Restoring Order and Control: An Analysis of the Government’s Asylum and Returns Policy

The Home Secretary has now formally published the policy paper Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy and presented it to Parliament, following several days of extensive briefing to the media. The paper sets out what is described as the most significant reform of the asylum system in a generation, framed around two central aims:

• reducing the number of people who come to the UK to claim asylum; and
• increasing removals of those with no lawful basis to remain.

Alongside this, the government proposes a re-design of safe and legal routes, with a strong emphasis on caps, sponsorship and longer routes to settlement.

The paper opens with statistics on asylum claims and returns since 2021 and presents a familiar narrative: arrivals have risen sharply; removals have not kept pace and the costs of asylum accommodation particularly hotels have become politically and fiscally unsustainable.

The government attributes this situation to a number of perceived “pull factors”, namely:

• the relative generosity of the UK’s refugee protection system when compared with several European counterparts
• the level of support and accommodation provided to individuals awaiting an asylum decision and
• the ease with which people without permission to work can enter the informal labour market.

Building on this analysis, the paper introduces three central pillars of reform:

• the creation of a more restrictive and temporary form of refugee status, described as “core protection”
• the imposition of tighter conditions and reduced security for those awaiting decisions on their claims and
• a significantly more assertive approach to removals and appeals.

---

The current position for recognised refugees is a grant of five years limited leave to remain, followed by an application for settlement. The government now proposes to replace this with a “core protection” regime:

• Initial grant of 30 months leave instead of five years, renewable only if an ongoing need for protection is accepted.
• No dedicated route to settlement for those on core protection until they have spent 20 years in the UK.

To encourage people off core protection, the government proposes a new in-country Protection Work and Study route. Recognised refugees who obtain employment or commence study at an appropriate level and pay a fee, would be able to switch into this route and earn settlement more quickly than by remaining on core protection.

Family reunion is significantly restricted in the new model:

• Under core protection there will be no automatic right to family reunion.
• Only those who move into the Protection Work and Study route may become eligible to sponsor family members, likely under requirements similar to Appendix FM (minimum income, accommodation and English language).

This represents a profound shift away from the longstanding principle that recognised refugees can be joined by their immediate family members without having to meet stringent economic thresholds.

The government also signals its intention to revisit access to public funds for refugees and other migrants, with a consultation promised in 2026. The paper suggests:

• prioritising benefits for those who are making an economic contribution and
• imposing conditions and actions that migrants must take to continue receiving support.

Under existing law, there is a duty to support asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. The government now proposes to revoke the regulations introduced to implement EU law, and to restore a discretionary power to provide support.

The paper indicates that support will be:

• refused to those who have or had permission to work and are deemed able to support themselves (for example, people who claimed asylum after entering on a work or study visa, or those granted permission to work after a year-long delay)
• withdrawn from people who are said to have deliberately made themselves destitute
• removed from those who breach conditions, work without permission, refuse to relocate to particular accommodation, or are considered disruptive.

It is difficult to see how this will sit with the UK’s obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment

The paper also revives earlier proposals to recover the cost of support where people have assets or income:

• individuals with some means but not enough to live independently will be required to contribute
• where undeclared or non-liquid assets later become convertible, the state may seek to recover past support costs.

The document confirms a continued shift away from hotel use, with a stated aim of ending asylum hotel use by the end of the Parliament and moving to larger sites, including military bases such as Cameron Barracks and Crowborough Training Camp.

The government presents increased enforcement against illegal working as a central tool in reducing pull factors. It reports:

• significant increases in immigration enforcement raids and civil penalties for employers
• over 1,000 foreign nationals removed following illegal working operations and
• engagement with gig-economy and delivery platforms, supported by data-sharing agreements.

By the end of the Parliament, digital ID will become mandatory to prove the right to work. E-visas are already being rolled out as evidence of status and digital identity will be presented as a means of closing opportunities for document fraud and for employers to turn a blind eye.

While this may simplify checks for some, it also creates significant risks for those who struggle with digital access and for anyone whose immigration record has errors. The consequences of being incorrectly recorded as having no right to work can be severe,

---

The paper highlights the gap between the number of refused asylum claims and enforced removals. Between June 2024 and June 2025, 58,000 people had their claims refused, while fewer than 11,000 were removed.

