The problems with the Homes for Ukraine scheme
Critics have raised concerns over the government’s eventual solution to the refugee crisis

“Better late than never,” said John Ashmore on CapX. After taking “pelters from all sides” for its “grudging” response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis, the Government finally unveiled a plan this week to house people fleeing Russia’s war.
Under a scheme dubbed “Homes for Ukraine”, Ukrainians who have a sponsor in the UK can immediately apply for a visa; others will later be matched to British residents who have registered their interest in hosting a refugee. Would-be hosts will be vetted, and identity checks completed on refugees to allay security concerns. As a “thank you” from the Government, households that take someone in will receive £350 a month; and local authorities will get £10,500 extra funding per refugee for services such as mental health support and education.
There is no cap on numbers – and within two days of the scheme’s launch, 122,000 people had already offered help, said Emma Yeomans in The Times. Among the first to be housed were Niyara Mamontova and her seven-year-old daughter Eleanora who, after fleeing Kharkiv and asking for help on Facebook, were sponsored by a family in Hampshire. “It was amazing,” said Mamontova of her online appeal. “So many people were there to help.”
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The generosity shown by the British people stands in stark contrast to the “shameful” nature of their government’s early response to this crisis, said Ian Birrell in The i Paper. Three million people have been made refugees by Putin’s atrocities in just three weeks. Yet while other European countries immediately went to great lengths to help, the UK resorted to “bureaucratic trickery” to evade responsibility. “The Government demanded biometric tests, documents, visas and visits to application centres that turned out not to be open” – anything, it seemed, to “tangle up” applications from people fleeing Vladimir Putin’s bombs. The Government’s hardhearted and inept response was badly out of step with the public mood, said The Economist. “Incredulous Tory backbenchers called [it] ‘robotic’, but that is unfair on robots, which are at least efficient.”
Even the Government’s eventual solution isn’t problem-free said, Emily Carver on Conservative Home. Critics have raised concerns over the strength of safety checks on prospective hosts, and asked what happens at the end of the six months. However, it could yet prove a “pretty good balance” between a “completely open-door policy that relies entirely on the state, and one that pulls up the drawbridge”. Either way, this should be the crisis that “jolts the Home Office into a better way of handling asylum”, said Fraser Nelson in The Daily Telegraph.
For too long, ministers have tried to deter asylum seekers from coming to Britain by housing them in “decaying” hotels at the taxpayers’ expense, and forbidding them from working while their claims are considered – a process that can take months or even years. But as the Channel migrant crisis shows, that “deterrent” isn’t working. And with 1.3 million vacancies in the economy, would it really be so bad to let more refugees work when they get here?
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
AI hallucinations are getting worse
In the Spotlight And no one knows why it is happening
-
Social media: How ‘content’ replaced friendship
Feature Facebook has shifted from connecting with friends to competing with entertainment companies
-
The Alien Enemies Act
Feature President Trump is using a long-dormant law to deport Venezuelans. How does it work?
-
Ukraine-Russia: is peace deal possible after Easter truce?
Today's Big Question 'Decisive week' will tell if Putin's surprise move was cynical PR stunt or genuine step towards ending war
-
The state of Britain's Armed Forces
The Explainer Geopolitical unrest and the unreliability of the Trump administration have led to a frantic re-evaluation of the UK's military capabilities
-
What's behind Russia's biggest conscription drive in years?
Today's Big Question Putin calls up 160,000 men, sending a threatening message to Ukraine and Baltic states
-
Is the 'coalition of the willing' going to work?
Today's Big Question PM's proposal for UK/French-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine provokes 'hostility' in Moscow and 'derision' in Washington
-
Russia's spies: skulduggery in Great Yarmouth
In the Spotlight 'Amateurish' spy ring in Norfolk seaside town exposes the decline of Russian intelligence
-
Can Ukraine make peace with Trump in Saudi Arabia?
Talking Point Zelenskyy and his team must somehow navigate the gap between US president's 'demands and threats'
-
Ukraine: where do Trump's loyalties really lie?
Today's Big Question 'Extraordinary pivot' by US president – driven by personal, ideological and strategic factors – has 'upended decades of hawkish foreign policy toward Russia'
-
Is Europe's defence too reliant on the US?
Today's Big Question As the UK and EU plan to 're-arm', how easy will it be to disentangle from US equipment and support?