The Home Secretary recently outlined her plans for reform of Britain’s asylum and returns policy. This is a very serious topic that I know a lot of constituents are concerned about, so I wanted to set out my views having read the documents and spoken to some of the Home Secretary’s team.
I am proud that Britain is an open and welcoming country, offering protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hong Kongers.
I have the pleasure of representing people from all around the world who have decided to call Dunfermline and Dollar home. Wherever you are from, whatever events have led to you being in this area or whatever your circumstances, I am here to represent you. Always.
That welcoming nature, however, should not prevent us from having robust and sensible immigration controls, as our partners and friends do in Europe and beyond.
I support the Home Secretary’s statement that we must take firm action to fix an asylum system that is plainly and demonstrable broken. The scale of the challenge is stark:
- Around 400,000 people have sought asylum in Britain in the last four years. In the same period a decade before, the figure was 150,000.
- More than 100,000 people are now in asylum accommodation and thousands remain in hotels, supported by the taxpayer. That must end.
- Our needlessly complex and overly bureaucratic processing system is grinding to a halt, with asylum appeals now taking on average over a year to resolve.
- The current system sees vulnerable people taking horrible risks, for example crossing the English Channel, and, once here, staying in accommodation that is not fit for purpose for long periods of time. That is harming the health of people that we should be protecting.
This has all been caused by the reckless behaviour of the previous Tory government who created this problem that we must now resolve.
There are many parts of the proposed package that make sense. An effective system must deter dangerous crossings, make quicker decisions and return people who have no right to stay. This process would be better for claimants, for the communities that host them, and for public confidence.
These proposals go a long way in promising to deliver these changes, and I was heartened to see the Home Secretary make the following promises:
- An in-country Protection ‘Work and Study’ route for refugees who obtain employment or commence study at an appropriate level. This will encourage refugees to integrate more fully into the communities providing them sanctuary and massively reduce the burden on taxpayers.
- Expansion of refugee sponsorship, giving Voluntary and Community sector organisations a greater role in resettlement through ‘named sponsorship.’
- Removal of support from those who do not comply with conditions the Government imposes – such as the failure to abide by a removal direction or working illegally.
- Foreign national offenders will be “available for immediate deportation” from the first day of their prison sentence, streamlining the removal of criminals.
Ultimately, measures must be put in place to clear the backlog and stop people being left in limbo for years. I was particularly pleased to see the Government’s concrete proposals for moving those seeking asylum from state support and into work as soon as possible. I know from speaking to people who have sought refuge here that they want to work, contribute and lead full and productive lives.
However, there are elements of the plan which, while I support in principle, are currently lacking detail. This is what you would expect at this stage, prior to full scrutiny. However, I am keen that such scrutiny is fulsome and robust.
To my mind, three specific concerns stand out:
- Unaccompanied children must be treated as children first. Safeguarding, appropriate care, access to legal support and child centred decision making cannot be an afterthought. Any reform affecting children must include robust protections, proper resourcing and clear lines of responsibility so that vulnerable young people are not left at risk.
- The use of artificial intelligence for age assessment raises serious questions. Automated tools can be useful, but they also carry risks of inaccuracy and bias. Before any AI system is used at scale there must be independent validation, transparent oversight and meaningful, efficient appeal routes so that young people are not unfairly disadvantaged by an opaque process.
- While I agree with the principle of returning people to “safe countries” as a result of changing circumstances, I want to know more about the criteria and process for how “safe countries” are determined and how it might affect individuals.
I have already asked numerous questions in Parliament to get more information about these issues and will speak to Ministers directly as well to get the answers and detail I feel should be provided.
As always, I will listen to your experiences and views and use them to shape my interventions.
Best wishes,
Graeme Downie
Member of Parliament
Dunfermline and Dollar
25 November 2025
Recent Comments