To address this, the government proposes:

• continuing and expanding the French returns pilot, under which some small-boat arrivals are returned to France in exchange for security-checked refugees arriving via safe routes
• resuming returns to countries where enforced removals have not routinely taken place in recent years, including Syria, on the basis of regime change and re-established diplomatic relations
• prioritising family removals, offering financial incentives for voluntary return and consulting on processes for enforced removal of families, including the use of provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 to restrict support where there is no genuine obstacle to departure
• exploring the use of return hubs safe third countries to which people may be removed instead of their country of origin.

Removals to countries such as Syria, even on a voluntary basis, will raise obvious questions about safety and monitoring. Any move towards enforced returns will be highly contentious, both politically and legally.

The paper confirms increased use of bilateral returns agreements, with recent arrangements highlighted with Iraq and Vietnam. Where countries are unwilling to cooperate, the government intends to make use of visa penalties under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, including the possible suspension of entry clearance for nationals of non-cooperative states.

The paper places much of the blame for delays on the current appeals system, citing a rise in pending appeals and long wait times. The core proposals are:

• creation of a new appeals body, separate from the existing Immigration and Asylum Chamber, staffed by professionally trained adjudicators
• use of statutory timelines for certain categories of appeal
• accelerated appeals for claims considered to have a low likelihood of success, foreign national offenders and those in detention
• a single appeal route, with the intention that further appeals or challenges will be limited
• restrictions on late and repeat claims, with an expectation that all relevant issues are raised in the initial appeal
• changes to the Immigration Rules so that fresh Article 8 claims by failed asylum seekers proceed, as far as possible, through paid routes used by other migrants.

The paper sets out an explicit ambition to reset the balance between individual rights and the state’s interest in immigration control, focusing on:

• Article 8 (family and private life), the government will:
  • strengthen the statutory public interest test so that non-compliance with the Immigration Rules more rarely gives way to family or private life considerations
  • define family life in primary legislation, generally limiting it to immediate family, save for exceptional cases
  • prescribe how and when in-country Article 8 claims can be made, seeking to discourage late claims that suspend removal.
• Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the government signals concern that the interpretation of inhuman or degrading treatment has expanded to cover health-related and other cases, including some involving foreign national offenders and indicates it will work with other states to narrow that interpretation.
• Modern slavery, the paper points to the removal of reconsideration rights for people being removed to ECHR/ECAT signatory states, and promises:
  • strengthened screening and guidance to promote early disclosure
  • new legislation to clarify obligations and limit perceived misuse, while maintaining essential protections.

Finally, the government proposes:

• enabling some protection claims to be considered and refused after a single interview, particularly for nationals of manifestly safe countries
• treating return journeys to the country of origin during stay in the UK as grounds to disqualify a protection claim
• strengthening cooperation within the criminal justice system to prioritise deportation of foreign national offenders
• rolling out AI-assisted age assessment, including facial age estimation, to address perceived abuse by adults claiming to be children.

Age assessment by algorithm raises obvious concerns about accuracy, bias and fairness, particularly where the consequences of an incorrect assessment are grave. The paper does not engage substantively with these issues.

The final section re-states the government’s commitment to safe and legal routes, but within tightly controlled caps and a sponsorship-focused model. Key elements include:

• an annual cap on the number of people admitted via safe and legal routes, set by the Home Secretary on the basis of local capacity
• a reformed refugee sponsorship framework, with voluntary and community organisations playing a greater role in identifying and supporting refugees, but within government-set caps
• a capped route for refugee and displaced students to study in the UK
• a capped route for skilled refugees and displaced workers, building on the Displaced Talent Mobility Pilot.

The intention is that those arriving through these routes will be placed on a ten-year route to settlement, subject to consultation.

How these proposals ultimately take shape will depend on their passage through legislation, changes to the Immigration Rules, and the results of forthcoming consultations. What is clear at this stage, however, is that the government is redefining the role of refugee protection in the UK. The emphasis is shifting from providing security and a foundation for rebuilding lives to constructing a system designed around deterrence, increased control and a far more selective approach to who is permitted to remain.

Follow us to stay updated on the latest UK immigration changes. With over 20 years of experience and a steadfast commitment to excellence, Morgan Smith Immigration is your trusted partner for all your immigration needs. Contact us today to learn more about how we can assist you with UK visa applications and provide tailored advice for your circumstances. For any enquiries or assistance, call us at 0203 959 3335 or email [email protected].