These assessments show what action government has taken to carry out the United Nation’s (UN’s) recommendations, within the scope of our methodology.
They include recommendations from the UN committees associated with the human rights treaties that the UK government has signed and ratified (agreed to follow), which are:
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
- International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
- Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
- Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
- Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CAT)
Overview of action taken
Access to legal aid and asylum procedures
What we assessed in the recommendation
Take steps to:
make sure people have access to asylum procedures without discrimination, and to procedures for determining status when they are stateless
make sure asylum procedures and procedures for determining status are processed quickly, and that people have access to legal aid in both circumstances
make sure there are individual assessments of asylum applications
make sure that procedures have safeguards in place
make sure people have access to remedies, including being protected against refoulement (forcing someone to return to a country where they are at risk of harm)
change the 'no recourse to public funds' rule to make sure migrants do not face a higher risk of poverty or lack of security, in line with UN advice on how countries should treat refugees and migrants
improve integration strategies by focusing on access to social security, healthcare and education, including language courses, family unity, access to the labour market and employment services and making sure people are protected from discrimination
ICESCR concluding observations 2025, paragraph 27:
The Committee recommends that the State Party: (c) Review the “no recourse to public funds” rule to prevent an increase in poverty and precarity among migrants and asylum-seekers, taking into account the Committee’s statement on the duties of States towards refugees and migrants under the Covenant.
ICESCR concluding observations 2025, paragraph 27:
The Committee recommends that the State Party: (b) Guarantee access to asylum and statelessness determination procedures and to legal aid, without discrimination, and, along with the devolved governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, enhance its integration strategies focusing on access to social security, healthcare and education, including language courses, family unity and access to the labour market and employment services
CERD concluding observations 2024, paragraph 48:
Recalling its general recommendation No. 30 (2004) on discrimination against non-citizens, and the recommendations made by the Human Rights Committee, the Committee recommends that the State party review and repeal any legislative provision that discriminates against migrant groups and that limits access to rights for asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, with a view to ensuring that its legal framework fully complies with the Convention and relevant international standards. It also recommends that the State party facilitate access to asylum procedures and to legal aid without discrimination and ensure the individual assessment of asylum applications, sufficient procedural guarantees and access to effective remedies, including against refoulement. The Committee recommends that the State party adopt all measures necessary to ensure that all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have gone missing are accommodated in places covered by the State party’s child protection system and effectively protect them against trafficking. It further recommends that the State party revise the “no recourse to public funds” rule and ensure that it does not expose migrant households to a higher risk of poverty and precarity.
ICCPR concluding observations 2024, paragraph 41:
The Committee urges the State party: (b) To provide access to status determination mechanisms for asylum-seekers, refugees and stateless persons to help ensure that they have their claims processed expeditiously and that those granted protection are able to integrate effectively and are protected from discrimination, regardless of their national origin or status as refugees or stateless persons, in line with articles 2, 13 and 26 of the Covenant.
Assessment summary
The ICCPR recommendation was made in May 2024, the CERD recommendation was made in September 2024 and the ICESCR recommendations were made in March 2025.
Overall, since the recommendations were made, the UK government has repealed some legislation which had previously removed safeguards from immigration processes. However, some provisions remain in force. Additionally, the UK government has not addressed concerns raised about a lack of procedural safeguards in immigration detention for individuals who lack mental capacity.
The government has introduced a bill to Parliament setting out reforms to asylum and modern slavery legislation. The bill includes provisions on how courts and tribunals should apply Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in immigration cases, including a proposed definition of ‘family life’. The government has also consulted on introducing a ‘no recourse to public funds’ condition for those who are granted settlement and proposed new eligibility criteria for family reunion.
The UK government has not made changes to statelessness determination procedures or provided access to legal aid in these circumstances, although it has increased legal aid rates for those working in immigration and asylum.
While the UK government has published a strategy which aims to support community cohesion and integration, this does not include any information on increasing access to social security, healthcare and education for asylum seekers. The UK government continues to provide free English language lessons for adults over 19, but has ended the Refugee Employability Programme. It has also proposed introducing stricter criteria for financial support for some migrants, and has revoked the legal obligation to provide support to asylum seekers at risk of destitution.
Access to asylum procedures, safeguards and effective remedies
In a legal case in February 2018 and a legal case in July 2019, before the recommendations were made, the Court of Appeal found that immigration procedures had breached the reasonable adjustments duty under Equality Act 2010. This was because there was a lack of procedural safeguards in the system for identifying and assessing the mental capacity of individuals in immigration detention where concerns were raised about an individual’s ability to make immigration-related decisions. The UK government put in place a process to address this, but it accepted in a judicial review claim in December 2023 that this is not operating effectively and agreed to carry out a review of the process, which has not yet concluded.
