Nigel Farage is set to unveil plans to suspend Britain’s asylum system for five years if Reform UK forms the next government, including scrapping existing applications and deporting migrants awaiting decisions.

The Reform UK leader is expected to announce the proposals today, pledging to halt the asylum system for an entire parliamentary term.

Under the plans, all active applications would be declared void, while legal refugee routes, asylum tribunals and existing resettlement schemes would be abolished.

The party says it would remove people with pending asylum and humanitarian protection appeals rather than process their cases. Around 90,000 appeals are currently awaiting consideration, according to Home Office figures cited in the proposals.

Mr Farage would also immediately close resettlement programmes which Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently said would reopen. Around a quarter of arrivals under the schemes were expected to be Palestinians, as well as Afghan women and girls.

The party argues there is “no mandate” for the programmes and says those who have already arrived through them would also face deportation.

In addition, refugees granted asylum within the previous five years would have their cases reviewed by the Home Office.

Mr Farage previously said the UK faced a “national security emergency”, arguing the state’s first duty was to protect citizens.

“We cannot accept more asylum seekers while we still have no idea how many people are in the country illegally and the threat they pose,” he said.

Moreover, Reform UK would promise to impose tariffs to pressure other countries into accepting the return of foreigners.

Follow for the LATEST UPDATES throughout the day…

• Zia Yusuf brands Andy Burnham ‘awful’ as he calls out U-turn on pledge not to re-run Brexit

  Reform UK home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf has described Andy Burnham’s expressed interest in closer ties with the EU as “awful”, having U-turned on a key election pledge to not re-run Brexit.

  His comments come after Andy Burnham claimed Russia “clearly” meddled in the 2016 Brexit referendum, as he indicated he may push to rejoin the EU.

  Mr Yusuf told GB News breakfast: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Andy Burnham has provided not a thread of evidence.”

  He pointed to the Makerfield by-election, where Mr Burnham had pledged not to re-run the Brexit debate, and that “within months of winning that election in Makerfield and making himself Prime Minister on that promise, he’s already U-turning on that.”

  “More people voted for Brexit in this country than have voted for anything for the history of this country in a single election. For him to be doing this now I think is really awful, but it’s why people have such a dim view of career politicians.

  “They will say anything they can to get elected.”

• Sagal Abdi-Wali says she hopes to see Thames Water brough into public ownership
•  
  

  Sagal Abdi-Wali enters Parliament today after beating Zack Polanski in Holborn & St Pancras by-election

  Labour’s Sagal Abdi-Wali will enter the House of Commons this afternoon after winning Friday’s Holborn & St Pancras by-election, succeeding former prime minister Sir Keir Starmer, who resigned as MP after being ousted from Downing Street.

  Abdi-Wali secured 12,292 votes, representing 45.17 per cent of the total, while Green Party leader Zack Polanski finished second with 8,928 votes (32.81 per cent).

  In her victory speech, she identified tackling homelessness and bringing Thames Water into public ownership as key priorities, describing the company as “appalling”.

  She also condemned the racist abuse she experienced during the campaign, emphasising the importance of protecting Britain’s diversity and social cohesion.

  Before entering Parliament, Abdi-Wali became Camden Council’s first black female leader in May this year.

  Elected as a councillor in 2022, she previously led the borough’s housing team, where she says she secured more than £670 million for social housing improvements.

  Born in Somalia, she arrived in Britain as a child refugee in the 1990s, fleeing the country’s civil war.

  Labour says her background includes more than a decade of voluntary work and charity trusteeship, alongside roles in local government and school governance.

  When selected as Labour’s candidate, Abdi-Wali said she wanted to give back to the country where she had been able to build a life, and will now represent Holborn & St Pancras in Parliament.

  

• Andy Burnham to fight for new EU deal in Commons

  Andy Burnham will tell MPs it would be a “dereliction of duty” not to seek a new deal with the European Union.

  In a Commons address later today, the Prime Minister is expected to reiterate his argument from the Labour Party conference Brexit has done “more harm than good”.

  He will call on all parties to support the Government’s approach in seeking a closer relationship with the EU, arguing such a move could help control immigration and boost growth.

  A No10 source said: “Andy understands why some politicians don’t want to face up to the reality that Brexit has not delivered what they once promised.

  “But it is time for a different conversation about what our long-term relationship should be. Sticking with the status quo and not working relentlessly to secure a good deal that boosts growth would be a major dereliction of duty.”

