Summary

The government is consulting on major policy changes in the asylum and asylum support systems. Their consultation is titled “family returns”, but the proposals within it are far broader. Their proposed changes could lead to families and young people being left homeless, denied any safety net, and children being handcuffed and detained by immigration officers. They also seek to override existing local authority duties to support families and young people. 

The full consultation is available here: Family Returns: Reforming Asylum Support and Enforcing Family Returns.  It closes on the 28th May 2026.

The key changes being proposed are: 

  1. Changing the asylum support system to remove support from families who have been refused asylum; 
  1. Removing support from some care leavers – young people who have been looked after by local authorities – on the basis of their immigration status; 
  1. Changing rules around family removals to allow physical force to be used against children, including by officers who are not trained in working with children and who are not wearing cameras. 

GMIAU’s view: We must resist these changes in their entirety. They represent an unprecedented attack on children’s rights in the UK and will only lead to fear, destitution, homelessness, violence and misery. This blog is aimed at supporting individuals and organisations to respond to the consultation. 

Things to know about the consultation 

  • You can respond either as an individual or as an organisation.  
  • You can answer the consultation online via the links above, or respond in writing via email to HO-Consultation-ChildrenandFamilies@homeoffice.gov.uk.  
  • In the online form, there are a lot of complex questions, some of which are worded in a confusing way and assume support for the changes. In our view, the number of questions and the bias in them are a barrier to responding meaningfully. 
  • You can avoid answering the questions altogether if you respond in writing to the email address above – you do not need to follow the structure of the questions. It’s up to you how you respond but our guide will not go through the questions in detail. We will summarise the proposals and the points that you may want to raise in a written response. 
  • If you only have something to say about parts of the proposals, you can address only these parts in your response.  
  • If you are responding in writing, you should include a sentence to confirm that you understand the current system and the proposed changes and explain where your expertise comes from.  

Part 1: Reforming Support for Families and Adult Care Leavers Without Immigration Status 

Reforming asylum support 

The consultation seeks to change how families without immigration status receive support. For families who have been refused asylum and are “appeal rights exhausted”, this is Home Office asylum support. For families who are not eligible for this support, because their immigration issues are not asylum related, the consultation seeks to change the support they can get from their local authority.   

Changes to Home Office support  

Currently, people seeking asylum who are destitute are supported under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. If a family has a child under the age of 18, if their asylum claim is refused, they continue to receive section 95 support.  

People can receive another form of support, under section 4, if they become appeal rights exhausted. If one of these forms of support is denied by the Home Office, this decision can be appealed.  

Proposed changes:   

  • Section 4 support will no longer exist under the proposed changes and will be replaced with a more restrictive “section 95a”.  
  • Families with children under the age of 18 will no longer receive section 95 support if their asylum claim or appeal is refused. They will be eligible for section 95a.   
  • Once an individual or family becomes appeal rights exhausted, their section 95 support will continue only for a “grace period”, to allow them to either leave the UK, or apply for support under section 95a. The consultation proposes that this grace period is 90 days for families and 21 days for everyone else.   
  • There will be no appeal process if section 95a support is refused.   

Things you may wish to consider in your response:   

  • These proposals will lead to more destitution and homelessness in our communities. They make an already restrictive and minimal system of asylum support even harder to access. By definition, people receiving asylum support would otherwise be destitute, and have no other option to support themselves.   
  • Specifically the consultation is targeted at removing support from destitute families with children under 18. The current system, though flawed, prevents children being made homeless and destitute on our streets. These proposals are explicitly aimed at removing this safeguard. If enacted, we will see an intentional increase in child poverty, homelessness and destitution in Greater Manchester and across the UK.  
  • The suggestion that section 95a can only be applied for within the grace period is particularly concerning. For various reasons, people may not be able to apply in time, and some obstacles to removal may arise after the grace period (making families eligible for section 95a). If support is needed there should be no limit to when it can be granted.   
  • You may want to write in your response about your experience of the short-term and long-term impact of destitution and homelessness on adults and children, including on physical and mental health. You may also want to address how removing support from families works against flagship government priorities, particularly on child poverty. 

