On 17 November 2025, the government issued a Policy Paper - Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government's asylum and returns policy. As ever, please give the paper a full and fair reading.
The Home Secretary clearly stated that the present government has no intention of taking the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) - (see Hansard - answers to questions). The government claims to have learned lessons from 'international partners, including Denmark' where fundamental reform to its system has seen asylum claims at a 40-year low.
The Hansard report of the Home Secretary's announcement is HERE.
The Introduction to the Paper contains
factual information and notes that, since 2021, over 400,000 asylum claims have been made in the UK. Currently, approximately 106,000 receive State-funded support with the vast majority in asylum accommodation. The paper claims that decision-making on asylum claims has been increased significantly and the number of individuals returned has also increased. Some 8,000 arrests have been made for illegal working in the year up to October 2025.Following the Introduction, the paper is set out as follows:
It should not be assumed that there will be any sudden change to the system because much of what is in the paper is either subject to matters such as further international negotiation, primary legislation, or consultation. For example, the proposal for a new appeals body will require primary legislation.
Parliament can legislate regarding matters such as Article 8 (Right to Family Life) but, ultimately, that legislation will have to be compliant with the ECHR and that may have to be tested by the European Court of Human Rights. In particular, the government proposal to legislate a meaning of "family" seems likely to be an area that will open the road to Strasbourg. Similarly with regard to the government's proposals to limit the scope of Article 3 (Freedom for torture or inhuman or degrading treatment).
In October, the Institute for Government published What does Keir Starmer mean by "looking again" at international law? This notes that:
- Any international treaty can be amended by agreement between all the parties. Changes have previously been made to the ECHR (though mostly to add or broaden rights, rather than remove or limit them). In May 2025, nine countries proposed changing the way the ECHR is applied to migrants. But getting agreement to detailed changes to the text of the ECHR (or any of the other international conventions) would be complex and could take many years.
- In principle, domestic legislation may be enacted to influence the way the ECHR and other treaties are interpreted by the UK courts. Parliament could pass a statute setting out how (say) Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR are to be interpreted in immigration and asylum cases. Such legislation would bind Home Office decision makers and other officials, and would be given effect by the UK courts.
The November paper indicates that the government plans to bring forward such legislation but, at the moment, there is no detail.
It is particularly unclear how the government would cut back the scope of Article 3. As the Institute for Government article notes -
'Both the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) already apply a high threshold in Article 3 cases.
The PM has said there is a difference between deporting someone to "summary execution" and sending them to somewhere with a different level of healthcare or prison conditions. But that is a false dichotomy.
The ECtHR has indeed held that harsh medical conditions can in some circumstances amount to inhuman treatment within Article 3. And there has been focus on the case of a sex offender who resisted extradition to Brazil because of the risk that he would face ill-treatment in prison. But the fact that conditions would be lower than in the UK is not the legal test. In the medical case, an AIDS patient faced “a real risk of dying under the most distressing circumstances” if removed. In the Brazil case it seems there was evidence of extra-judicial killings in Brazilian prisons. So again it is not clear which type of cases the government would try and carve out of Article 3, or how.'
I will link below to articles concerning the law in this area. First off the mark was Professor Mark Elliot (Cambridge) who offered 'initial thoughts' on the government paper.
The legal and constitutional implications of the Asylum paper: some initial thoughts
Links
To be added when available.
No comments:
Post a Comment