Ban on Asylum Seekers Using Taxis for Medical Appointments Comes Into Force

A controversial new policy banning asylum seekers from using taxis to attend routine medical appointments has officially come into force, prompting concern from healthcare professionals, charities, and migrant advocacy groups who warn the move could put vulnerable people at risk and create barriers to essential healthcare access.
The ban, introduced by the Home Office as part of wider cost-cutting measures within the asylum support system, restricts the use of government-funded taxis except in cases deemed “medically exceptional.” Officials argue the policy is necessary to reduce spiraling transport costs and encourage the use of public transport where possible. Critics, however, say it ignores the physical, psychological, and practical realities faced by many asylum seekers.
A Shift in Policy
Previously, asylum seekers housed in temporary accommodation were allowed to use pre-approved taxi services to attend hospital appointments, particularly when living in remote locations or when language barriers made navigating public transport difficult. Under the new rules, individuals must now apply for special permission to use taxis, and approvals will be granted only for emergencies or cases involving severe disability or acute illness.
Home Office sources say transport costs had risen sharply over the past year, driven by increased demand for medical services and the growing number of people in asylum accommodation. The department estimates that millions of pounds could be saved annually by requiring asylum seekers to rely primarily on buses and trains.
A spokesperson said the change was designed to “ensure fairness and value for taxpayers” while still allowing exemptions for those with complex medical needs.
“We remain committed to ensuring asylum seekers can access healthcare services,” the spokesperson said. “This policy ensures that public transport is used where reasonable, while taxis remain available for exceptional circumstances.”
Concerns From Doctors and Charities
Medical professionals have raised alarm over the potential impact of the ban. Doctors working with refugee communities warn that many asylum seekers suffer from trauma, chronic illness, and mental health conditions that make long journeys by public transport extremely challenging.
Dr. Helen Morris, a GP who works with asylum seekers in northern England, said the policy could discourage people from attending vital appointments.
“Some of my patients already struggle to leave their accommodation due to anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder,” she said. “Now they are being asked to navigate unfamiliar transport systems, often in a language they don’t understand, to reach hospitals that may be miles away. The risk is that people simply won’t go.”
Charities supporting migrants echoed those concerns. The Refugee Health Network said the ban could result in missed appointments, delayed diagnoses, and worsening health outcomes, ultimately costing the NHS more in the long run.
“This is a short-sighted policy,” said the group’s director, Samira Patel. “Denying people safe and reliable transport does not save money if it leads to emergency hospital admissions later.”
Practical Barriers
Advocates point out that asylum seekers are often placed in hotels or accommodation on the outskirts of cities, far from GP surgeries or hospitals. Many are unfamiliar with local transport systems and lack access to smartphones or bank cards needed to plan journeys or buy tickets.
Language barriers further complicate matters. Appointment letters are typically written in English, and transport instructions can be confusing even for fluent speakers.
Fatima, an asylum seeker from Sudan living in temporary accommodation, said she fears missing future hospital visits.
“I don’t know how to take two buses and a train,” she said through an interpreter. “Before, the taxi came and took me to the hospital. Now they say I must use public transport. I am scared I will get lost.”
Campaigners have also raised safety concerns, particularly for women and families traveling long distances with children.
Political Reaction
Opposition politicians have criticized the policy, accusing the government of targeting one of the most vulnerable groups in society.
“This decision prioritizes savings over human dignity,” said one shadow health minister. “Access to healthcare should never depend on whether someone can navigate an unfamiliar bus route.”
Several local councils have warned that the change could shift responsibility onto already overstretched community services. Some are considering using their own limited funds to provide transport for high-risk individuals.
However, government supporters argue that the measure aligns asylum support with what is expected of other low-income residents who must also rely on public transport to attend appointments.
“Taxpayers should not be footing the bill for taxis when buses and trains are available,” said one senior Conservative MP. “Exemptions exist for those who genuinely need them.”
Legal and Ethical Questions
Human rights lawyers are examining whether the policy could breach obligations under international law to ensure access to healthcare without discrimination. They argue that the practical effect of the ban may disproportionately harm those with disabilities, mental health conditions, or trauma-related symptoms.
A legal challenge is already being considered by several advocacy groups, who claim the policy fails to account for individual circumstances.
“This is not about convenience,” said lawyer James Holloway. “It is about whether people can realistically attend medical appointments at all.”
Looking Ahead
As the ban takes effect, charities are calling for urgent monitoring of its impact. They want the government to publish data on missed appointments and health outcomes over the next six months.
Healthcare providers fear that the policy could increase pressure on emergency services if asylum seekers delay treatment until conditions become critical.
For now, asylum seekers and the organizations that support them are scrambling to adapt, offering travel guidance and accompaniment services where possible. But many say this is no substitute for a system that ensured reliable access to care.
“This policy sends a troubling message,” said Patel. “It suggests that cost savings matter more than people’s health. That is not a principle any healthcare system should accept.”