Show the Working

End the hostile environment and create safe routes to sanctuary

Green · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Green’s policy “End the hostile environment and create safe routes to sanctuary” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Personal liberty & free speech — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy rolls back several coercive state mechanisms — mandatory surveillance of landlords, banks and employers, work bans, and income-based bars on family reunion — all of which restrict personal liberty. The main caveat is that some measures rely on soft commitments ('establish safe routes', 'fast and fair') with no specified statutory instrument, limiting certainty about delivery.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether 'fast and fair asylum processes' is delivered via a concrete statutory mechanism or remains aspirational — if the latter, the liberty gain from reduced detention and uncertainty may not materialise.

Our reading: O10 is the home for freedom from state coercion, surveillance, and mandates. This policy directly targets three coercive mechanisms. First, the hostile environment (E1) requires private actors — landlords, banks, the NHS — to act as state surveillance proxies, extending state coercion into everyday civic life. Ending it withdraws that coercive apparatus. Second, the minimum income requirement (E17) bars around half of British citizens from exercising the basic freedom to live with a foreign spouse — a state restriction on personal and family autonomy. Removing it expands liberty for those affected. Third, the work ban (E30) is an explicit state prohibition on a lawful activity, which also creates conditions for exploitation (E37). Lifting it removes a coercive restriction. The NRPF abolition is primarily an economic/welfare measure (O2, O14) but it also reduces the coercive lever the state holds over people with uncertain immigration status, slightly reinforcing the O10 gain. The magnitude is moderate rather than major: these are real, documented coercive mechanisms (not aspirational), but they affect a defined sub-population rather than the general public. The hostile environment also affects UK citizens wrongly caught in it (E3, E4), widening the liberty effect somewhat. The 'safe routes' and 'fast and fair processes' commitments are softer-verb and lack specified instruments, so no additional liberty credit is awarded for those elements. On balance, the evidence supports a genuine improvement in O10 through withdrawal of concrete coercive state mechanisms.

Public finances & the next generation — Genuinely contested

n/a · low confidence

This policy has several moving parts — some add welfare spending, others could generate tax revenue and cut processing costs — but the projections are wide-ranging and contested, so no confident net fiscal verdict is possible. Whether the bill falls or rises for the next generation depends heavily on scale of uptake and economic integration rates that cannot be pinned down from the evidence provided.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether projected fiscal gains from permitting asylum seekers to work (and reduced local-authority NRPF support costs) are large enough to outweigh the increase in central-government welfare expenditure from abolishing NRPF — the estimates span a very wide range.

Our reading: This policy bundles at least three distinct fiscal instruments: abolishing NRPF, ending minimum income thresholds for spousal visas, and granting asylum seekers permission to work alongside faster processing. On NRPF: the LSE analysis (E10, E11) shows a classic cost-transfer dynamic. Central government bears higher welfare spending (£1.9bn/10yr) while local authorities and third-sector services save (net LSE estimate: +£872m/10yr). The sign of the net central-government effect is therefore negative, but partially or fully offset by wider fiscal and NHS savings — the LSE says costs 'could be offset' (E11), not that they are definitively offset. This is a genuine projection dispute, not a settled figure. On work permission: the NIESR projection (E33) is very large — £6.7bn annual expenditure reduction — and would dominate the fiscal picture if realised. However, it depends on employment rates, wage levels, and integration trajectories that are model assumptions, not observed outcomes. The Lift the Ban coalition estimate (E32, via ukandeu.ac.uk) is more modest at £280m, illustrating how sensitive results are to assumptions. On safe routes and faster processing: E25 (Home Office) shows a genuine and large per-person cost saving versus offshore processing. If the policy increases the volume of in-UK-processed claims, this mechanism is fiscally positive — but scale is unknown. The range from most pessimistic (NRPF cost outweighs gains) to most optimistic (NIESR work-permission savings dominate) is wide enough that no honest verdict is possible. The crux is whether employment integration at scale materialises as projected. No provided evidence independently validates the NIESR annual figures against comparable real-world reforms. Direction is genuinely too-uncertain.

