The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, is set to announce a series of new measures in the Commons today to combat illegal migration. The new laws are said to be based on measures introduced in Denmark which have significantly reduced the number of asylum seekers arriving there. In 2014, 14,792 asylum seekers went to Denmark; in 2024 the figure was 2,333. The Danish laws have been described as some of the toughest in Europe, but still it remains a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Mahmood’s proposals include new rules under which people granted asylum in the UK would have to wait 20 years to settle permanently (rather than the current five). The initial period of protection granted to refugees would be reduced from five years to two and a half, after which refugee status would be reviewed regularly. If refugees’ home countries were later deemed safe, they would be instructed to return. Other measures are intended to tighten rules on family reunification, make it more difficult for migrants to claim they are victims of modern slavery, and simplify the deportation of foreign national offenders. The Home Secretary also plans to narrow the definition of the right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR, to ensure it only applies to immediate family, and restrict individuals to a single appeal against removal.
Cynics will note that we have been here before. Labour’s Asylum and Immigration Act 2004 was intended to deter and prevent behaviour designed to frustrate the UK asylum process, in part by restructuring the appeals system. We have since seen ten pieces of primary legislation on immigration and asylum over the past 20 years.
Critics will also point out that some of the Danish rules have been subject to successful challenges in Strasbourg. For example, in 2021, the European Court of Human Rights found that Denmark’s refusal to grant family reunification to a Syrian man – due to a rule requiring him to hold a residence permit for three years before applying – breached his right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR. In 2024, the court also ruled against Denmark in a case involving an Iraqi national convicted of drug dealing. The man was born and raised in Denmark, and the court determined that his deportation, together with a six-year re-entry ban, violated Article 8. However, in other Danish deportation cases the court found no violation, highlighting that it treats each case on its individual facts and that any blanket policy may not work effectively.
Despite the supposed success of its policies, it is notable that Denmark is one of the states leading calls for reform of the ECHR, arguing for a reinterpretation of Article 8 to better reflect the challenges of irregular migration. Domestic law reform alone is unlikely to be a panacea.
This is not to say that new laws cannot be effective – and I have previously argued for reforms clarifying how judges should apply the Human Rights Act and the ECHR in immigration and asylum cases. But the devil will be in the detail, and we must not pretend that the government can immunise itself against all challenges by domestic legislation alone. The government will undoubtedly face challenge from its own backbenchers, too. Labour MPs Clive Lewis and Nadia Whittome have already criticised following the Danish model as ‘echoing the talking points of the far right’ and a moral ‘dead end’.
A third challenge will be making sure the new measures are brought in swiftly. First-tier tribunal currently faces a substantial backlog. In 2024–25, it reportedly received 79,000 cases (an increase of 36 per cent on the previous year). In August this year the government acknowledged ‘that there is a backlog of 106,000 cases waiting to be heard by the first-tier tribunal, including at least 51,000 asylum appeals.’ Wait times are increasing, with an average wait time of 53 weeks. And even once the new laws are enacted, it is inevitable that there will be legal challenges both domestically and in Strasbourg.
Labour is in the last-chance saloon
Interestingly, at the same time as the government began to drip-feed details of its new reforms, the Lady Chief Justice announced that plans were underway to publish the decisions of the first-tier tribunal in immigration and asylum cases. Currently, such decisions are not routinely published, which can lead to significant disputes about the accuracy of press reporting. The move towards transparency is welcome, but it presents new dangers for the government if it exposes inconsistent decision making.
Labour is in the last-chance saloon on asylum and irregular migration. If the government cannot change the narrative before the next election, it risks fighting a campaign in which it is painted as heartless by opponents on the left and hopeless by those on the right.
Failure is also likely to jeopardise the UK’s continued membership of the ECHR. If new domestic laws do not make a significant dent in the numbers arriving, it will reinforce calls from those who argue that the only course of action is to exit the convention. Keir Starmer is making a high-stakes gamble and working to a tight deadline. In seeking to compete with the Conservatives and Reform on their own territory, he will have only himself to blame if it goes badly wrong.
Comments