Changes to local authority support   

Currently, families without immigration status in the UK can be supported by their local authority where not doing so would be a breach of their human rights. This includes families who are not claiming asylum but who have other immigration issues. This protects children in families from becoming destitute because of their parents’ immigration status. It’s known as Section 17 support (under the Children Act 1989). 

Proposed changes:   

  • The consultation proposes that a local authority could still provide “child in need” support,  but not for the sole reason of preventing destitution. There would be no obligation on a local authority to support a family if they are destitute because they are in the UK with no immigration status.   
  • Local authorities could only provide support if the family has an ongoing non-asylum immigration application (including an appeal). Or, if they are refused, support could be provided if they are not refusing to leave the UK and are “complying with the guidance and direction of the Secretary of State”.   

Things you may wish to consider in your answer:   

  • There are many complicated reasons why families may not have a current ongoing immigration application.  
  • Due to the ongoing legal aid crisis, many families are unable to find legal representation to help them make applications.  
  • Insecurity is baked into the immigration system, particularly long routes to settlement.  
  • Many people lose status due to not being able to afford visa fees, making mistakes in applications, or other circumstances beyond their control completely.  
  • The local authority should be able to assess and decide to support a family based on concerns around destitution, regardless of immigration status or willingness to leave the UK. The Home Office should not be able to prevent local authorities from making these decisions themselves.  
  • This type of local authority support is hard baked into primary legislation meant to safeguard and protect the welfare of children through the Children Act 1989. The proposals will stop children being seen as children first and foremost. They will be punished for circumstances outside their control and placed at risk of significant harm and destitution. There is a significant risk of families going “underground”, being exploited or being forced into precarious, unsafe situations.   

Changes to support for care leavers 

The consultation seeks to change the way care leavers without immigration status in the UK are supported, and in some instances to remove their status as a care leaver.  

Currently, young people who have been looked after by a local authority become “care leavers” at 18, with certain support attached to that. Their local authority is responsible for making sure they do not become destitute. 

Proposed changes: 

  • Young people who have had their claim refused and are now over 18 and “appeal rights exhausted” may see their care leaver status removed and be routed into the adult asylum support system.  
  • This is an attack on care leavers’ rights which are enshrined in primary legislation. We do not believe that Home Office immigration control should impact care leaver status, or care-experienced young people’s right to support from their local authority.  
  • The Home Office says these proposals are only intended to apply to former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are appeal rights exhausted. We oppose this and are also concerned that it could impact: 
  • Young people who claimed asylum as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, who are still awaiting a decision when they turn 18. They could be re-routed into asylum support and have their care leaver status removed.   
    –  Young people who turn 18, without knowing they are not British, or have no status in the UK. They could have their care leaver status removed, making them destitute.  

In your response you may wish to consider:   

  • What it would mean for children in care who you work with (including those on their own seeking asylum) to have the support of their local authority taken from them at 18 because the Home Office thinks their future does not lie in the UK. In our experience, care leavers without immigration status are especially vulnerable, and in particular need of support as young adults.  
  • The impact of the ongoing legal aid crisis, which means many separated asylum-seeking children will turn 18 without meeting a lawyer, let alone securing their status. Often young people who have been refused and have the right to appeal don’t have a lawyer to help them do this.    
  • The significant numbers of young people in care who are British born or have been here since small children who turn 18 in care without realising they have an immigration issue, usually through no fault of their own. There is a risk these children will also fall foul of the proposed changes.  
  • There is already a mechanism for local authorities to assess whether care leavers who are appeal rights exhausted are eligible for ongoing support through a human rights assessment. This should remain with the local authority, who is best placed to carry out an individualised assessment, not replaced by a generic Home Office policy.  

The consultation says that care leavers with ongoing immigration applications, or appeals, will only be able to hold their care leaver status if they make an application based on their private or family life, for the first time .   

In your response you may wish to consider the impact on a young person who:   

  •  Might have previously made an application based on these grounds because of a decision made by their family or local authority and who would now be punished if that was not successful, but they now have further grounds for a new application. 
  • Might have navigated previous applications without any access to legal advice because of the legal aid crisis.  

The consultation also proposes removing support to access higher education for care leavers with limited leave to remain or an ongoing application for leave to remain or asylum. Under the changes they would no longer be entitled to grants designed for care leavers to access university funding.   