Inequality & fair shares — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

Abolishing the No Recourse to Public Funds condition and ending the minimum income requirement for spousal visas would mainly benefit lower-income households and people already in poverty, narrowing the gap between richest and poorest. The main caveat is that the scale depends on how many households actually gain access to support and work.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether abolishing NRPF would be accompanied by adequate benefit and housing system capacity to absorb demand, and whether asylum seekers with permission to work can actually find jobs at scale.

Our reading: This policy's core distributional effect is to extend material resources — welfare benefits, housing assistance, family reunion rights, and the right to work — to people who are demonstrably among the poorest and most economically vulnerable in the UK. The evidence shows NRPF-affected households face destitution rates far above the general population (E7, E8), and that NRPF specifically harms women, children, and those in abusive relationships (E14). Abolishing it therefore lifts people at the bottom of the income distribution — narrowing the gap relative to the rest. The minimum income spousal requirement similarly concentrates its burden on lower earners, women, younger people, and those outside high-wage regions (E18); removing it benefits precisely those groups. Both measures thus improve the income and wealth distribution by extending protections and opportunities to people currently excluded from them. Permission to work for asylum seekers addresses a further inequality: the existing work ban causes economic scarring and deskilling (E34), leaving people worse off in the long run even after status is granted. Granting early work rights would reduce this scarring, improving eventual earnings trajectories for a group concentrated at the bottom of the distribution. The projected LSE net-gain figure (E10) suggests the fiscal cost is manageable and may even be offset, but this is contested (E11) and does not drive the inequality verdict. The distributional direction is clear: the gains go predominantly to low-income, marginalised households; the costs (higher welfare expenditure) fall on general taxation which is broadly progressive. Confidence is moderate rather than high because the magnitude of inequality reduction depends on uptake, administrative implementation, and labour market conditions that are uncertain.

Community cohesion & belonging — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

Ending the hostile environment, allowing asylum seekers to work, and reuniting families would likely reduce discrimination, loneliness, and inter-group harm — improving social trust and belonging for migrants and some British citizens alike. The size of the effect is uncertain because integration outcomes depend heavily on implementation quality and wider community reception.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether fast and fair asylum processing can be delivered at scale without the accuracy problems associated with accelerated procedures, which would affect how many people actually gain stable status and integrate.

Our reading: O15 asks whether people feel part of a community they can trust and belong to, weighing social trust, inter-group relations, loneliness, and integration. This policy touches several of those indicators. On inter-group relations and social trust: the hostile environment has measurably generated discrimination against UK-born citizens (E3) and damaged the mental health of Black Caribbean communities through the Windrush effect (E4). Removing these document-check obligations on landlords, banks, and employers would reduce the structural pressure for everyday discrimination that erodes inter-group trust — a direct O15 benefit. On family reunification and belonging: the minimum income threshold currently bars roughly half of British citizens from living with a foreign spouse (E17), with the burden falling hardest on lower-income, younger, and regional cohorts (E18). Ending that requirement removes a policy that actively fragments families and reduces belonging for British citizens — a clear O15 improvement. On integration of asylum seekers: the work ban measurably produces loneliness, loss of self-esteem, and depression (E35) and impedes long-term integration even after status is granted (E34). Permission to work would promote integration and belonging (E36), improving O15 indicators for this group. The main caveat is mechanism delivery. Fast and fair asylum processing could, if poorly designed, replicate the accuracy failures of past accelerated systems (E28, E29), leaving people in prolonged limbo rather than stable integration. That risk is real but is not specific enough — and not sufficiently supported by evidence of likely failure under this policy — to flip the direction. The weight of cited evidence supports improvement across multiple O15 indicators. Confidence is moderate rather than high because projected integration gains depend on implementation quality not specified in the policy text.

Cost of living — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy would most directly help people currently trapped by the No Recourse to Public Funds condition and minimum income rules, who face serious financial hardship today. The biggest uncertainty is the overall fiscal cost and whether wider public services can absorb increased demand.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether increased central government welfare spending (estimated at up to £1.9 billion over ten years) would be offset by tax revenues and reduced local authority costs, or would squeeze budgets affecting other households.

