A House of Commons Library research briefing published on 23 October 2025 shows that the UK spent £2.8 billion—around 20 % of its total aid allocation—on supporting refugees and asylum-seekers inside the UK in 2024. ‘In-donor refugee costs’ have therefore fallen from a peak of 29 % in 2022 but remain triple the 2016 level. Most spending is channelled through the Home Office to fund hotel accommodation, case-work and integration programmes for arrivals from Afghanistan, Ukraine and irregular Channel crossings.
The paper details how the sharp rise has squeezed overseas development budgets since the headline aid-to-GNI ratio was cut to 0.5 % in 2021 and is scheduled to drop to 0.3 % by 2027. International Development Committee chair Sarah Champion MP criticised the government for not ring-fencing funds for overseas projects, while refugee-rights NGOs fear domestic support may itself be curtailed as ministers search for savings.
For multinational employers and relocation providers the figures underscore continued political pressure to reduce asylum-processing costs—likely reinforcing the Home Office’s push for rapid case-resolution and expanded dispersal accommodation. Corporate sponsors hosting Ukrainian or Afghan evacuees should watch for tighter eligibility rules or reduced grant funding over the coming spending reviews.
The briefing also compares the UK’s approach with other OECD donors: several, including Australia and Belgium, fund refugee costs outside their aid budgets, meaning Britain’s overseas aid cuts have been proportionally deeper. The issue is expected to surface during autumn debate on the International Development (Official Development Assistance) Bill.
The paper details how the sharp rise has squeezed overseas development budgets since the headline aid-to-GNI ratio was cut to 0.5 % in 2021 and is scheduled to drop to 0.3 % by 2027. International Development Committee chair Sarah Champion MP criticised the government for not ring-fencing funds for overseas projects, while refugee-rights NGOs fear domestic support may itself be curtailed as ministers search for savings.
For multinational employers and relocation providers the figures underscore continued political pressure to reduce asylum-processing costs—likely reinforcing the Home Office’s push for rapid case-resolution and expanded dispersal accommodation. Corporate sponsors hosting Ukrainian or Afghan evacuees should watch for tighter eligibility rules or reduced grant funding over the coming spending reviews.
The briefing also compares the UK’s approach with other OECD donors: several, including Australia and Belgium, fund refugee costs outside their aid budgets, meaning Britain’s overseas aid cuts have been proportionally deeper. The issue is expected to surface during autumn debate on the International Development (Official Development Assistance) Bill.
