A new fast-track asylum appeals process will be introduced to speed up the process of deporting people without a right to remain in the UK, the home secretary has said.

As it currently takes, on average, more than a year to reach a decision on asylum appeals, the government plans to set up a new independent panel focused on asylum appeals to help reduce the backlog.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said “completely unacceptable” delays in the appeals process left failed asylum seekers in the system for years.

There are about 51,000 asylum appeals waiting to be heard.

The new independent body will use professionally-trained adjudicators, rather than relying on judges.

Ministers are introducing a new 24-week deadline for the first-tier tribunal to determine asylum appeals by those receiving accommodation support and appeals by foreign offenders.

But they believe the current tribunal system, which covers a wide range of different cases, is still failing to ensure failed asylum seekers can be returned as swiftly as possible, nor can it accommodate a fast-track system for safe countries.

It comes amid protests about the use of hotel accommodation for migrants.

The home secretary said the overhaul would result in a system which is “swift, fair and independent, with high standards in place”.

Read more from Sky News:
UK set to bask in 30C sunshine over bank holiday weekend
Coca-Cola brews up sale of high street coffee giant Costa

She said: “We inherited an asylum system in complete chaos with a soaring backlog of asylum cases and a broken appeals system with thousands of people in the system for years on end.

“That is why we are taking practical steps to fix the foundations and restore control and order to the system.

“We are determined to substantially reduce the number of people in the asylum system as part of our plan to end asylum hotels.

“Already since the election, we have reduced the backlog of people waiting for initial decisions by 24% and increased failed asylum returns by 30%.

“But we cannot carry on with these completely unacceptable delays in appeals as a result of the system we have inherited which mean that failed asylum seekers stay in the system for years on end at huge cost to the taxpayer.”

Official figures released earlier this month showed a total of 111,084 people applied for asylum in the UK in the year to June 2025, the highest number for any 12-month period since current records began in 2001.

Mass deportations. Prison camps. Quitting the Refugee Convention and the UN Convention on Torture.

A shrug of the shoulders at the idea of the UK sending asylum seekers back to places like Afghanistan or Eritrea, where they could be tortured or executed.

“I’m really sorry, but we can’t be responsible for everything that happens in the whole of the world,” says Nigel Farage.

“Who is our priority?”

The Reform UK leader has been setting out his party’s new plans to address illegal migration in an interview with The Times newspaper – a set of policies, and a use of language, which would surely have been seen as extreme just a few years ago.

Only last autumn the Reform leader repeatedly shied away from the concept of “mass deportations”, describing the idea as “a political impossibility”.

But now he’s embraced Trump-style immigration rhetoric.

It’s not surprising that Reform want to capitalise on the outpouring of public anger over the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. The policy was started by the previous Conservative government, in response to housing shortages – and Labour has failed to make significant progress on its promise to stop it.

But all the major parties have shifted firmly to the right on this issue.

There’s been very little political criticism of the aggressiveness of Farage’s policy suggestions, and the premise that the UK should no longer offer sanctuary to anyone who arrives here illegally.

The Tory response has been to complain that he’s just copying the ideas they didn’t quite get round to implementing before calling the general election.

“Four months late, this big reveal is just recycling many ideas the Conservatives have already announced,” said Chris Philp MP, the shadow home secretary.

“Labour’s border crisis does urgently need to be fixed with tough and radical measures, but only the Conservatives have done – and will continue to do – the detailed work to deliver a credible plan that will actually work in practice.”

Read more from Sky News:
Menendez brothers denied parole – but they could still taste freedom
Five killed after tour bus returning from Niagara Falls crashes

Certainly, the ambition to arrest and deport everyone who arrives in a small boat – regardless of whether or not they have legitimate grounds for asylum – has clear echoes of the Tories’ Rwanda policy.

Despite spending £700m on the controversial idea, only four volunteers were ever sent to Kigali before it was cancelled by Sir Keir Starmer, who branded it a gimmick.

Labour have suggested they’ve diverted Home Office resources that were freed up by that decision into processing asylum claims more quickly and increasing deportations.

