The Immigration Health Surcharge: An Unstable Funding Stream? (Nuffield Trust, October 2026)

What happens when a fee charged to migrants ends up propping up the NHS? This briefing argues the surcharge has drifted far from its original purpose, from a modest contribution in 2015 to a fee meant to cover the full cost of care, and in doing so has created two problems. It is unstable: people pay upfront and spend it immediately, so a fall in migration leaves the NHS with people still entitled to care and no income to cover it. It is unfair: the government’s own cost estimate rests on shaky assumptions, and surcharge payers likely contribute far more to the NHS than they use, on top of paying the same taxes as everyone else.

Attitudes to Immigration in Scotland 2026 (Migration Policy Scotland October 2026)

AI Tool Used in Thousands of Asylum Claims Failing Basic Tests (The Independent, October 2026)

What happens when an AI tool is introduced to speed up life-or-death asylum decisions, but the Home Office’s own spot checks show it often gets the facts wrong? This short investigation draws on information the Open Rights Group obtained about the Asylum Case Summarisation tool, which uses GPT-4 to summarise interview transcripts and has been in use since April. Expert checks found that 22 per cent of first-time reviews failed accuracy standards, rising to 54 per cent of second reviews.

Thinking With Care (Between Borders, September 2026)

What does care mean when the state’s approach to migration is designed to be hostile? This 30-minute podcast asks why care has become central to migration research and solidarity work. The discussion traces the “hostile environment” back to its origins in UK immigration policy, then asks how care persists within and pushes back against systems built to exclude and harm. Its key argument is that care is neither innocent nor simply benevolent: it has been entangled in colonial and oppressive histories, and states use it as a tool of control, caring too little in some ways and too much in others that hurt.

Borders to Humanity (KRAN: Stories Without Limits, September 2026)

What does it do to a young person when the state tells them they don’t belong? This 28-minute podcast brings together UCL researchers Rachel Rosen and Malte Gembus, along with co-researchers Kanan and Ariam, to discuss their long-term research with unaccompanied young people subject to NRPF. They describe lives of invisible borders: no education, no housing, no work, and the resulting homelessness and exploitation. They also make an argument about why NRPF persists, as a political scapegoat and a business model, noting that even people working with migrants often don’t know it exists.

Families’ Experiences of Poverty under the UK & Asylum Support System (CCSYC, October 2026)

What does childhood look like when the state decides how much a child needs to live on? This 41-minute episode features Dr Ilona Pinter (LSE) discussing her research with asylum-seeking families, whose parents are barred from working and dependent on Home Office support. Her concept of “differentiated childhood” captures how the asylum system produces unequal childhoods, not through one policy but through the cumulative effect of restrictions on work, support levels and entitlements. As a result, children’s experiences diverge sharply by family status, with effects that follow them into later life.

Migrant Community Leaders | A Conversation on Resilience (Unified Resilience, July 2026)

What does it take for people inside the system to lead the fight? This 65-minute conversation marks Michael Collins’s final day as coordinator of Right to Remain, but migrant organisers with lived experience of detention and the asylum system are at its centre. They describe detention as something the public never hears about, and speaking out as something they had to be supported into, not spoken for. Manono talks about helping others win their papers while her own case remained unresolved; Tanya describes organising through racial attacks and holding vigils for people who died in detention, often without knowing their names. The argument running through it is that storytelling must build power rather than extract pain, and that people seeking safety should lead the campaigns, not supply the testimony.

Is the UK Failing Atheist Asylum Seekers? (Humanists UK, September 2026)

Can you prove you don’t believe something? This 55-minute interview features Dr Lucy Potter (University of York), who discusses three years of research into how the Home Office handles asylum claims from people who have left high-control religions. Her research finds the system poorly equipped for these claims: with no specific Home Office guidance on apostasy, decision-makers fall back on the same tests used for religious converts, demanding visible markers of belief that non-believers cannot supply, quiz questions on ancient philosophers and even whether someone now drinks alcohol or eats pork. Potter argues that non-religious claims have more in common with sexuality-based claims than religious conversion, and that until the Home Office recognises this, people will keep being refused for failing to prove a negative.

Shortage of Legal Aid Solicitors Impacting Women Fleeing Abuse (STV News, October 2026)

What happens when the law offers protection but no one can help you claim it? This 3-minute news report warns that a critical shortage of legal aid solicitors in Scotland is making it harder for women to escape domestic abuse. Civil legal aid is often essential for property, finances, child contact and harassment cases, and especially when a perpetrator weaponises the courts by dragging out proceedings. But block fees make the work uneconomic, and some women report contacting more than 40 solicitors before getting advice. Without representation, women are left to navigate court rules alone or give up entirely, which, campaigners say, can mean the difference between staying with an abuser and leaving.

Oral Evidence: Immigration and Asylum Bill (Joint Committee on Human Rights, October 2026)

What does the Bill actually do for the people it claims to protect? This 2-hour oral evidence session brings together a former Upper Tribunal judge, the Refugee Council, JUSTICE and Garden Court Chambers to scrutinise the Bill, and the witnesses are near-unanimous that the problem isn’t the courts; it’s the Bill. Codifying “family life” into tick-boxes would ossify principles Strasbourg intends as flexible, hitting children, disabled applicants and lone parents hardest. Thirty-month status reviews conflict with the duty to facilitate integration, and charging genuine refugees for their support breaches the Refugee Convention outright. Replacing the First-tier Tribunal with non-lawyers, they warn, cannot meet the complexity of life-and-death decisions. They argue the real problem is poor first-instance decision-making.

The Impact of Gatekeeping on Adults and Children with NRPF (United Impact, September 2026)

What happens when the council is the last door you can knock on, and no one answers? This short animated video shows what families with no recourse to public funds face when they try to access local authority support in London: hostility, discouragement, delays and outright refusals. United Impact describes these as gatekeeping practices, and group members discuss their effects on both adults and children. The group calls on councils to make meaningful change for residents with NRPF and to call out and work to eliminate practices that block children and families from securing the support they are entitled to.