by Dr Olena Chub, Visiting Associate Professor at University of Bristol Law School; Researchers at Risk Fellowship awardee, British Academy, Council for At-Risk Academics, and Prof Devyani Prabhat, University of Bristol Law School.
This blog outlines policy recommendations produced following a workshop at the University of Bristol in July 2025. A concise policy brief is available under Policy Bristol at: Secure Status for Ukrainian Displaced Persons in the UK and EU | PolicyBristol. The discussion below presents an extended argumentation for the key recommendations.
Introduction
NGOs, legal advice groups, law academics, and lawyers who work with migrant communities and specifically Ukrainians displaced because of the war in Ukraine to the UK and the EU (Poland, Czechia, Germany) have collaborated in gathering best practice and evidence on how to support displaced Ukrainians. The recommendations introduced below are based on a University of Bristol Law School workshop (July 2025) organised by co-investigators on the British Academy/Cara/Leverhulme funded project: Dr Olena Chub (Visiting Associate Professor, University of Bristol Law School; Researchers at Risk Fellowship awardee, British Academy, Council for At-Risk Academics); and Prof Devyani Prabhat (University of Bristol Law School). The event was held following the Chatham House Rule, and only participants wishing to be named are named here.
Of the 6 million Ukrainians displaced to European countries, around 4% came to the UK. Britain is fourth in terms of the number of arrivals, after Germany and Poland, who hosted a million displaced Ukrainians each, and Czechia, with almost half a million. Around 210,000 people had arrived in the UK under the Ukraine Schemes; 121,600 remained in the country and the approximate number of expected applications for extension is not significantly higher. Public opinion and sentiment in the UK is in favour of this support (6 of 10 UK adults would confirm long-term support to Ukrainian refugees). Sponsoring communities and local authorities create a friendly and non-discriminatory environment for positive interaction and integration of displaced Ukrainians in the UK.
However, displaced Ukrainians face difficulties in securing long-term status in host countries despite special provisions to give them temporary immigration status. Our recommendations for improving their life chances and living conditions are sensible and effective.
Key recommendations:
- providing longer periods of time under the special Ukrainian visa schemes (and extension schemes);
- permitting the time periods under each scheme to count towards the residence requirements for long-term secure status (such as indefinite leave to remain in the UK, or permanent residence in EU countries);
- specifically securing the welfare and long term legal status of children who are displaced; and
- providing any support to the several NGOs already working closely with community members to provide legal advice or resources to the displaced community members in order to contribute to long term security for the community.
Recommendation One
Extension Schemes: Extend to Longer Automatic Terms
The immediate generosity of the UK and EU member states in devising special visa or residence schemes for Ukrainians has had tremendous beneficial impact in securing safety for displaced Ukrainian nationals. At present the war is ongoing, thereby necessitating extensions of the initial visa schemes. When return to Ukraine is possible, resettlement will take years given the need to rebuild infrastructure such as social housing, medical services, schools, and security. The UK welcomed Ukrainians with special schemes that provided them homes in the UK (such as the Homes for Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme). In June 2025, the European Commission took the initiative to extend the Temporary Protection Directive until March 2027, and submitted a proposal for Council Recommendations for the transition out of the temporary protection (adopted by the Council on 15 July). The extension of the status will allow people to continue to stay legally on the territory of the EU countries, work, receive education and basic social services without having to undergo the normal asylum processes.
We recommend that the extensions of stay in host countries be of an automatic nature and of a long enough duration (not just in short blocks of time). The case study of Anna below illustrates how short periods of immigration status and uncertainty of extension of such schemes can derail the lives of those who are adapting to life in their host countries.
CASE STUDY
Anna is a single mother with a child working as a care assistant in an elderly care home, currently on a fixed contract. Her employer would like to retain her but cannot sponsor, due to salary threshold restrictions. She is active in the local Ukrainian community centre, volunteers in school, and is fluent in English, yet she finds herself in legal limbo owing to short term status with constant worry about being removed, and fear of destabilising her son’s life and education. She could lose her job and become ineligible for tenancy, leading to homelessness and hardship. She fears disruption to her child’s education and wellbeing with potential safeguarding concerns. For the larger community, there are concerns about workforce disruption if experienced, integrated workers in critical sectors (social care, education, hospitality) only have short-term status. The risk of increased reliance on emergency housing, social services, and NHS mental health support puts pressure on public services. A surge in late asylum claims or applications for leave outside the rules increases Home Office backlogs and places strain on the legal system. (Case Study provided by the Scottish Refugee Council).