  At the Labour conference in Liverpool last month, Mr Burnham said he would set out the “options” for Britain’s long-term relationship with Europe around the time of a UK-EU summit planned for the end of the year.

  He has suggested those options could include rejoining the bloc.

  

  Nigel Farage Vows to Shut Down Entire Asylum System to Deport 90,000 Migrants

  Immigration has become one of the most controversial political issues in the United Kingdom, with growing public concern about border security, illegal migration and the pressure placed on public services. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has intensified this debate by announcing plans to suspend the entire British asylum system for five years if his party comes to power. Under the proposals unveiled on 12 October 2026, approximately 90,000 people with outstanding asylum and humanitarian protection appeals would face deportation rather than having their cases considered through the existing system. The announcement represents a major escalation in Reform UK’s immigration policy and has provoked strong reactions from political opponents, refugee organisations and human rights campaigners. At the centre of the controversy is a fundamental question: how can Britain protect its borders while continuing to fulfil its legal and humanitarian responsibilities towards people escaping persecution and war?

  To understand the significance of Farage’s announcement, it is important to examine the current situation surrounding asylum in Britain. An asylum seeker is someone who has entered a country and requested international protection because they fear persecution or serious harm in their country of origin. Under international law, their application must be assessed before a final decision is made about whether they qualify for refugee protection. This process is intended to distinguish between people who genuinely need protection and those who do not meet the legal requirements.

  However, the British asylum system has experienced considerable pressure in recent years. The number of people arriving through irregular routes, particularly small boats crossing the English Channel, has become a major political issue. The government has also faced criticism over delays in processing applications, the cost of temporary accommodation and difficulties returning people whose claims have been rejected. Hotels used to accommodate asylum seekers have attracted public attention, while local councils and communities have raised concerns about the financial and social consequences of the system.

  Farage argues that the existing arrangements have failed to provide effective control over Britain’s borders. In his announcement in Hythe, Kent, he described the situation as a national security emergency. He maintained that the government should prioritise the safety and interests of British citizens and argued that the country could not continue accepting asylum applications while large numbers of people were living in Britain without secure immigration status.

  Under Reform UK’s proposed policy, the asylum system would effectively be suspended for a full parliamentary term, normally lasting five years. New asylum applications would be rejected, while applications already being processed would be declared void. The party would also abolish the existing asylum tribunal system, remove legal refugee routes and terminate most resettlement schemes. According to the proposal, approximately 90,000 people with outstanding asylum and humanitarian protection appeals would be deported instead of receiving further hearings.

  The policy would go further than simply stopping new arrivals. Reform UK has also proposed reviewing the immigration status of people who have received refugee protection during the previous five years. Individuals who no longer meet the party’s proposed eligibility criteria could have their permission to remain in Britain withdrawn. The party has indicated that its wider deportation programme could eventually affect more than one million people, including individuals who entered illegally or overstayed their visas.

  Zia Yusuf, Reform UK’s home affairs spokesperson, has been closely involved in developing the proposals. He has argued that Britain needs a fundamentally different approach to immigration enforcement and that the government must be prepared to carry out large-scale removals. The party has also proposed creating a specialised deportation agency and establishing between 24,000 and 28,000 detention spaces to hold people awaiting removal. In addition, it wants to use diplomatic and economic pressure against countries that refuse to accept their nationals back.

  One particularly controversial aspect concerns the treatment of women and children. Farage has indicated that the proposed suspension would not automatically exempt Palestinian or Afghan women and children from the restrictions. He argued that allowing particular groups to enter could create further opportunities for family reunification. However, the government has disputed some of his claims about the existing resettlement arrangements, explaining that the proposed admission of vulnerable women and children would not automatically create the family reunion rights he suggested. This disagreement highlights the importance of distinguishing between political arguments and the actual legal conditions attached to refugee resettlement schemes. <Cite refs={[“turn233080search0″,”turn233080search2”]}/>

  The announcement has also raised questions about Britain’s relationship with international law. Reform UK has proposed withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights, repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 and disapplying the 1951 Refugee Convention as part of its wider immigration programme. The party argues that these changes would remove legal obstacles preventing the government from deporting people it considers to have no right to remain.

  However, human rights organisations and legal experts have raised serious concerns about the consequences. The principle of non-refoulement, a central feature of international refugee protection, prohibits countries from returning people to places where they face a real risk of persecution, torture or other serious harm. Simply declaring that an asylum claim is invalid does not remove the obligation to consider whether deportation would expose an individual to danger. Any government seeking to implement such a policy would therefore face substantial legal and practical challenges.

