Andy Burnham handed three-point plan to fix broken asylum system as soft-touch Britain facing record-high appeals

Thank you for subscribing!

The People’s Channel’s investigation has unearthed key points the Prime Minister could learn from the Swiss model to regain public trust in the system

Andy Burnham has been handed a three-point plan to fix Britain's broken asylum system and help restore public trust using a model championed by a close partner of the UK, which has seen asylum applications plummet and forced returns surge.

As the Ministry of Justice's own data shows, the UK is facing record-high numbers of asylum appeal claims.

Nearly 87,500 appeals to overturn failed asylum applications were lodged at the end of March 2026, marking a 70 per cent year-on-year increase.

However, GB News has been told how the UK can learn from asylum reforms in Switzerland to get a grip on the crisis affecting millions.

Andy Burnham could find a solution based on a model by Jonathon Thomas of the Social Market Foundation which found the Swiss system has reformed its system to achieve the following three goals: Faster, Fairer, and Firmer - the same mantra used in the UK in 1998 by New Labour.

Alp Mehmet, the chairman of Migration Watch UK, told GB News how the framework was abandoned in 2015.

He told the People’s Channel: “The Swiss process applications within 24 hours and return rejected asylum claimants to their countries of origin or to safe countries with which they have return agreements. The UK’s Detained Fast Track system was introduced by the Blair Government in 2003 and worked very well.

“The High Court’s ‘unfairness’ ruling was based on the Home Office’s inability to verify the circumstances of undocumented applicants claiming to be fleeing persecution or danger. Rather than requiring claimants to provide evidence supporting their claims, the burden was placed on the Home Office to disprove them; even when an asylum seeker had travelled to the UK through one or more safe countries.

“The Detained Fast Track system not only worked, as the Swiss have shown, but was fair to the British taxpayer. The Government should legislate as soon as practicable to reintroduce it.”

He added: “If Mr Burnham is serious about stopping illegal immigration, he should also immediately give the six months’ notice required to withdraw from the ECHR.”

Britain's Faster, Fairer, and Firmer framework was heavily modified, amended, or replaced by subsequent frameworks.

Despite the Government cutting the number of outstanding asylum claims awaiting an initial decision - with the number at the end of March standing at 35,744, down from 85,839 when Labour took office in June 2024 - that reduction has been offset by a rise in the total number of appeals, pushing up the total backlog to around 123,914 cases.

The Home Office said: “These figures reflect the progress this Government has made in tackling the asylum backlog, with the number of people waiting for an initial decision falling by 72 per cent since June 2023.”

The Swiss system, which was reformed following a national referendum, splits asylum claims into two separate streams: an accelerated process and an extended procedure, depending on the complexity of the case.

The target for a case is for it to be concluded in less than 40 days; that includes the asylum decision as well as any appeal hearing and removal for unsuccessful cases. If that target cannot be met, then the case needs to be concluded within the maximum duration of the claimant's stay at the Federal Asylum Centre, which sits at 140 days.

Switzerland is also part of the EU Dublin scheme, which allows the possibility for the country to request another country to “take back” an asylum claimant, with that claim then being determined in that country, should the claimant have passed through that country on their way to Switzerland.

In those cases, the Swiss work on an aspirational target of less than 60 days for transferring the claimant out of the country.

Tony Smith, former head of Border Force UK and managing director of Fortinus Global, told GB News: “We need a deterrent!

“We need to make it clear to people arriving by small boat that they cannot claim protections here.”

Mr Smith continued to tell the People’s Channel that Mr Burnham would need to do more than just remove migrants from the UK, saying: “I think the problem we have is that we allow people who have travelled through safe countries to claim asylum.

“So most of our asylum applications come by people who've arrived by small boat from France or through the common travel area, and there is provision in our legislation to say we're not obliged to accept any asylum application from anybody who's arrived from a safe country or has got a connection with a safe country, and that's under section 80 of the 2002 Act, which was in force when I was serving in the Home Office.

“I would prefer a system where actually, for people that are arriving from safe countries like the small boats, you're not going to be allowed to claim asylum at all in this country because you could and should have claimed it in France or another safe EU country.