Before the recommendations were made, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA) was passed into law in July 2023. Some of the provisions in the act made changes to existing safeguards. However, they have not all been brought into force. Some have also since been repealed, reinstating previous safeguards.
Section 59 of the IMA requires the Secretary of State to declare a human rights claim inadmissible if the applicant is from one of the countries listed as ‘safe states’. This specific provision under section 59 of the IMA is not yet in force. However, another part of section 59 is in force: the power to make regulations to add and remove countries from the list of ‘safe states’. This means that if the inadmissibility requirement under section 59 is brought into force at a later date, nationals of those countries on the list will have any human rights claims declared inadmissible with no right of appeal, unless there are ‘exceptional circumstances’.
Section 1 of the IMA disapplied section 3 of the Human Rights Act, which requires courts and tribunals to interpret legislation compatibly with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. Section 2 of the IMA also introduced a duty on the Home Secretary to remove people who arrive in the UK without permission to a safe third country, when they have not arrived directly from a country where their life and liberty were at risk. These sections were not brought into force when the act was passed into law and were repealed in December 2025 by the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.
In April 2024, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 passed into law. It deemed that Rwanda was a safe third country, meaning that people who arrive in the UK seeking asylum could be removed to Rwanda. The legislation legally presumed that Rwanda would process asylum claims fairly and protect rights, and people sent there would not be returned to countries where they face risk of harm. This overrode the ability of UK courts to challenge or overturn safety designations. Section 4 of this act also disapplied the Human Rights Act when making decisions in relation to individual circumstances and whether a person may suffer serious harm if they were removed to Rwanda.
In July 2024, the current UK government announced that it would not be continuing with the policy of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Subsequently, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 was passed into law in December 2025. The Act repealed the Safety of Rwanda Act. It also repealed sections 1 and 2 of the Illegal Migration Act but not section 59 which remains in force.
In November 2025, the UK government published a policy paper setting out proposed reforms of the asylum system. This included:
granting refugee status on a shorter, more temporary basis for a 30-month period, down from 5 years - this change came into force in March 2026
establishing a new appeals body aimed at increasing capacity in the system for processing appeals, which the Home Office launched a call for evidence on in March 2026
making changes to the eligibility criteria for family reunion so that refugees are ineligible to apply unless they are on a work or study route and meet certain criteria
defining how article 8 (family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) should apply in asylum and immigration cases
acknowledging the principle of non-refoulement, and stating that the UK 'will never be a country that sends people back to face torture or threats to life'
In June 2026, the government introduced the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The bill includes some of the reforms proposed in the policy paper, including the establishment of an Independent Immigration Appeals Authority (IIAA) to decide first instance immigration appeals. Unlike in the existing first tier tribunal system, IIAA decision-makers would not have to be legally qualified. The explanatory notes for the Immigration and Asylum Bill explain that the bill also introduces changes aimed at 'tightening the application of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights' in immigration cases, including a proposed definition of ‘family life’.
The bill is currently being considered by Parliament and has not yet become law.
In May 2026, the UK government and the 45 other Council of Europe member states adopted a political declaration called the Chișinău declaration. In an accompanying press release, the UK government stated that the declaration is expected to help courts interpret how the ECHR should apply in immigration cases. The declaration states that some member states are considering processing requests for international protection in a third country, and the use of ‘third country return hubs’, and that if these are used, member states must continue to uphold ECHR rights.
Access to statelessness determination procedures
In January 2024, before the recommendations were made, the UK government introduced the Appendix Statelessness section of the Immigration Rules. This replaced the previous criteria and process for applying for leave to remain and settlement in the UK as a stateless person.
Accompanying Home Office guidance for caseworkers about how to assess statelessness applications states that 'applications should be progressed without unnecessary delay' but does not specify a timeframe. This guidance was first published in April 2013, updated in January 2024 to reflect changes to the process, and last updated in November 2025.
Since the recommendations were made, the UK government has taken no further action to make changes to these processes.
Access to legal aid
Legal aid is typically not available for statelessness applications as it is not included under Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 Act (LASPO), although it is possible in some exceptional circumstances. The UK government has taken no action to change this since the recommendations were made.