Our reading: The clearest and most direct cost-of-living effect is on the households currently subject to NRPF and the minimum income requirement. The measurable baseline is stark: over four-fifths of NRPF households are behind on bills, and roughly half of British citizens cannot currently sponsor a foreign spouse under the £29,000 threshold. Abolishing NRPF would give these households access to mainstream welfare benefits and housing assistance, directly improving their ability to afford essentials — the core of O2. The minimum income removal would allow families currently separated or forced into financial strain to pool incomes and reduce costs. The permission-to-work element for asylum seekers would reduce their reliance on low government support payments, reduce destitution, and — per multiple projections — generate net fiscal benefits that could ease pressure on public budgets over time. The main cost-of-living risk is fiscal: central government welfare spending could rise by up to £1.9 billion over ten years. However, the LSE modelling projects net gains at the system level, and the NRPF measurable baseline shows the current costs (to local authorities, third-sector, and the individuals themselves) are already large. The balance of cited evidence leans toward net improvement in cost-of-living for affected groups, with manageable (and possibly positive) aggregate fiscal effects. The verdict is 'improves' at moderate magnitude because the gains are real but concentrated on specific groups rather than the general population, and the projected fiscal offsets remain contested.

Good work & fair pay — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy would let asylum seekers work, remove barriers that trap low-income families in poverty, and end rules that stop British citizens on modest wages from bringing their spouses to the UK — all of which improve pay security and job access for affected workers. The main caveat is that the scale of benefit depends on how quickly and fairly the new asylum system operates in practice.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether a 'fast and fair' asylum process can actually be delivered without the accuracy problems that have plagued accelerated systems historically, which would determine how many people genuinely gain work rights and when.

Our reading: Three distinct mechanisms in this policy bear directly on O4 — pay security, job access, and in-work poverty. First, abolishing NRPF removes a condition that measurably traps workers in severe financial insecurity: 81% behind on bills, 60% behind on rent, with over 200,000 households at destitution risk. These are not marginal effects; they represent a systematic bar on the safety net that makes low-paid work viable. Ending NRPF lets workers accept lower-paid or irregular work without facing destitution if it falls through. Second, ending the minimum income requirement for spousal visas directly improves labour market participation. The £29,000 threshold — above median earnings in many regions — currently bars roughly half of British citizens from bringing a spouse to the UK. This disproportionately affects lower earners, women, and workers outside the South East, meaning it penalises exactly the workers O4 is most concerned about. Removing it expands the effective workforce and removes a structural penalty on lower-wage employment. Third, granting asylum seekers permission to work from the outset addresses both exploitation risk and economic scarring. The current 12-month ban with occupation restrictions forces people into destitution and documented exploitation, and causes lasting de-skilling. Multiple projections (NIESR, Mental Health Foundation, Lift the Ban coalition) point to significant fiscal and economic gains from lifting the ban, and research consistently finds little evidence of a pull-factor effect from work access. The main risks are on implementation: accelerated processing has a documented history of inaccuracy, and the quality of outcomes depends heavily on whether 'fast and fair' is genuinely achieved. But these risks bear more on rights outcomes than on the O4 direction. The evidence on employment insecurity, exploitation, and pay security all point in the same direction: this policy improves conditions for affected workers. Confidence is moderate because the magnitude of improvement depends on implementation quality and on contested fiscal projections.

Crime, justice & national security — Helps

minor · low confidence

The policy could reduce exploitation and illegal activity by giving asylum seekers the right to work and creating safer legal routes, and fairer asylum processes address a known justice flaw. But the scale of the safety benefit is uncertain and the evidence is mostly indirect.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether expanded safe routes materially reduce irregular crossings and associated criminality and exploitation at scale, or whether other pull and push factors dominate.

Our reading: O5 is concerned with safety, order, justice, and security. This policy touches three relevant mechanisms. First, on exploitation and modern slavery: the evidence shows that denying work rights pushes vulnerable asylum seekers into exploitative situations, and that granting work rights alongside secure reporting mechanisms is identified as a key anti-exploitation tool. This is a genuine O5 improvement if the mechanism fires. Second, on safe and legal routes: the Institute for Government argument — that safe routes reduce reliance on unsafe, unlawful, and uncontrolled crossings — points toward reduced irregular migration, which intersects with border security and associated criminality. Third, on justice system quality: the historical Detained Fast Track was found structurally unfair and unlawful by the Court of Appeal; a policy committed to 'fast and fair' processes directly addresses a documented justice system failure. Counterfactually, absent the policy, exploitation of work-banned asylum seekers and reliance on dangerous irregular routes would continue at current levels. The concern that safe routes or work rights act as pull factors drawing more arrivals — which could stress security infrastructure — is addressed by the cited evidence showing little empirical support for the pull-factor claim. The magnitude is minor because the direct crime-rate and national security effects are secondary and indirect; the core evidence is about exploitation and justice process quality, not street-level crime or defence posture. Confidence is low because most of the evidence about safe routes reducing irregular migration is projected/advocacy-adjacent and the scale effects remain undemonstrated at policy level.