“Rather than allow people to keep claiming asylum in this country when they've arrived from another safe country, like the Swiss do and the Swedish do.”

The part of Switzerland’s system that has faced the most pushback from UK experts has been the legal system that the Swiss use.

The Swiss system allows for claimants to be given access to expert legal advice and support.

The cost is covered by the state and is delivered by NGOs. This is markedly different from the rest of the EU, which, despite the recently agreed EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, now goes much further than previously in giving asylum claimants the right to free legal advice; such advice is still to be provided “upon request”, not as default.

Legal access is provided for all parts of the claim process, even the expedited ones, which the Swiss say provides a realistic assessment of the likely outcome of their case.

Should their claim be denied, the Swiss system is designed to be firm but fair. Only one claim is allowed for asylum decisions, at the Federal Administrative Court. The court is “the first and last court of appeal in asylum matters in Switzerland,” and appeals can only be made if the asylum determination was incorrect, or there was an error of law made by the State Secretariat for Migration.

Should a claimant make an appeal, no additional funding will be given by the state, so while the original lawyer is available, there will be no other support.

Marley Morris, Associate Director of Migration, Trade and Communities at the Institute for Public Policy Research, raised serious concerns about a similar system being implemented here, telling GB News: “A 'one-shot' appeal system would risk miscarriages of justice - particularly given the Government is currently introducing a new independent appeals body, which I think needs a judicial backstop.

“And I think large asylum centres on the Swiss model would risk the same kind of tensions we have seen with hotels and former military barracks - we would prefer a more decentralised and community-based approach to asylum accommodation.”

The Swiss system is done with the aim of ensuring that only claims with sufficient merit are made.

The entire appeal process is only done in writing to help expedite the process.

This reformed process has not seen the number of appeals change that drastically in the last 10 years, with around 33 per cent of decisions being appealed; however, the success rate for appeals is only five per cent.

This faster process of claims has been seen to help integrate migrants within Swiss society more efficiently and spend less time looking for jobs.

Since 2014, areas housing successfully placed migrants have been required to develop integration plans for the migrants.

The policies aim to promote opportunities to participate in economic, social and cultural life, as well as financial independence. The target objectives are that arrivals learn one of the Swiss national languages, have access to education and employment opportunities aimed at their participation in the labour market, which is supported by ongoing tailored counselling.

The report by Mr Thomas highlights that one of the biggest differences between the Swiss and UK asylum systems is the expectation put on reforms.

The report notes that the Swiss are extremely realistic in what is achievable with their asylum reforms, whereas the UK has been “recklessly ratcheting up expectations of what is realistically achievable.”

Another area of disparity between the two nations is the costs associated with the systems. The report notes that Switzerland has “the resources to invest in a best-in-class asylum system, and has done so, not to save money, but to spend it most effectively, in order to head off the destabilising threat posed by growing tensions over the functioning of the system.”

The single most fundamental difference between the two systems comes down to dispersal.

The Swiss only disperse migrants if they are allocated to the extended procedure and need more than temporary accommodation, and if they are dispersed, it is done on a transparent basis to ensure that there is a fair allocation between different regions and that nationalities are evenly distributed to promote integration.

The report notes: “The UK disperses all asylum seekers, but has a much fuzzier approach to doing so. In practice dispersal rules are not rigidly followed and the UK’s approach is subject to competing and conflicting drivers and aims which result in a more haphazard and tense outcome, increasingly driven by the availability of cheap accommodation on short notice rather than what is fair between localities.

“In the UK some local authorities – particularly those in more densely populated, deprived areas – receive disproportionate numbers; others none at all. This creates significant community tensions and pressures on accommodation and services in some areas. And is exacerbated by the often chaotic process surrounding those exiting asylum accommodation after being granted refugee status.”

Recent proposals from Labour have echoed some of aspects of the asylum reforms taken in Switzerland, specifically accelerating the process for cases with a low likelihood of success, as well as better streamlining and resourcing the appeals process and the importance of the provision of early legal advice to claimants, however how those ideas will be implemented to win the public back on side is yet to be seen.