18 February – 4 March 2025
As Starmer increases spending on defence, asylum seekers have once again emerged as pawns in a spending review that will ultimately pit asylum seekers against the poorest in the Global South.
On 25 February, as our calendar of racism and resistance records, the overseas aid budget was slashed by almost half to 0.3 percent of GDP, representing £6 billion, to fund a rise in defence spending, following demands from Donald Trump, and his own freezing of US aid. The cut, which reduces aid to the lowest level in a generation, has provoked anger in parliament, and led to the resignation of international development minister Anneliese Dodds. It’s hard to argue with aid agencies, who say it is likely to cost hundreds of thousands of lives, particularly as much of it goes on vaccination programmes and on emergency humanitarian assistance. Global Justice Now has launched a petition demanding a reversal of the cut, and funding of defence through a wealth tax.
But it isn’t only those living in the Global South who will suffer.
The prime minister has said that he hopes to be able to make savings by reducing the costs of support for asylum seekers. In 2023/24, this support – permitted under international aid rules for the first year after their arrival – took £4.7 billion of the aid budget, or 28 percent, of which the Home Office took £3 billion for asylum hotel accommodation, with the rest going on education, health, housing and social benefits. While asylum accommodation is extremely costly – the National Audit Office said that in 2023/24 it cost £41,000 per person, up from £17,000 in 2019/20, largely because of the reliance on hotels – reported conditions remain cramped, unhealthy and unsafe. Most of the money goes into the pockets of the big companies with the contracts: Mitie, Serco, Clearsprings – whose owner, dubbed the ‘Asylum King’, made the rich list last year with a £750 million fortune. But it’s hard to see how costs can be cut unless the number of asylum seekers goes down, since per-person amounts paid to the contractors are fixed under ten-year contracts. What is clear is that asylum seekers will bear the brunt of any cuts to support costs – perhaps through slashed support, education and health entitlements, or government deals to reduce the amount paid per person.
The government is playing a dangerous game. For if asylum support costs are not cut, their proportion of the reduced aid budget will inevitably rise, which will provide ammunition to the far Right to seize on as yet another stick to beat asylum seekers with. In fact, they are doing so already, with GB News predicting that asylum support will take almost half of the reduced aid budget.
‘Downing Street insiders’ have been quoted as saying that cuts for asylum support will go down well with Reform voters. Looking to win back electoral support from Reform by targeting asylum support within an already questionable defence review – one which primarily benefits arms manufacturers – feels like a new low.