In your response you may wish to consider:  

  • Grants for care leavers to access university and higher education recognise that care leavers do not have family support to attend university and are statistically less likely to go to university.  This change would prevent some of our most vulnerable young people accessing higher education.    
  • Many of the children and care leavers we have supported have big ambitions for the future, including going to university. We believe all care leavers should receive support to achieve their future goals, and to dream big. They must not be discriminated against based on their immigration status. 

   

Part 2: Changes to the Use of Force Policy 

These proposals are about using force on families, including children, in order to remove them from the UK. Currently, there is a Family Returns Process which includes the possibility of the enforced return of families. The Home Office operates under a Use of Force policy that says they cannot use physical intervention to force a child to comply with removal. They can use force in circumstances where it is necessary to prevent harm to the child or someone else. The policy says “in the vast majority of cases there will be no need for officers to exercise physical control or restraint of minors.” 

Proposed Changes:  

The government claims that they need to start using force on children to make sure families (parents and children) can be forcibly removed from the UK. One situation the consultation describes as potentially requiring force is where a child holds on to their parent during immigration removal action and this prevents the parent being removed.  

 The consultation proposes a “continuum of intervention”, starting with non-physical measures and escalating to “minimal contact”, “assisted movement” including physically lifting or carrying a child, and at the highest level, handcuffing them.  

In the consultation document this is all described in clinical and dispassionate language, but let us  be clear: this is violence against children. Already children have to experience the trauma of seeing their parents being taken from them, detained and physically handled by immigration enforcement officers, including restraining and handcuffing. Now, they may face that violence themselves.  

Proposed safeguarding considerations:  

  • The consultation says that any use of force must be the minimum necessary and must be “justifiable”.  
  • It says certain factors will be taken into account before and during enforcement action,  including in a dynamic risk assessment, like details about the child and the family, but does not specify how these factors will be weighted.  
  • It mentions the possibility of additional training and body-worn cameras, without committing to these being mandatory for any officers who may be using force on children.  
  • It says that officers involved in physical interventions with children will have enhanced requirements to report detailed information after incidents, and also that there would be an independent annual audit of any physical handling incident involving a child. 
  • The consultation refers to legislation and duties on the Home Office that state that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration. These are Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Every Child Matters Statutory Guidance, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).  
  • An approach to communicating before, during and after “physical handling” is set out, including expressing that they may physically handle children at the start of the family returns process. 

Considerations in responding 

At GMIAU we do not accept that children (or adults) should ever be physically handled or detained for the purposes of immigration enforcement. Enforcing removals is not a legitimate reason to disregard children’s rights and best interests. It is our view that detention and removal are forms of violent harm in themselves and it is inevitable, and justified, for families to react to this violence by trying to stay together.  

We are concerned about the vagueness in the consultation about how safeguarding considerations will be weighted and what training officers will be given. It is alarming that, for example, mental/physical health and pregnancy do not seem to be automatic reasons not to use force against a child. But even if more rigorous safeguarding was in place, the central proposal would never be safe or justifiable. In your response, you may want to mention:  

  • Evidence from your own experience and work will be the most powerful. For example, any experience you have of the impact of: 
    – family separation, the acute trauma of being violently separated from loved ones, and the long-term impact on mental health and family life. This can also include the impact on community cohesion 
    – violence from police or immigration enforcement 
    – the positive impact of allowing families to stay together. 
  •  For over 15 years, it has been accepted that immigration enforcement is not a good reason to use force against children, and this has prevented harm. There is no reason to change it now. While it is legal to use force against children in other settings, this is in order to prevent further harm occurring to children or others.  
  • Any experience you have with Home Office officials not following their own policy, lacking transparency, and using unnecessary force or intimidation. Many people who have interacted with the Home Office will know that even if extensive safeguards were put in place, we could not trust that they would be followed in each situation. 
  • Finally, legal representation is not mentioned anywhere in this part of the consultation. At GMIAU we will say that no family should be placed in the family returns process without getting independent, free legal advice. 

We hope this guide is helpful for people responding to the consultation. If you have any questions about it, please email rivka@gmiau.org. 

Category: Blog