As seen from Anna’s story, this is primarily a labour-active population, which contributes to European economies. The short, 18-month terms of residence extension undermine most educational courses, apprenticeships, tenancies and job contracts. Most landlords and employers are not aware of section 3C of the UK Immigration Act 1971, for example, which allows for the extension of a person’s leave to remain while their immigration application is pending. The best protection for the community and to ensure they can also achieve their fullest potential in host countries is to give them certainty and stability in their lives and to provide them at least 24 months to 36 months, which renew automatically, so that they can rent places, work for employment and educate their children.
Recommendation Two
Routes to Secure Status
Another recommendation is to permit the residence periods under the visa schemes to contribute to long term secure status. The UK Government’s White Paper ‘Restoring Control over the Immigration System’ (May 2025) is set to reduce migration for security objectives by prioritizing existing UK residents before employing overseas residents. Ukrainians reside in the UK legally, and during the past three years received an opportunity to study, learn the language, and take up apprenticeships.
Displaced Ukrainians should be able to proceed to legal long-term residence with rights to work, rent and study.
Immigrants legally residing in the UK (apart from students) for 5 years can at present proceed to secure indefinite leave to remain. While the qualifying period may increase to ten years in the future, Ukrainian schemes at present exclude Ukrainians from obtaining any long-term secure status. They have no route to settlement in their host countries. Ukrainians were welcomed by bespoke legal schemes, crossed the border to reside in the UK and EU countries legally, and should not be disadvantaged in this manner for long-term settlement.
Alternative immigration options are not always viable for displaced people.
Displaced Ukrainians did not emigrate choosing a type of visa. They fled from war, having been offered bespoke temporary protection schemes (EU) and Homes for Ukraine schemes (UK). To continue to legally reside in the UK, Ukrainian nationals could apply for another type of permission (for example, work, study or family visas) should they meet the eligibility criteria for that route. But there are many challenges in these pathways:
- Skilled worker visa –
(a) According to the research of the Oxford migration observatory, 69% of displaced Ukrainians in the UK are employed or self-employed. This figure is close to the equivalent weighted average for the population of host countries (71%). This already indicates economic integration. 70% of displaced Ukrainians are women with children, and 80% have higher education (degree qualification or above), but due to mismatch of skills their qualifications are often not recognized. They may thus work in low-skilled jobs, filling vital roles in healthcare, hospitality, construction, or catering. In the majority of cases, they would not be able to qualify for the skilled worker visa salary threshold.
(b) Some job types, such as construction operatives, cooks, and farm workers, are not in the eligible occupations list.
(c) There exists the risk of bullying, modern age slavery and exploitation for workers heavily dependent on the employer because of a desperate immigration position, often having nowhere to return. - Student visa – Displaced persons would not afford international student fees in the case of a transition to the student visa and have no recourse to public funds.
- Global talent visa – This is difficult to obtain due to the high bar for demonstrating exceptional talent or promise.
- Spousal route – Dependence of immigration status on a partner can lead to increased risk of domestic abuse and there is no recourse to public funds.
- Health and care worker visa – Applicants cannot have dependants, which makes it largely inapplicable to Ukrainians due to the typical family circumstances of most Ukrainians who fled with dependents.
Above all, transferring to other types of visa is not viable for vulnerable categories (the elderly, the ill and those in need of support for trauma).
Recommendation Three
Uphold Children’s Rights
UK and EU conventional and case law confirm that child welfare and the best interests of children are of primary importance in immigration decisions.
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights emphasises respect for private and family life. Returning a child who has developed their private life in the country of residence might not be in their best interests, especially if it is not safe to return and causes undue hardship.
The UK Supreme Court upholds the primacy of child welfare in immigration decisions under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, in conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as enforced through the Human Rights Act 1998 (in particular the cases of CAO v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland) [2024] UKSC 32; ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4) and aligning with article 3.1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) on the best interests of the child.
In Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Reference for a preliminary ruling: Immigration Appeal Tribunal – United Kingdom 17th September 2002), the European Court of Justice decided that if children were integrated into the education system of the host state it would be both harmful and disproportionate to uproot them from education. The Court confirmed that the aim of achieving continuity in children’s education can effectively ‘anchor’ the (otherwise non-qualifying) family’s residence in the host state for the duration of a migrant child’s studies.
Ukrainian children (as well as adults) are traumatized by war, and deserve continuous education and mental health support rather than compulsory displacement again. All children should receive support (education and health including mental health) without any requirement of evidence of legal status.
Recommendation Four
Provide Support for NGOs which Work with the Community and Community Members
CASE STUDY
Bristol City Council used Homes for Ukraine tariff funding to support Ukrainians renting privately by incentivising landlords to rent to them. Key interventions included: (1) Setting up the Homes for Ukraine Tenancy Scheme, acting as a point of contact for tenants and providing the deposit on behalf of displaced Ukrainians. (2) Landlords receive a range of financial incentives such as a £1,000 thank you payment, six months’ rent paid in advance, funds for repairs and maintenance. (3) The council has secured over 60 rentals below the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rate for displaced Ukrainians across Ukraine schemes, as of the time of fieldwork. (Case Study from British Red Cross (2024) ‘Finding a Safe Home: What can we learn about solutions to refugee accommodation from the Ukraine response?’).
We urge support for local NGOs and partnerships at local government / community levels to provide:
- homes and prevent homelessness: implement tenancy schemes (such as in the Bristol City Council example);
- funding for the immigration support of NGOs, for instance in the form of effective, informed help-line assistants, who would have access to the basic data (about the validity of documents and applications in particular);
- space and resources for community-based direct service NGOs to interact with the members of the displaced Ukrainian community;
- open access statistics (on applications and outcomes);
- pro bono legal advice (including legal advice on Ukrainian legislation, as many displaced people have matters in Ukraine to address from their host countries); and
- simplified guides for information so that there is less reliance on word of mouth and less scope for misinformation.
Further information
Prabhat, D. (2023). MacDermott Lecture 2023: Confounding the Rule of Law: conflating immigration, nationality, and asylum in the UK. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 74(3).
Prabhat, D., & Seeberg, M. L. (2024). ‘Firm but Fair’? Migrant Children’s Rights through Dramaturgy and Nation Branding in Norway and the UK. Comparative Migration Studies, 12(1), Article 35.
Chub, O. (2025). Constitutional Rights’ Defence in Wartime Ukraine. International Law after the Ukraine War. Ed. J. Giblin et al. Routledge.
BA/Cara/Leverhulme Research Support Grant LTRSF24\100094
Image copyright: Sam Church
The name and identifying data in the case study have been changed to protect personal information.
The policy brief was co-produced with civil society and legal service providers working with Ukrainian displaced nationals in Poland, Czechia and the UK:
Stan Beneš, Managing Director, Opora
Anna Dąbrowska, President of Homo Faber Association, Lublin, Poland
Yuliia Ismail, qualified advocate, Ukraine, IAA L2 immigration advisor, Settled CIC
Myroslava Keryk, Founder and Head of the Ukrainian House, Warsaw, Poland
Professor Witold Klaus, Head of Migration Law Research Centre, Institute of Law Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences and co-president of the Migration Consortium in Poland
Milena Kloczkowska, Lawyer of Homo Faber Association, MA, Researcher at John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
Anna Kulish, Chair of Business and Economy Working Group, Scottish Parliament CPG on Ukraine
Sergii Kupriienko, Immigration Solicitor, Fairhill Solicitors Ltd.
Olha Maksymiak, Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Working Group, Scottish Parliament CPG on Ukraine, Adviser on Matters of People Displaced from Ukraine in Scotland
Tetyana Nesterchuk, Fountain Court Chambers
Luke Piper, Head of Immigration and Solicitor, Work Rights Centre
Polina Perfilieva, Helpline Adviser, Scottish Refugee Council
Halyna Ryzhenko, Secretary of Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain (AUGB) Sheffield Branch, Volunteer Opora
Magda Sabadello, Project Officer, International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna, with Ukrainian Consultation Centres in Czech Republic, Germany and Poland
Noah Samuel Thomas, Scottish Refugee Council, Refugee Integration Advisor, accredited IAA Advisor at Immigration Level 1 and Asylum and Protection Level 2