Restoring Order and Control — what the government’s plans might mean for asylum support  

ASAP (the Asylum Support Appeals Project) sets out its initial understanding of the implications of the government plans announced at the end of November 2025. 

The government’s Restoring Order and Control plan contains very little substantive detail, or indication of timeframes for changes, or information as to how these will be brought in. So, it is hard to make out what the government announcements mean in practice. 

Some of the proposals are already part of the asylum support system and law. Many of these “changes” were brought in months or even years ago (exit from hotels, taking contributions from people with income, tougher stance on breach of conditions — specifically failure to travel and anti-social behaviour, etc.). This makes it hard to anticipate precisely what the government is proposing to change, beyond fully implementing the system that is already in place.  

If fully implemented, these proposals would undoubtably lead to more destitution and suffering. But the Home Office has tried to bring about some of these changes before. Doing so was either too complicated or costly to operationalise or met opposition from local authorities and devolved administrations. There is no reason to think that these obstacles have disappeared. 

The duty to provide support 

The government announced it would remove the existing duty to support people under sections 95 (s95) and 98 (s98). The duty is contained in regulations dating back to 2005, which presumably will be revoked. We think this will happen within a few months.  

It says it will then prevent certain groups from obtaining support. The government has specifically mentioned people who can work, people who break the conditions of support and people who break the law. Quite what this means is unclear at this stage. It is already the case that support can be stopped or refused in most of these situations. It’s just that the Home Office has never sufficiently resourced its casework teams to undertake thorough assessments. 

But even if they recruited and trained enough staff to carry out the necessary enquiries, and if they introduced new policies banning certain people from support, they would still be obliged to provide support under s98 and s95 to people who would otherwise be left completely destitute (i.e. street homeless or verging on street homelessness). This is because of the House of Lords (now Supreme Court) case of Limbuela, which found that leaving people claiming asylum (or who face other obstacles to return) with no support whatsoever would breach Article 3 (the prohibition of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).  

The government has announced it will seek to make changes to the interpretation of Article 3. But expert commentators have already pointed out that modifying international agreements takes a long time to negotiate. Modifications to human rights would also affect many other people, including groups the government may not want to alienate. 

That is not to say that these changes, if properly implemented, won’t have significant negative impacts. Where these exclusions affect families with children, there may be an increased burden on local authorities. For those who will still qualify or are seeking to show they qualify for asylum support, the system will undoubtedly be more difficult to navigate. This will also require a lot more work for the Home Office, its contractors, advice workers and lawyers — potentially costing more than it would save. But we don’t think that the government will find it easy to stop support for entire groups on a blanket basis. 

Contribution and repayments of support 

Since the inception of the asylum support system (i.e. the last 25 years), the law has required that any income, support or asset that a person has or gains whilst on support be taken into account when assessing destitution (including cars, for example). This is a key criterion for eligibility to s98, s95 and s4 support (see our briefing on the impact of income on destitution).  

In s95 cases, the Home Office has long had the power to ask for contributions and repayments of support that is owed. Thus, those who qualify but have some resources find their subsistence payments adjusted or withheld, and we have already seen them ask people to make lump-sum repayments if found to have concealed financial resources. However, the rules, which in practice are not currently deployed to their full extent, have some gaps, which is something it could be seeking to redress. 

On the matter of jewellery seizures, as far as we are aware, the Home Office doesn’t currently have the power to seize and sell assets. Maybe this is being considered. It will probably require changes in legislation, which the government may well intend to make. However, this seems to us to be a wholly unwieldy and unworkable proposal, particularly if these assets are abroad. In any event, the home secretary has emphatically ruled out seizure of jewellery. 

Moving out of hotels 

The government wants to move people out of hotels and into larger accommodation centres. This is not a new announcement — the Home Office have been working on this for years. There is a lot of research already on the significant issues that large-scale accommodation causes. Organisations will continue to advocate for small, localised accommodation, which is better both for individuals housed there and local communities. 

Support for refused asylum-seeking families 

This is potentially the most difficult aspect of the proposals, in terms of impact on people and communities. 

If brought in, this would effectively end ongoing s95 support to families. Instead, a new power to support these families would fall to local authorities but, in England at least, only in limited circumstances. The IA16 proposals would also bring about other changes to the asylum support system: notably the ending of s4 support, which would become s95A support, and which can only be applied for in limited circumstances and within a limited timeframe; and reduced rights to appeal against asylum support decisions. For more information, see our IA16 briefing.  

At this stage, we want to stress that these changes can’t happen overnight. The IA16 requires the laying of regulations subject to an affirmative procedure. It also requires the co-operation of local authorities and devolved administrations and a significant re-organisation of Home Office casework processes. 

It’s worth bearing in mind that, since 2016, the government has tried to bring the IA16 into force on three different occasions. Every time, they decided not to proceed, seemingly because of these obstacles. So, there is cause for some cautious optimism. 

Wider changes to the asylum and immigration system 

Beyond the express changes being made to the support system, it seems inevitable that the changes being proposed to the asylum system — further submissions (including Article 8 applications), modern slavery processes, etc. — will result in fewer people being eligible for s95, s98, s4 and schedule 10 support. At the moment, however, the lack of concrete detail makes it difficult to assess the impact and identify potential solutions.