Geneva – The UK's plan to amend its asylum system is extremely alarming. It forms part of the 2025 Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill and coincides with the new asylum and returns policy statement announced by the Home Office last Monday.
These legislative and policy amendments collectively undermine the international protection system, impose penalties on access to asylum, eliminate clear pathways to permanent residency, restrict refugee status, and withdraw social support, in clear violation of the UK's obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The bill, submitted by the government on 30 January and now progressing through parliament, together with the new policy announced this November, dismantles the existing system under which recognised refugees received an initial five-year residency that typically led to permanent residency. It replaces it with a temporary protection system of only 30 months, conditionally renewable. Even with repeated renewals, a refugee cannot apply for permanent residency until they have completed 20 years of continuous legal residence.
These amendments clearly target refugees and their right to stability and rebuilding their lives, effectively depriving them of integration into their new society. This directly contradicts the concept of "sustainable solutions" on which the international protection system is based.
The UK government's plan undermines asylum seekers' basic right to a decent standard of living and proposes abolishing the legal obligation to provide housing and financial assistance
The UK government's plan also undermines asylum seekers' basic right to a decent standard of living. It proposes abolishing the legal obligation to provide housing and financial assistance, shifting these from protected entitlements to matters left to the Home Office's discretion. This would make essential rights such as shelter and food vulnerable to political change and arbitrary administrative decisions, placing thousands of asylum seekers and their families at risk of homelessness, poverty, and destitution.
This deliberate regression on guarantees of adequate housing and living standards is inconsistent with the UK's obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and with established interpretations of the right to adequate housing. It risks placing asylum seekers in conditions that may amount to degrading treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The proposed restrictions on government support function as punitive measures designed to pressure asylum seekers rather than assist them. The bill and its accompanying policy grant the Home Office authority to withdraw support from those who fail to comply with directions, refuse to cooperate, break the law, or fail to reside in designated centres.
These conditions are vague and can easily be used to arbitrarily deprive asylum seekers of financial support, force them to live in inhumane conditions, and pressure them into accepting "voluntary" return to countries that may still be unsafe. These policies, therefore, constitute an illegitimate form of pressure that undermines the essence of international protection.
The government's approach is not limited to reducing support. It also includes proposals allowing the authorities to confiscate valuable property and assets belonging to asylum seekers, such as jewellery and other possessions, to help cover accommodation costs. This discriminatory measure treats refugees as a financial burden to be charged for rather than recognising them as victims of persecution and conflict.
The bill and its accompanying policy focus heavily on facilitating and accelerating the deportation of asylum seekers, while also amounting to an unprecedented assault on judicial independence. The government seeks to introduce directives and legislative amendments that restrict judges' ability to uphold rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Article 8 on private and family life, in favour of "public interest" and "public safety". This risks turning the judiciary into a vehicle for enforcing government policy rather than safeguarding rights and freedoms.
Given the stated aims of the bill and the Restoring Order and Control policy paper, the government's plans to increase the number of "professionally trained adjudicators" and establish an independent body for fast-track deportation are not intended to clear the backlog through fair and rigorous processing. Rather, they risk sacrificing the quality and integrity of the entire system, leading to rushed decisions with a weak legal basis.
Adopting measures that restrict legal appeals by introducing a single-appeal track, in which the asylum seeker must present all arguments at once, prioritises administrative speed over the right to a fair and effective process. It significantly reduces opportunities to correct serious administrative or judicial errors. Appeals are often the final safeguard for asylum seekers seeking to protect themselves and their families from deportation that could expose them to persecution or inhumane treatment. Reducing access to appeals or limiting them to a single track effectively closes the door to meaningful judicial redress, increases the risk of wrongful deportation, threatens family unity, and undermines the rule of law by politicising decision-making.
By rendering protected status temporary and revocable and pairing this with fast-track deportations and a single-appeal track, the government's approach seriously threatens the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning any person to a country where they may face persecution, torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment. This principle is firmly rooted in the 1951 Refugee Convention, customary international law, and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The UK's plan contains a clear contradiction. The bill and its accompanying policy impose strict measures and create a hostile environment for those arriving through "irregular routes" such as small boats in the English Channel, while the government's pledges to open new safe and legal routes remain extremely limited and insufficient to meet the needs of the many people requiring international protection.
Opening a few legal pathways for asylum under this plan is nothing more than a publicity stunt intended to obscure the bill's arbitrary measures and the government's policy statement. In practice, these measures make it nearly impossible for most asylum seekers to reach the UK legally, forcing them to take dangerous routes and rely on human traffickers to reach the country.
The bill, in its entirety and detail, together with the new government policy, represents a clear regression from the UK's historical and international commitments to refugees and asylum seekers. It places the country among the most stringent and punitive asylum regimes. Enacting laws that impose temporary status, turn access to permanent residency into a two-decade ordeal, abolish legal protections and material support for the vulnerable and persecuted, and interfere with judicial independence does not regulate asylum. It criminalises those seeking protection and establishes a system built on deterrence and punishment rather than protection and integration.
The UK government must withdraw the bill and abandon all accompanying measures, as it blatantly contradicts basic human rights, violates the UK's obligations under international refugee and human rights law, and contributes to dismantling rather than strengthening the international protection system. Euro-Med Monitor urges the government to stop using the asylum system as a tool for political posturing and domestic agendas, to end the targeting of refugees and asylum seekers through policies of deterrence and punishment, and to uphold its historical and legal responsibilities to protect the persecuted and those fleeing conflict rather than evade them.
British members of the parliament must withdraw their support for the bill and prevent it from passing in its current form, as it undermines the rule of law and clearly violates the UK's international obligations.
Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor calls on the UK government to undertake a comprehensive review of the asylum system to ensure genuine humanitarian improvements that enhance its effectiveness and align it with international human rights standards, and to commit to providing safe and legitimate pathways for people fleeing persecution and conflict to access protection.
The Council of Europe and its relevant bodies, particularly the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly, must closely monitor legislative developments in the UK and take the necessary political and oversight measures to prevent the erosion of the European Convention on Human Rights in British territory. They must also ensure full compliance by the UK authorities with the rulings and binding decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
Additionally, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council must give special priority to this bill and its accompanying policies in their oversight work and publicly engage with the UK government. They should emphasise that these amendments constitute a direct infringement on the international protection system for refugees and cannot be treated as a mere internal adjustment of migration policies.
The approval of this bill will not remain confined to the UK. It would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other countries in the Global North to adopt the same model and dismantle the safeguards established by the Refugee Convention over decades. It risks transforming the right to asylum from an international legal obligation into a selective political privilege that governments grant or withhold according to domestic considerations.
