‘From signals to system change: we need practical reforms that could cut asylum backlogs and end hotel use’

How important is signalling in politics? 

The Home Secretary’s announcement yesterday of “the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration in modern times” is designed to cut-through. Plans include removing automatic support to destitute asylum seekers, scrapping refugee family reunion and tightening the interpretation of the right to family life enshrined in the ECHR as well as consulting on the removal of families. Perhaps most significant of all, a new temporary protection status for recognised refugees that will see their case reviewed every 2.5 years as to whether they can be returned, for up to 20 years.

The government has so-far struggled to find a convincing narrative on migration and asylum. YouGov reports an increase from 69% to 80% saying the government is handling migration badly over the last year.

The message from the Home Secretary was clear – she believes “illegal migration is tearing the country apart” and agrees with those who claim Britain has become a magnet for asylum seekers in Europe. This is a package designed to cut through with a disillusioned public, and send a signal to the Reform curious voter, even if it leaves some MPs on its own side wondering whether this really represents the values of the Labour Party.

READ MORE:Asylum reform: Full list of MPs opposing government’s immigration proposals

Whether this political gamble will pay off remains to be seen, however the public is not the only audience for the Home Secretary’s announcement. She also hopes that journeying refugees trying to work out where to seek protection will hear the message and be deterred from paying a smuggler to help them cross the Channel from France.

The idea of deterring asylum seekers is not a new concept – the Conservatives Party’s Rwanda scheme was designed to deter asylum seekers, not to deport everyone who arrived. Denmark, a country the Home Secretary has reportedly modelled her reforms on, has pioneered this approach in Europe.

But while these measures are gaining popularity, and might make intuitive sense in the eyes of the public, the evidence behind many of them is thin. The Home Secretary believes the UK’s “excessive generosity” is now acting as a pull factor for refugees, however the evidence is clear that restricting the rights and benefits of refugees has little impact on asylum applications to a country.

While current UK policies may have been less restrictive than Denmark, they are no more generous than France where small boats launch from, and UK asylum support is already one of the most miserly in Europe.

Studies consistently show that most asylum seekers have a very poor knowledge of a country’s asylum rules and welfare system, with the presence of family and community ties, alongside speaking the language being far more significant in decision-making as well as the ‘push factors’ of war and persecution back home. And while social media has increased access to information, it is just as likely to communicate misinformation than fact.

What the evidence does tell us is that adding insecurity and complexity into migration systems can have consequences for integration. When your status is insecure, your incentive to invest in the country is less as you see no permanent future here.

Denmark which – unlike the UK – has never embraced multiculturalism, saw an increase in poverty-related crime and drop in educational attainment of refugee children after cutting their cash support.

The government calculates it must go further and faster in order to restore trust in the system, and that measures to date simply aren’t paying off quick enough. But this must be backed by evidence of what works.

At The Future Governance Forum (FGF) we’ve argued the UK should prioritise the expansion of the 1-in-1-out pilot to other EU countries, an evidence-backed model that reduced arrivals at the US border at the end of the Biden administration by over 90% for target nationalities.

They could do this by opening ‘Asylum Management Centres’ in France and investing serious diplomatic capital and Home Office resources into striking deals with other countries across the EU.

The other open wound driving public disillusionment is the use of asylum hotels.

Subscribe here to our daily newsletter roundup of Labour news, analysis and comment– and follow us on Bluesky, WhatsApp, X and Facebook.

A soon to be published report by FGF, bringing together research from Nesta, Labour Together and the Refugee Council, puts forward three steps which could bring forward the government’s timetable for ending the use of asylum hotels by three years. 

Step one would give people seeking asylum from countries like Sudan and Syria where grant rates are high or we cannot currently return people, limited leave to remain while their asylum claim is considered. That would give them the right to work and further reduce the need for state support.

Step two would introduce an expanded “Homes for Ukraine”-style scheme for security‑vetted asylum seekers awaiting their decisions, with people hosting newcomers in their homes.

Step three would use some of the £3-5 billion savings from the preceding measures to create two new government funds. The first fund would see an additional £1 billion invested to improve communities that have had asylum hotel accommodation in their area. The second fund would re-invest £1.75 billion of savings from hotels in 14,000-16,000 new warm, energy‑efficient homes to boost the overall availability of temporary accommodation, and ease pressure on use of hotels for asylum seekers and British families.

Share your thoughts. Contribute on this story or tell your own by writing to our Editor. The best letters every week will be published on the site. Find out how to get your letter published.

These three steps would cut the asylum backlog, enable asylum seekers to contribute through work and save up to £5 billion, some of which could be invested in communities and new homes.

Yesterday the Home Secretary gambled that sending a big enough political signal will pay off, the coming months will tell us whether she was right.

• • SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected].
  • SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning.
  • DONATE: If you value our work, please chip in a few pounds a week and become one of our supporters, helping sustain and expand our coverage.
  • PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or projects, email [email protected].
  • ADVERTISE: If your organisation would like to advertise or run sponsored pieces on LabourList‘s daily newsletter or website, contact our exclusive ad partners Total Politics at [email protected].