. Yet, the same cut of over 70% will apply to UK families taking Ukrainians who have just arrived, and the situation is getting worse. Even while we have been sitting in this Chamber, in the last hour 14 people have been killed at a Kyiv railway station by a Russian drone. A fortnight ago, the Lord Privy Seal rightly argued in this place that the moral obligation of this country to do what we can practically to help Ukraine and its people remains as high as ever. The noble Baroness seemed surprised when I told her about the change to the funding arrangements for hosts.
Research conducted by the Office for National Statistics outlines how the cost of living has already forced many host families to abandon this scheme. Hosts were originally asked to commit to six months. After that time, 23% pulled out as they could no longer afford it, and 99% of these hosts cited significant extra costs, such as utilities and food. The Local Government Association told us that thousands of Ukrainian households have had to register as homeless here, after their hosting arrangements collapsed. Apart from the fact that this may well cost local authorities more than the proposed cuts, it is also incredible to me that we offer families a safe haven from a country at war, yet they may end up sleeping on our streets.
Ukraine, and particularly its capital, is facing a devastating winter. It will be the worst of the war so far, given the increased Russian ballistic missile attacks on infrastructure and the almost complete cessation of the supply of US Patriot defence systems. The father of the family we have hosted for four years is still in Kyiv. In the last three weeks, he has had three hours of running water. He spends nights sleeping in either a corridor or an underpass, and he is lucky if he gets two hours of electricity a day. This week, I received an email from the guest who is joining us shortly, with his young son—the mother is no longer alive. He wrote:
“The situation in Kyiv feels more dangerous now than at any other time during these four years of war. With almost constant air raid alerts and attacks, the city sometimes feels more like a place near the front line. Even going outside has become a source of uncertainty and concern”.
As a result of this escalation, more parents from Ukraine with traumatised children are looking for homes here, yet the combination of reduced funding and high living costs has drastically reduced the number of families who are able to sponsor.
Another factor causing concern, which also needs to be taken into account, is the lack of clarity on the duration of visas, which affects not only Ukrainian children, many of whom are now totally integrated into our education system, but their mothers, or parents, who are trying to get a job and find somewhere to rent, with no fixed idea of how long they will be here. This adds unnecessary stress to an already intolerable situation. So, I urge His Majesty’s Government to look again at their changes to the Homes for Ukraine scheme, to reconsider the proposed cut of almost three-quarters to the amount paid to host families, and to make sure that lessons are learned and that the resettlement of refugees through community sponsorship is adequately resourced.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [R]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on securing this short but important debate on the process of allowing refugees to settle through community sponsorship, to assess the numbers involved and to look at whether the Government are giving adequate resources and support to sponsors. I join her in thanks to the many communities that have already supported refugees.
It is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest. Her example as a sponsor of a Ukrainian family, and shortly to sponsor another, is absolutely to be commended. But I share her concern at the reduction of grants for host families and the consequential loss of hosts. Please, Minister, can this be changed?
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, spoke powerfully of the strength of a welcoming community, to ensure that arrivals settle and become part of the community, and I agree with him.
In 2016, under Prime Minister Theresa May, the community sponsorship scheme was launched. In that scheme, managed by the Home Office, families were allocated to approved sponsors, who could be charities, faith groups or other civil society organisations. It has developed very slowly. The Sunak Government said in 2023:
“Over 1,000 vulnerable refugees fleeing regions of conflict and instability, including Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea, Iran, Somalia and Afghanistan, have been welcomed under one of the UK’s safe and legal routes by local communities across the UK, so they can start their new lives here”.
That was not many, over seven years.
The scheme does have good ideals. The sponsors have to demonstrate capacity to deliver their side of the scheme, which includes available funding of at least £9,000, as well as the appropriate accommodation and written consent from the local authority. Once approval was given, they were given the responsibility of supporting a resettled family for at least one year, providing accommodation for two years, and providing support for all that they might need, from accessing medical services, language tuition, schools, social services, and, importantly, helping them to find employment. This absolutely encourages cohesion.
However, the low numbers have demonstrated a problem: the capacity of local authorities to be able to play a practical role in this, without any extra resources. Let me be blunter than that. Most local authorities are struggling to deliver anything beyond their statutory duties, and it is disappointing that yesterday’s Budget was not able to change that. However, even if it had, I suspect local authorities’ capacity to help community sponsors would remain a low priority compared with the statutory duties of children’s services, children in care and adult social services. The noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, graphically laid out the consequences to local authorities of the government grant to hosts being reduced.