People seeking asylum are eligible for legal aid in some circumstances. Since the recommendations were made, the UK government has taken some steps to improve access to legal aid for people seeking asylum. In March 2025, following its Civil legal aid: Towards a sustainable future consultation, the UK government committed to increasing the legal aid rates (fees paid to solicitors) for those working in immigration and asylum to help ensure that people have access to legal advice. These changes came into force in December 2025 through the introduction of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure and Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
No recourse to public funds
Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, people who are ‘subject to immigration control’, including asylum seekers, are usually ineligible for welfare benefits and social housing, except in exceptional circumstances. This is referred to as having ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF). Since the recommendations were made, these rules have not changed.
Between December 2025 and February 2026, the UK government ran a consultation on proposed changes to the criteria for being granted settlement (also known as Indefinite Leave to Remain). The consultation asked for views on proposals to introduce a NRPF condition for all those who are granted settlement, in contrast to the recommendation to change the NPRF rule to make sure migrants do not face a higher risk of poverty or lack of security.
The consultation did not reference a need to reduce the risk of poverty or lack of security, or UN advice on how countries should treat refugees and migrants. This advice states that any restrictions placed on migrants to access income support should be reasonable and proportionate. The outcome of the consultation has not yet been published.
Integration strategies
In December 2023, before the recommendations were made, the UK government launched the Refugee Employability Programme (REP) which aimed to support refugees who arrived through specified routes to find work and settle into their local communities. This included providing support on CV writing and interview practice, English language classes and providing information on relevant community groups, healthcare services and childcare services. However, the programme ended in June 2025.
Since August 2024, the Department for Education has provided funding so that adults aged 19 years and over can access free English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) lessons, provided they meet certain eligibility criteria. Refugees, people with humanitarian protection and asylum seekers whose cases have been pending for six months or longer, are eligible to access these free lessons.
In November 2025, the UK government published a policy paper setting out proposed reforms of the asylum system. This included consulting on measures in the Immigration Act 2016 that allow the removal of support from those who have been refused asylum and do not have a genuine obstacle to leaving the country, including families with children under 18. It also includes revoking the legal obligation to provide support to asylum seekers at risk of destitution and replacing it with a discretionary duty. Legislation to revoke the legal obligation to support was laid in the UK Parliament in March 2026. The legislation came into force in June 2026, reducing access to social security. This goes against the recommendation.
In March 2026, the UK government published the Protecting What Matters strategy, which aims to support community cohesion and integration. The strategy includes a commitment to develop a cross-government integration strategy to help migrants to integrate in their communities. It also includes a commitment to provide up to £5 million of funding to the Common Ground Resilience Fund over the financial year 2026 / 2027 for local authorities and grassroots organisations to run initiatives aimed at tackling prejudices. However, the strategy does not include any information on increasing access to social security, healthcare and education for asylum seekers.
Assessment up to date as of June 2026.
Detention use and time limits
What we assessed in the recommendation
Set a legal time limit for immigration detention and make sure detention is used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time.
CERD concluding observations 2016, paragraph 39:
Recalling its general recommendation No. 30 (2004) on discrimination against non-citizens, the Committee recommends that the State party establish a statutory time limit on the duration of immigration detention and ensure that detention is used as a measure of last resort, and take further steps to end the immigration detention of children. The State party should also ensure that individuals who are held in immigration detention facilities have effective access to justice, including legal aid.
CAT concluding observations 2019, paragraph 55:
The State party should: (c) Consider setting in law a reasonable time limit on the duration of administrative immigration detention.
The UK government has not established a statutory time limit on the duration of immigration detention since the CERD and CAT recommendations were made in October 2016 and June 2019 respectively.
Before these recommendations, the Immigration Act 2014 already provided statutory time limits for the use of immigration detention for families with children under 18 (section 6), children (section 5) and pregnant women (section 60).
Home Office guidance, last updated in September 2023, indicates that detention should be used sparingly, and for the shortest period necessary, but not as a last resort except in the case of families with children who are under 18.
Assessment up to date as of December 2024.
Immigration detention for pregnant women and nursing mothers
What we assessed in the recommendation
Stop detaining pregnant women and nursing mothers.
CEDAW concluding observations 2019, paragraph 56:
Recalling its general recommendation No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, the Committee recommends that the State party: (b) Take immediate measures to end the detention of pregnant women and nursing mothers; (c) Take measures to enable asylum-seeking and refugee women to gain access to employment and appropriate housing.
Section 60 of the Immigration Act 2016 and Home Office guidance continues to provide for the detention of pregnant women and families with children for 72 hours, or up to seven days with ministerial approval.