Equal treatment & democratic rights — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy would remove several rules that research links to wrongful denial of services, discrimination against minorities, and barriers to due process for asylum seekers and migrants — real gains for equal treatment. The main caveat is that some elements (like 'fast and fair' asylum processes) are aspirational with no committed mechanism, so the full improvement depends heavily on implementation.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether 'fast and fair' asylum processes are delivered in practice, given historical evidence that accelerated procedures can be structurally unfair and inaccurate.

Our reading: On equal treatment and due process, this policy addresses several documented harms. The hostile environment creates a system where private actors (landlords, banks, employers, the NHS) act as immigration enforcers, and evidence shows this causes wrongful denial of services to people with legal status — a direct equal-treatment failure. The Windrush scandal is the clearest case: UK-born Black Caribbean citizens suffered documented discrimination and mental health harm as a result. Ending this system removes a structural source of racially disparate treatment. The minimum income requirement for spousal visas operates as a demographic filter: it disproportionately excludes lower earners, women, those outside the South East, and young people from exercising family reunion rights that wealthier citizens enjoy without restriction. With the threshold at £29,000, the Migration Observatory found roughly half of British citizens are effectively excluded. Ending this removes a facially unequal restriction on a legal right. For asylum seekers, the work ban and NRPF condition constrain due process and dignified participation in society pending a decision. The 12-month work ban, restricted to a narrow job list, is a significant procedural constraint with no equal-treatment justification rooted in the cited evidence. The main uncertainty is the 'fast and fair' asylum process commitment. Historical evidence from the Detained Fast Track — found structurally unfair and unlawful — shows that speed and fairness can conflict. Expert analysis also flags that accelerated procedures correlate with inaccurate decisions. If speed is prioritised over procedural rigour, the due-process gains could be partially offset. This is a genuine implementation risk, but it does not undermine the equal-treatment gains from the other commitments, which are more specific and less contingent on execution quality. On balance, the evidence supports a moderate improvement on O9: multiple documented equal-treatment harms are directly addressed by committed policy instruments (abolishing NRPF, ending the income threshold, ending hostile environment checks), with the asylum process element introducing meaningful uncertainty.

Immigration & border control — Moves toward more openness

We don’t call this better or worse — that’s your call; we only show which way the policy moves it.

major · moderate confidence

This policy moves immigration and border control in a more open direction by removing restrictions on family reunion, expanding asylum routes, and easing conditions on those already in the UK. Whether that direction is desirable is a question of values, not evidence.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether establishing safe routes would reduce or increase total asylum arrivals — evidence on pull factors is contested, and actual net migration effect depends heavily on how 'safe routes' are designed and capacity-limited.

Our reading: Each main element of the policy loosens an existing restriction: ending the hostile environment removes enforcement obligations on landlords, employers, banks and the NHS; abolishing NRPF extends public fund access to a previously excluded group; removing the minimum income requirement widens eligibility for family reunion visas; establishing safe routes and permitting asylum seekers to work earlier all expand access. Individually and together, these moves reduce barriers to entry and residence, pointing clearly toward a more open position on the axis. The net migration effect is likely upward — more family members eligible to join, more asylum routes available — but magnitude is uncertain because safe routes could substitute for (rather than add to) irregular arrivals, and processing speed affects stock as well as flow.

Compare all parties on personal liberty & free speech →Compare all parties on public finances & the next generation →Compare all parties on inequality & fair shares →Compare all parties on community cohesion & belonging →Compare all parties on cost of living →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Compare all parties on crime, justice & national security →Compare all parties on equal treatment & democratic rights →Compare all parties on immigration & border control →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home