What has also exploded in the last few years is a worrying resurgence of groups on the far right who, instead of objective to government about their concerns for refugee policy, have taken to demonstrating, marching and intimidating the refugees themselves. Too often, police resources have been needed to intervene to stop these aggressive patterns of behaviours by protesters. That is why, 12 months ago, then Prime Minister Starmer published Restoring Order and Control: A Statement on the Government’s Asylum and Returns Policy. Along with my party, and the noble Lord, Lord German, I have been arguing for years for effective, safe and legal routes to asylum for people with real cause, and I am not sure we have really got effective, safe, legal routes at the moment. I am interested in understanding how quickly this scheme, if it works, can be developed further from the scheme first introduced a decade ago by the previous Government.
Despite what many people want us to believe, there are refugees with a real and understandable fear for their lives in their own countries, who seek to come to the UK, often because of direct—that is, familial—or indirect reasons, for example the Afghan troops who worked with us in the war in Afghanistan.
The 2025 government policy paper said that refugee sponsorship would
“become the framework for most of the UK Government’s refugee resettlement efforts”.
The three new routes still include the route I described earlier but, unless resources are improved, I cannot see that increasing very much.
The second route is by universities, through the study sponsorship route, and by companies, through the work route. This too is very welcome, but I am sure I was not alone in absolute despair when our universities had found money and offered some places to prospective students stuck in Gaza last year and this year who could not leave their small children behind in a war zone. Some of those prospective students also could not get their status confirmed in time to start their courses. The sponsorship opportunities were wasted by the universities through absolutely no fault of theirs or the prospective students. What steps are the Foreign Office and the Home Office taking to improve visa processes for candidates under this scheme, especially for universities, where new students have a deadline that cannot be changed?
The third route is the UK refugee settlement route, which opened to new referrals recently. I echo the questions of the right reverend Prelate, who asked what numbers the Government expect in each of these three schemes over the next few years. The Government say they will set annual limits, but are the appropriate resources available to make sure that, once the community sponsors have fulfilled their side of the bargain, the Government will have capacity to deliver their side, especially the timely approval of visas? The other area that community sponsors, including Reset Communities for Refugees, are asking for is support in
“clear guidance, appropriate resources, effective safeguarding arrangements and access to specialist training and support”.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on those.
Finally, there is one community I know well and have worked with for some time which has been accessing a safe and legal route to settlement in the UK for many years, but not without some problems. Unfortunately, the Government still refer to this group as refugees, but I believe they are wrong to do so, and I have said so before. These are the brave opponents of the Chinese regime in Hong Kong, who already hold British national (overseas) status and have fled to the UK because the Conservative Government of the day recognised, when we handed Hong Kong back to China, that they were entitled to be British nationals.
Since that handover of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997, and especially over recent years, when people fleeing Hong Kong arrive in Britain, Home Office staff often treat them as if they are exactly the same as all other refugees without British national status. Please will the Minister ensure that this practice stops? Yes, they may seek help and support if they arrive in distress, with no or few possessions, and they will need help with resettlement, but the first and biggest hurdle for them is overcome already. They have a right to come to this country, and it is shocking that their first encounter is immigration staff who do not even know this.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who has so eloquently laid out the position of those groups in which she has some direct interest.
I must declare my interest as being supported by the RAMP organisation, and I must thank the right reverend Prelate for being ahead of the curve again in being able to bring forward debate on an issue that is very potent in the current scene. I must also declare my interest—with a small “i”, not a capital “I”—as the general rapporteur on European migration and asylum policy for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I will be reporting on this debate as it is an important part of the structure we face across the whole of our continent.
For generations, Britain’s proudest chapters have been written not when we turned our backs on the world but when we stepped forward to offer sanctuary to those fleeing terror, persecution and war. We saw that spirit when our towns and villages welcomed displaced families from Ukraine, as we heard so eloquently, and in the response to the fall of Afghanistan. I remember the crisis of the Ugandan Asians many decades ago, when we sought and brought to this country those who were being displaced so horribly. We have seen it across the hundreds of quiet, compassionate community sponsorship groups that have opened their homes and hearts across our country.