Assessment up to date as of December 2024.
Asylum process for children
What we assessed in the recommendation
Review and improve the asylum process to ensure that:
- children get age-appropriate information and legal advice about their rights, the asylum process and what documentation is needed
- children’s best interests are the priority in all asylum processes
- children are listened to and their views are given appropriate consideration
- children can access child-friendly ways to get justice
CRC concluding observations 2023, paragraph 50:
With reference to joint general comments No. 3 and No. 4 of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families/No. 22 and No. 23 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2017) on the human rights of children in the context of international migration, the Committee urges the State party: (c) To review and strengthen the asylum process to ensure that children receive age-appropriate information and legal advice about their rights, asylum procedures and requirements for documentation, that their best interests are given primary consideration in all asylum processes, that their views are heard, taken into account and given due weight and that they have access to child-friendly justice mechanisms and remedies.
Since the recommendation was made in June 2023, the UK government has not reviewed the asylum process for children. The most recent caseworker guidance on processing children’s asylum claims was last updated in 2022, before this recommendation was made.
In March 2023, shortly before the recommendation was made, the UK government began trialling a streamlined approach to processing children’s asylum claims. The stated aim of this trial was to reduce delays in the asylum process. Home Office guidance about the streamlined approach does not mention the need to ensure the treatment of children in line with the requirements of this CRC recommendation.
Assessment up to date as of December 2024.
Sending children to third countries
What we assessed in the recommendation
Make sure children and those whose age is disputed are not sent to a third country.
CRC concluding observations 2023, paragraph 50:
With reference to joint general comments No. 3 and No. 4 of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families/No. 22 and No. 23 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2017) on the human rights of children in the context of international migration, the Committee urges the State party: (f) To ensure that children and age-disputed children are not removed to a third country.
In July 2024, after the recommendation was made in June 2023, the UK government pledged to withdraw from the UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP), which would have allowed for the removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda.
However, the UK’s withdrawal from the UK-Rwanda MEDP does not prevent the removal of children to safe third country. Children’s asylum claims casework guidance, last updated in June 2022, provides information on removing children to a safe third country and ensuring adequate arrangements are in place.
Assessment up to date as of December 2024.
Independent guardianship for unaccompanied children
What we assessed in the recommendation
Set up a legal system of independent guardianship for all unaccompanied children. Make sure all unaccompanied children are identified quickly and that a trained guardian is appointed for them.
CRC concluding observations 2023, paragraph 50:
With reference to joint general comments No. 3 and No. 4 of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families/No. 22 and No. 23 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2017) on the human rights of children in the context of international migration, the Committee urges the State party: (g) To develop a consistent, statutory system of independent guardianship for all unaccompanied children and ensure that all unaccompanied children throughout all jurisdictions of the State party are promptly identified and provided with a professionally trained guardian.
Since the recommendation was made in June 2023, the UK government has not taken steps to develop a statutory system of independent guardianship for unaccompanied children seeking asylum in England and Wales. Current Home Office guidance only requires that an independent ‘responsible adult’ be present for certain parts of the asylum process. This guidance is marked as ‘under review’.
There is no evidence that UK government has taken steps to ensure that all unaccompanied children are promptly identified since the recommendation was made. Current guidance for Home Office caseworkers was last updated in 2022 and states that ‘all unaccompanied children must be referred to local authority children’s services at the earliest possible opportunity, even if only the most basic details are known’. This guidance is marked as ‘under review’.
Assessment up to date as of December 2024.
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
What we assessed in the recommendation
Do not make the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill into an Act of Parliament. Remove it if it has been made into an Act of Parliament. This should be done to protect the principle of 'non-refoulement' (not sending refugees back into danger) in law and practice.
ICCPR concluding observations 2024, paragraph 41:
The Committee urges the State party: (c) To withdraw the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, or repeal the bill if passed, with a view to strictly upholding the principle of non-refoulement in both law and practice.
The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 has not been withdrawn or repealed. However, in July 2024 the UK government committed to withdraw from the UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, which the act was intended to implement, in the King’s Speech.
Assessment up to date as of December 2024.
Categorising children without regular residence status and their families
What we assessed in the recommendation
Consider setting up an oversight body for coordinating and monitoring implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Include input from national human rights institutions and women’s organisations.
CRC concluding observations 2023, paragraph 51:
The Committee recommends that the State party: (b) Stop the designation of children without a regular residence status and their families to administrative categories that prevent them from accessing certain services, such as the “no recourse to public funds” provision throughout all jurisdictions of the State party and “non-belonger” status in the overseas territories.
