UNESCO Chair on Refugee Integration through Education, Language and Arts

The UK Government’s proposed ‘earned settlement’ reforms are framed as a means of restoring public confidence in the immigration system. In substance, they reconfigure protection as a conditional privilege. The right to seek asylum is no longer treated as a binding legal obligation, but as something to be delayed, rationed and ultimately deserved. What is presented as administrative reform is, in effect, a shift by the state from guarantor of rights to gatekeeper of worth, measuring human dignity in compliance points rather than in law.

For people seeking refuge, this represents a further shift away from protection and towards punishment. The proposals stand in direct contradiction to international law, UNHCR guidance and Scotland’s New Scots Integration Strategy. UNHCR, the body mandated to supervise the Refugee Convention, is unequivocal: ‘Refugees are not migrants. They are people fleeing conflict, instability and human rights abuses – circumstances no one would willingly choose’ (para. 7). Despite this clarity, the proposals subject refugees to criteria designed for economic migration. This is not a technical oversight but a substantive mischaracterisation of refugee status. Under the 1951 Refugee Convention, refugees constitute a distinct legal category. Their entitlement to protection derives from necessity, not productivity.

One of the most concerning proposals requires refugees to wait up to twenty years before becoming eligible for settlement. UNHCR warns that this breaches Article 34 of the Convention, which obliges states to facilitate naturalisation and expedite proceedings (see para. 22). Rather than facilitating stability, the reforms institutionalise delay. This is compounded by proposals to grant only thirty months’ leave at a time, subjecting refugees to repeated reassessment and prolonged uncertainty. UNHCR is clear that refugee status should not be subject to ‘constant review’ (para. 15). Temporary protection undermines housing security, employment prospects, language acquisition and long term integration outcomes. Precarity is not incidental to these proposals. It is structurally embedded.

The proposals further seek to penalise people seeking asylum based on their mode of arrival, including small boat crossings and visa overstays. Article 31 of the Refugee Convention explicitly prohibits such penalties. As UNHCR states, ‘There is no “right way”’ to seek asylum (para. 60). In the absence of safe legal routes to claim asylum in the UK, these measures punish people seeking refuge for circumstances over which they have no meaningful control. This constitutes another breach of international law.

The introduction of differentiated protection statuses, including ‘core protection’ and ‘work and study’ routes, creates a two tier system of rights. UNHCR has stated that such distinctions have no basis in international human rights law and risk violating the principle of non-discrimination. Restrictions on family reunion compound this harm. As UNHCR warns, limiting family reunion will force women and children into dangerous journeys and have serious negative impacts on children’s wellbeing (see para. 29). Under these proposed changes, separation and trauma are not unintended consequences but foreseeable outcomes of policy design.

Proposals to link accelerated settlement to taxable income further commodify protection. Access to security becomes contingent on economic productivity. This disproportionately disadvantages women, carers, disabled refugees, survivors of trafficking and those employed in low paid but essential work. These measures reflect a broader policy logic in which precarity is normalised and stability selectively granted.

The UNESCO’s RIELA, in alignment with UNHCR, has been unequivocal that settlement must not be contingent on income. Refugee protection is required because displaced people lack the protection of a state, not because of their capacity to generate revenue. In Scotland, the proposed reforms directly undermine the New Scots Integration Strategy, which is premised on safety, stability and belonging. Rather than supporting integration, the reforms entrench uncertainty and division among people seeking refuge.

The UNESCO RIELA continues to emphasise that effective integration requires a sustained, evidence based, multilateral and trauma sensitive approach involving both arriving and receiving communities. This framework is reflected in the New Scots Refugee Integration Policy and further developed in Aldegheri, Fisher and Phipps’s 2025 Handbook of Integration with Refugees, published by Multilingual Matters and available open access.

First published: 27 January 2026

<< Statements