They’re hoping tougher action against the criminal gangs and the new “one in one out” deal with France will help deter the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats in the first place, currently at record levels.

But rather than offering any defence of the principle of offering asylum to genuine refugees – Labour’s Angela Eagle MP, the border security minister, has also focused on the feasibility of Farage’s policies.

“Nigel Farage is simply plucking numbers out of the air, another pie in the sky policy from a party that will say anything for a headline,” she said.

“We are getting a grip of the broken asylum system. Making sure those with no right to be here are removed or deported.”

Even the Liberal Democrats have taken a similar approach.

“This plan sums up Nigel Farage perfectly, as like him it doesn’t offer any real solutions,” they said.

“Whilst Farage continues to stoke division, we Liberal Democrats are more interested in delivering for our local communities.”

It’s been left to the Refugee Council to defend the principle of asylum.

“After the horrors of the Second World War, Britain and its allies committed to protecting those fleeing persecution,” said CEO Enver Solomon.

“The Refugee Convention was our collective vow of ‘never again’ – a legal framework ensuring that people who come to our country seeking safety get a fair chance to apply for asylum.

“That commitment remains vital today. Whether escaping conflict in Sudan or repression under regimes like the Taliban, people still need protection.

“Most find refuge in neighbouring countries. But some will seek sanctuary in Europe, including Britain.

“We can meet this challenge by upholding a fair, managed system that determines who qualifies for protection and who does not.”

But with Reform leading in the polls, and protests outside hotels across the country – politicians of all stripes are under pressure to respond to public frustration over the issue.

A recent YouGov poll found half of voters now believe immigration over the last ten years has been mostly bad for the country – double the figure just three years ago.

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

While the government has made some progress in reducing the cost of asylum hotels – down from £8.3m a day in 2023/4 to £5.77m a day in 2024/5 – the overall numbers accommodated in this way have gone up by 8% since Labour took charge, thanks to the surge in new claims.

Sir Keir has previously said he won’t make a promise he can’t keep.

But current efforts to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029 are clearly not working.

That’s a credibility gap Farage is more than ready to exploit.

Has the government just walked into a giant political elephant trap by attempting to reverse the Epping hotel ruling?

Already on the back foot after a judge ordered the Bell Hotel to be emptied of asylum seekers, the Home Office is now being attacked for trying to appeal that decision.

“The government isn’t listening to the public or to the courts,” said Tory shadow home secretary Chris Philp.

The politics is certainly difficult.

Government sources are alive to that fact, even accusing the Tory-led Epping Council of “playing politics” by launching the legal challenge in the first place.

The fact Labour councils are now also considering claims undermines that somewhat.

After all, the party did promise to shut every asylum hotel by the next election.

Figures out this week showed an increase in the number of migrants in hotels since the Tories left office.

And now, an attempt to keep people in a hotel that’s become a flashpoint for anger.

That’s why ministers are trying to emphasise that closing the Bell Hotel is a matter of when, not if.

“We’ve made a commitment that we will close all of the asylum hotels by the end of this parliament, but we need to do that in a managed and ordered way”, said the security minister Dan Jarvis.

The immediate problem for the Home Office is the same one that caused hotels to be used in the first place.

There are vanishingly few accommodation options.

Labour has moved away from using old military sites.

That’s despite one RAF base in Essex – which Sir Keir Starmer had promised to close – seeing an increase in the number of migrants being housed.

Back in June, the immigration minister told MPs that medium-sized sites like disused tower blocks, old teacher training colleges or redundant student accommodation could all be used.

Until 2023, regular residential accommodation was relied on.

Read more from Sky News:
Rise in migrants staying in hotels
Town ‘changed’ by immigration
Explainer: Where can migrants stay?

But getting hold of more flats and houses could be practically and politically difficult, given shortages of homes and long council waiting lists.

All of this is why previous legal challenges made by councils have ultimately failed.

The government has a legal duty to house asylum seekers at risk of destitution, so judges have tended to decide that blocking off the hotel option runs the risk of causing ministers to act unlawfully.

So to return to the previous question.

Yes, the government may well have walked into a political trap here.

But it probably had no choice.