The UK Government has not stopped using the categorisation of ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ for children and their families in the UK. Existing exceptions continue to apply, including those set out under the Children Act 1987 which allow for provision of services to a child in need and their family.
Assessment up to date as of December 2024.
Age determination of children
What we assessed in the recommendation
End the use of unreliable and invasive ways of identifying a child’s age and introduce a child and gender sensitive approach that:
- includes assessments by different relevant professionals
- respects the legal principle of the benefit of the doubt
- ensures children have access to legal advice and are able to challenge the assessment outcome
CRC concluding observations 2023, paragraph 50:
With reference to joint general comments No. 3 and No. 4 of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families/No. 22 and No. 23 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2017) on the human rights of children in the context of international migration, the Committee urges the State party: (e) To put an end to the use of unreliable and invasive procedures for determining a child’s age, develop an age determination procedure that is child- and gender-sensitive, includes multidisciplinary assessments conducted by relevant professionals of the child’s maturity and level of development and respects the legal principle of the benefit of the doubt and ensure that children have access to legal advice throughout the process and, if necessary, can challenge the outcome of such assessments.
Since the recommendation was made in June 2023, the Home Office has continued to use a variety of existing age assessment methods, including visual assessments.
Current guidance on assessing age for asylum applicants states that, where there is uncertainty about whether the individual is an adult or a child, the principle of ‘the benefit of the doubt’ is applied. This means the individual should be treated as a child pending further consideration of their age. Age assessments, including those conducted by the National Age Assessment Board, must be compliant with case law (often referred to as ‘Merton-compliant’) and are used only in the limited circumstances provided for in Sections 50 and 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (for example after referral by a local authority).
The UK government has not taken additional action in respect of the ability of children to access legal advice or appeal negative decisions for age assessments. Section 54 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 provided a statutory right of appeal against an age assessment decision that does not align with the claimed age of the individual. This includes the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, where individuals can access legal aid in certain circumstances. However, these provisions are not in force.
Assessment up to date as of December 2024.
Alternatives to detention
What we assessed in the recommendation
Increase the use of alternatives to detention, particularly for children, pregnant women and families with children. Seek to end the use of immigration detention for children. Implement alternatives to detention that respect human rights, including the right to privacy, instead of surveillance-based technological alternatives. Make sure those in immigration detention have access to justice, including legal aid.
CEDAW concluding observations 2019, paragraph 56:
Recalling its general recommendation No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, the Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Introduce a general time limit on immigration detention and implement alternatives to detention.
ICCPR concluding observations 2024, paragraph 43:
Bearing in mind the Committee’s previous recommendations, the State party should establish a statutory time limit on the duration of immigration detention and ensure that detention is used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time, and increase the use of alternatives to detention, particularly for children, pregnant women and families with children, that are respectful of human rights, including the right to privacy, instead of surveillance-based technological
alternatives.
The CEDAW recommendation was made in March 2019. Home Office guidance, ‘Detention: general instructions’, was last updated in 2023 and indicates a presumption in favour of immigration bail, and that all reasonable alternatives to detention must be considered before detention is authorised. There continues to be provision for the immigration detention of children, including unaccompanied children in short-term holding facilities for up to 24 hours, and families with children for 72 hours or up to seven days with ministerial approval. However, the guidance places particular limitations on the detention of children, pregnant women and families with children.
In August 2024, the UK government announced an increase in detention capacity at two immigration removal centres.
Since the ICCPR recommendation was published in March 2024, the UK government has continued to allow the use of electronic monitoring of people as a condition of immigration bail.
Since the ICCPR recommendation was made in March 2024, the UK government has not taken additional action to ensure that those in immigration detention have access to justice, including legal aid. Under Section 8 of the 2018 Standard Civil Contract Category Specific Rules for Immigration and Asylum, people detained in an Immigration Removal Centre continue to be able to request a 30-minute appointment with a solicitor from a legal aid firm, under the Detained Duty Advice Scheme. Legal representation may then be provided based on the merits of an individual’s case.
As set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, legal aid is not available for certain aspects of an immigration case (for example, a deportation appeal), even if the case is a strong one. Exceptional case funding may be available to those who do not qualify for legal aid but whose human rights would be breached if they did not receive legal representation.
Assessment up to date as of December 2024.
Page updates
Published:
29 January 2025
Last updated:
27 August 2026