The Liberal Democrats have long argued that the best of British values is found in our local communities. That is why we welcome the principle behind the Government’s new community sponsorship scheme. Establishing new safe and legal routes is a necessary step in the right direction. Allowing communities, faith groups, universities and local organisations to step forward to directly sponsor named individuals, to support students and to welcome displaced workers is a proven and powerful concept. When local communities have direct ownership, integration flourishes. Refugees do not arrive as numbers on a Home Office spreadsheet; they arrive into an existing network of neighbours, mentors and friends who help them find work, master our language and truly belong.
We on these Benches reject outright the cynical, ungenerous claims from those on the political right. Those who demand that no safe routes be created until every boat has stopped miss the fundamental reality. People take to dangerous dinghies precisely because safe and legal routes do not exist. We do not smash the vile business model of criminal smuggling gangs by building higher walls; we smash it by opening controlled, orderly doors that render the smugglers obsolete.
Although we support this scheme in principle, we must be brutally honest about its practical realities. Compassion without ambition is mere sentiment. As it stands, this policy suffers from glaring shortcomings that risk setting it up to fail. First and foremost is the question of scale, which was mentioned earlier. The Government talk of this scheme breaking the cycle of irregular channel crossings, but look at the figures to which the Home Office has now quietly admitted. Total arrivals across the reopened UK resettlement scheme—that includes all three new sponsorship routes—will start in the hundreds before slowly growing into the low thousands. Reports suggest an ambition of just over 10,000 altogether by the end of this decade. Schemes need to be known about and understood, and people need to be provided with sufficient information for the schemes to make a difference and for the people to make a choice.
To present a scheme that admits a few hundred people as a serious deterrent to the tens of thousands not just crossing the channel but entering by other means is, frankly, a tokenistic drop in the ocean. The Refugee Council and civil society have made it clear that, if we are serious about safe routes, we must aim for real ambition by restoring settlement to at least the pre-pandemic level of 5,000 people a year, not trickling out places in the low hundreds.
Secondly, the Government are engaged in passing the buck to local communities from local authorities. Ministers say that they want to relieve local authorities and end the reliance on expensive asylum hotels. We agree with closing the hotels, but the Government’s answer is to offload core statutory responsibilities on to volunteers, charities and churches. Under the scheme, sponsors are required to secure independent accommodation for at least two years and to raise substantial private capital.
In the middle of the worst housing crisis in modern memory, how on earth does the Home Secretary expect local charities to outbid the market to find two-year tenancies without statutory backing? Under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, the state provided monthly thank-you payments to assist host households, yet under this new scheme Ministers have completely failed to guarantee whether similar financial support will exist. If the state treats volunteer good will as an unpaid substitute for proper governance, burnout will follow and the intake will grind to a halt.
Thirdly, I am afraid that we cannot ignore the punitive rollback of refugee rights baked into this agenda. For years, community sponsorship granted refugees immediate indefinite leave to remain, giving them the certainty needed to rebuild their lives and contribute. Now, the Government have reduced that to a precarious five-year route to permanent settlement, while slashing domestic asylum protections into 30-month temporary visas and threatening 20-year delays on settlement.
Fourthly, there is a serious danger that, by shifting the bulk of resettlement to named, study and employer routes, we risk abandoning the most vulnerable. Resettlement must never become a corporate recruitment fair or an elite academic exercise. We cannot ignore the disabled, the elderly or those who lack language skills and overseas connections—those whom the UNHCR identifies as facing immediate peril.
We want this sponsorship scheme to work. We want British communities empowered to open their arms. But a genuine safe route cannot be treated as an afterthought or a cheap PR shield to justify harsher enforcement. If the Government genuinely want to offer sanctuary, they must meet the four tests and the four queries that we set out earlier. As our immigration moves towards net zero with those coming in and those leaving, we need to be absolutely certain that we are giving people the compassionate best we can. We as a country are at our best when we are open, generous and fair. Let us not build a scheme of token numbers and shifting burdens; let us build a system that is controlled, compassionate and truly fit for purpose.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for securing this debate. The right reverend Prelate asked what assessment the Government have made of the number of refugees who will be settled annually through community sponsorship. The honest answer so far, from what I can see, is that we do not know. In response to a Written Question that I asked on 5 October, the Minister said:
“The Government expects the total arrivals across the UKRS and the three new community sponsorship routes to number in the low hundreds at first”.
It is the words “at first” that concern me. What timeframe does that cover? Is it a few hundred people in the first year or the first three years? How many people do the Government believe will be able to come to Britain after this undefined initial phase? Do the Government even know how many people they want to bring into the country under these new schemes? The Minister must tell noble Lords how the cap will be set and by whom, whether Parliament will have a say, and what happens if the cap is exceeded. He must also say whether numbers will sit alongside a commitment to reduce overall migration.