  The Refugee Council has strongly criticised Reform UK’s proposals, describing them as unworkable and warning that closing the asylum system could create further disorder. Its chief policy analyst, Jon Featonby, argued that people fleeing war and persecution would continue arriving in Britain even if the legal system were suspended. Instead of being assessed through an organised process, vulnerable individuals could be driven underground and become more exposed to exploitation, trafficking and abuse.

  The organisation has suggested that Britain should concentrate on improving the efficiency of its existing asylum system. Applications should be processed more quickly so that genuine refugees can obtain protection, find appropriate accommodation and begin contributing to their communities. Those whose applications are unsuccessful should be returned through lawful and properly managed procedures. This approach attempts to balance border enforcement with the country’s humanitarian responsibilities. <Cite refs={[“turn233080search1″,”turn233080search2”]}/>

  The Labour Party has also rejected Farage’s proposals. Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s chairwoman, described the announcement as a sign of political desperation and accused Reform UK of adopting increasingly extreme positions. Labour argues that immigration can be controlled and reduced through effective enforcement without abandoning the asylum system entirely. From this perspective, a functioning asylum system is not an obstacle to border security but an essential part of ensuring that immigration rules are applied fairly and consistently.

  The Conservative Party has taken a different approach to criticising Reform. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp argued that several elements of Farage’s proposals were similar to policies previously advocated by the Conservatives. However, he maintained that his party had developed a more comprehensive plan for removing people who enter Britain illegally. The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, have argued for closer cooperation with European countries, including participation in European arrangements for managing migration and returning people who do not qualify for protection. <Cite refs={[“turn233080search0″,”turn233080search1”]}/>

  The economic consequences of the proposed policy are another important consideration. Reform UK claims that suspending the asylum system and increasing deportations would reduce the financial burden on British taxpayers. The party argues that money currently spent on temporary accommodation, administration and legal proceedings could be redirected towards domestic priorities such as healthcare, housing and education.

  Nevertheless, large-scale deportation operations would also require substantial resources. The government would need detention facilities, transportation, administrative personnel and agreements with foreign governments willing to accept deportees. Some countries may refuse to cooperate, particularly when there are disputes over nationality or concerns about the treatment of returning individuals. Furthermore, legal challenges could delay removals and increase government expenditure. Reform UK has yet to provide a fully detailed explanation of how every aspect of its proposed programme would be implemented.

  In my opinion, the immigration debate should not be reduced to a simple choice between completely open borders and the complete suspension of asylum protection. Governments have a legitimate responsibility to control immigration, protect national security and ensure that public resources are used effectively. At the same time, people escaping war, torture and persecution deserve access to a fair legal process. These responsibilities are not necessarily contradictory. A country can enforce its immigration laws while maintaining the fundamental principle that individuals should not be returned to situations where their lives or freedom are in serious danger.

  Britain should therefore focus on three important priorities. First, asylum applications should be processed efficiently, reducing delays and unnecessary public expenditure. Second, individuals who are found not to qualify for protection should be returned through lawful procedures, supported by effective international cooperation. Third, the government should maintain safe and legal routes for people who genuinely need humanitarian protection. Such measures could help reduce irregular migration while preventing vulnerable people from becoming victims of criminal networks.

  Furthermore, political leaders should provide realistic explanations of their immigration policies rather than relying entirely on dramatic promises. Voters deserve to understand how proposed deportations would be financed, how international legal obligations would be addressed and what safeguards would protect people who face genuine danger. The success of any immigration policy should be measured not only by the number of removals but also by its legality, effectiveness and long-term consequences.

  In conclusion, Nigel Farage’s proposal to suspend Britain’s asylum system for five years and deport approximately 90,000 people with outstanding appeals has opened a major political confrontation over immigration and national sovereignty. Reform UK presents the policy as a necessary response to what it considers a national security emergency. However, Labour, refugee organisations and human rights campaigners warn that abandoning the asylum system could create serious legal, humanitarian and administrative problems. The debate illustrates the difficult balance between protecting national borders and respecting international obligations. Ultimately, Britain needs an immigration system that is firm, efficient and fair. Controlling borders is an important responsibility of government, but protecting human dignity and the rights of vulnerable people must also remain central to any democratic society.