The House Article | Cutting leave to remain is a morally and legally dubious choice

4 min read14 min

Those who wish to remain in the UK will be required to reapply for leave every two and half years for a total of 20 years and their protection status could be revoked if their home country is judged to be “safe” at the point of renewal. To someone with little experience of the UK’s asylum system or the struggle that refugees face to rebuild their lives, this policy might sound reasonable. But, in reality, this ill-thought-through policy punishes people who have already suffered profound hardship, adding insecurity at precisely the moment stability is most needed. 

The damage caused when lives are held in limbo by delays in asylum decision-making is already well documented. So too is the harm inflicted when survivors of trauma are forced to relive the most unimaginable horrors as they repeat their story of torture or trafficking in order to prove their need for protection. And the poor quality of asylum decisions has not only sparked much criticism but has burdened the appeal courts with an unmanageable backlog. This policy will intensify all of these failings – introducing more frequent reviews of the ongoing need for protection while placing additional strain on an already overstretched asylum system. The likely result is more delays, more backlogs, more unsafe decisions and more uncertainty.  

For those who have fled torture and persecution, the fear of return is not abstract. It is deep and long-lasting. This policy risks transforming what should be a time of joy – the recognition of refugee status and the granting of protection – into the beginning of a new cycle of fear. 

Specialist services working with survivors of torture across the UK, including Freedom from Torture, have warned that shorter periods of leave to remain keep alive the very real prospect of return to the place where people were harmed. Recovery depends on a sense of safety and predictability. By contrast, repeated reviews of status reinforce powerlessness and hopelessness, exacerbating conditions like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety and depression. 

The impact will not be limited to individuals. Families will be forced to live with constant instability and dread that will permeate their daily lives. Children who are beginning to settle into schools and communities will inevitably absorb their parents’ fears. The inability to plan for the future – whether in relation to housing, education or employment – undermines the very foundations of family life.  

There are also significant practical consequences. Immigration status shapes access to housing, work and education. A 30-month grant of leave will make it markedly harder for refugees to secure a tenancy, find stable employment or pursue study thereby undermining the Government’s own goal of integration. This policy comes at the same time as the Government is changing its approach to providing financial support and accommodation to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. The changes they are making to asylum support will increase the risk that government assistance is withdrawn from vulnerable people who, banned from working, have no other means of supporting themselves. Taken together, these policies risk pushing people further into destitution. The consequences – homelessness, exploitation and increased vulnerability – are entirely foreseeable.  

There are also serious legal questions. Article 14 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture requires states to provide the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. Rehabilitation is not simply clinical; it depends on relationships, purpose and the ability to imagine a future. These are extraordinarily difficult to sustain when protection is temporary and uncertain. 

More broadly, this policy signals a troubling shift away from the UK’s longstanding commitment to offering durable protection. While the 1951 UN Refugee Convention recognises that refugee status is by its nature temporary, it requires States to “as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees” and “in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings…” It outlines rights to employment, welfare, housing, education and social security – all of which are harder to realise with shorter periods of leave. 

It is also deeply concerning that such a significant change has been introduced without parliamentary debate or vote. When decisions affecting people’s rights and safety are made with minimal scrutiny, Parliament is denied the opportunity to evaluate the consequences or propose safeguards. This weakens democratic oversight and creates confusion for those navigating an already complex asylum system. This is why myself and colleagues will be asking important questions regarding these changes in the House this week. 

The aspirations of those seeking sanctuary are, by and large, the same as anyone else’s. They want security, the chance to work, to contribute and to build a future for themselves and their families, free from fear. We should be enabling these ambitions, not undermining them. 

A humane and effective asylum system would support people to integrate and thrive. Policies that are punitive and short-sighted will do the opposite: forcing unwell, vulnerable people into destitution, or worse, back into danger. Protection, once granted, must be meaningful and it must endure. 

Baroness Lister of Burtersett is a Labour peer and an officer of the all-party parliamentary groups on migration and refugees.