Furthermore, in that same Answer, the Minister said:
“The Home Office works closely with the local authorities that volunteer to participate in the UKRS”.
Can I take that to mean that local authorities will have to house these refugees only if they volunteer to do so? If so, can the Minister rule out any local authority being forced to house refugees who enter the country under one of the new schemes if they do not wish to do so, or will we see a repeat of the current situation whereby local authorities have no say over where asylum seekers are housed?
The context matters. We are told that this scheme depends on illegal migration falling, so let us look at where it stands. More than 41,000 people crossed the channel in small boats in 2025. In the 12 months to June this year, around 33,000 did so. The Government point to a fall, and they are right that the number has fallen. However, 33,000 people in a year arriving in dinghies, in defiance of our laws and at the mercy of criminal gangs, is not a problem solved. The Government’s answer to this is to reopen the resettlement scheme, but to open the front door while the back door is still being forced open sends exactly the wrong signal to the people smugglers, the illegal migrants and, indeed, the British people.
What of the cost? The National Audit Office has estimated the cost of asylum accommodation at £15.3 billion over 10 years. Even after recent reductions, around 16,000 asylum seekers remain in hotels, and many thousands more are in other Home Office accommodation. Every one of those places is paid for by the taxpayer. The Government propose additional intakes and say that the sponsors will carry some of the burden. Can the Minister tell us what the total Treasury cost will be? What funding will be given to local authorities for school places, GP registrations and housing when a sponsorship arrangement falls through?
The Government’s policy of dispersing asylum seekers across the country has placed enormous pressure on small towns and rural communities that never asked to be at the centre of a national problem. Residents in places with one GP surgery and one primary school have found hundreds of newcomers placed among them with little warning and even less consultation. Local councillors and police have told us how hard it is to preserve cohesion in those circumstances. Whatever one thinks of the policy, those communities have a right to be heard. The Government are now asking those same communities to take on a further burden through sponsorship, and they are doing so before they have shown that they can manage the problem they already have.
Under these proposals, charities and non-profit organisations will be able to apply to become sponsors, and approved groups will be able to choose the refugees they support and take responsibility for their housing, integration and employment. That is a significant degree of trust to place in an organisation. Let me be plain: there have been a number of cases over many years of charities, mosques and NGOs that have hosted extremist speakers or whose trustees or associates have held views hostile to our way of life. The Charity Commission has opened statutory inquiries into such cases, and we have a duty to ask whether an organisation of that kind could become an approved sponsor with direct responsibility for vulnerable people who may depend on it for their housing, income and daily lives. This is even more important given that we know that the Iranian regime has been sending operatives to Britain on small boats. What is to say that they will not attempt to do so through the community sponsorship routes?
So I have a few specific questions to the Minister. Will every applicant be vetted against Charity Commission records and Security Service advice? Will trustees and key personnel be checked? Will there be ongoing monitoring, and will approval be withdrawn swiftly if concerns arise? Will the Government ensure that no sponsor, of any faith or none, is able to exploit a position of influence over refugees, whether to radicalise, to coerce or to profit?
We need a real assessment of the numbers involved in these schemes. We need a full costing of the policy, including the burden on local authorities. We need proof that the small boat crisis is under control before the legal routes expand. We need a commitment that communities will be consulted, not simply informed, and we need a rigorous, transparent vetting regime for sponsors. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate for initiating this timely debate. Let me reassure her that the Written Ministerial Statement announcing two of the three new safe and legal routes was laid about an hour and a half ago, and I am hoping that, as I speak, it will be published, so it is extremely timely. Two of the three safe and legal routes will have applications open to become lead sponsors: the named community sponsorship and the refugee study routes. This is an important step demonstrating the UK’s commitment, as noble Lords have said, to playing a part in the international protection system.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, has heard me make the point in earlier debates, but the Home Secretary said in her conference speech this year that our purpose
“is to create that fairness. In our immigration system … And, in doing so, to hold this country together. At a time when others seek to divide us”.
In the Restoring Order and Control statement of November 2025, the Home Secretary announced the development of three new safe and legal routes to offer sanctuary to those genuinely fleeing war and persecution: a named community sponsorship route, a refugee study route and a refugee work route. These new routes will operate under a lead sponsor framework. UK-based charities and non-profits will be accredited as lead sponsors, supporting community groups, universities and employers to sponsor refugees.
These sponsors will identify refugees they wish to sponsor. Accredited lead sponsors will then refer cases to the Home Office for consideration. Individuals will not be able to apply directly. The UNHCR will confirm that individuals are refugees before they travel to the United Kingdom. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that all individuals will be subject to the necessary security and identity checks by the UK Government. Arrivals under the named community sponsorship and refugee study routes are expected from autumn 2027 onwards. The refugee work route is expected to open in spring 2027, with the first arrivals to follow later that year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and a couple of other noble Lords raised the question of eligibility in the application process. The guidance for lead sponsors has been published and will be available to noble Lords. The lead sponsorship framework draws on proven international experience. My noble friend Lord Khan and the right reverend Prelate referred to the Canadian experience and the figures of that scheme. The Government have worked with a range of stakeholders, including the Canadian and Australian Governments, to develop the new routes. Lead sponsors will support sponsors, enabling successful integration of arrivals and intervening where difficulties arise. Sponsors will be responsible for accommodation and integration support, helping refugees to work towards self-sufficiency. The model will lessen the burden on local authorities and ensure that routes do not strain local services.
The right reverend Prelate raised an important question about support for sponsors. The Home Office today published guidance outlining roles and responsibilities, and will ensure that there is appropriate training and support. The Home Office will also look to build a lead sponsor network to share knowledge and best practice. On anticipated numbers, as noble Lords have said, the Government expect the new routes to number in the hundreds at first, growing into the low thousands as levels of illegal migration fall. A cap will be set annually, based on the capacity and willingness of communities to welcome refugees. Participation is voluntary and arrival numbers will depend on sponsor demand and capacity.
Questions were raised, particularly by the right reverend Prelate, about that capacity. In contrast to previous resettlement schemes, the new routes are community led, meaning that communities will be able to determine who they support. We have worked with local authorities throughout the development of the new routes to ensure that local authority feedback is incorporated into the new routes.
The right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Khan asked how we build societal infrastructure. The Government are committed to supporting community groups, universities and employers to play an active role in refugee sponsorship. As the new routes are implemented, we will continue to work closely with stakeholders, including through appropriate training and support. As I said, we will look to develop a lead sponsorship network to share knowledge and good practice. I assure the right reverend Prelate that the Government will put in place training to deliver the lead sponsor role.
I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, who is an example to us all. I wish we could all play the role that she has played. The United Kingdom is absolutely united, and the Government of the United Kingdom are determined and steadfast in their commitment to Ukraine and its people. What she described was incredibly moving. The Homes for Ukraine scheme has evolved from an initial emergency response into a more established programme. Nobody expected this war to continue for as long as it has. That is why the Government are making changes to funding to ensure that the scheme remains sustainable for much longer than we had originally thought, so that we can continue to support those fleeing the war in Ukraine.
The Homes for Ukraine per person tariff will decrease from £5,900 to £3,300 for claims made after 1 January 2027 to ensure that this funding remains affordable. Thank you payments will be reimbursed at £100 per month per household, again reflecting a sustainable level of support while continuing to recognise the generosity of sponsors and hosts. I know that will not satisfy the noble Baroness, but I believe we have to show that we are totally committed to Ukraine and the people of Ukraine.
I will just pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and others. As part of the fundamental change to the UK’s protection offer, the annual cap will be set following engagement with local authorities, mayors, and other partners, and existing community sponsor groups. The methodology will consider community capacity—that is an important part of this scheme—and, of course, sponsors’ willingness to support integration.
I could respond to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and talk about the boats. Our programme on immigration is to ensure fairness. We have recently ensured a reduction in the boat people, not just by the arrests of the gangs that are doing it, although that is really important, but by our collaboration with France, which is also ensuring results. As I think noble Lords have said, we are absolutely committed to retaining the values that the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, referred to. We are a country that has acknowledged the need of refugees to come to this country, and we are proud of it. Many people in this Chamber are descendants of refugees, and we should not forget that.
Throughout our history we have offered sanctuary to those in genuine need of protection. The new routes will ensure we continue to do so, drawing on the generosity, expertise and commitment of communities across the country while maintaining public confidence in the immigration system—that is really important. I hope my answers have resolved the points raised. If I have not addressed a specific point, I am sure we will be able to write to noble Lords and cover it.