Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to her Department's policy paper entitled Restoring Order and Control: A statement on the government’s asylum and returns policy, updated on 20 November 2025, what criteria her Department will use to determine whether an application's healthcare needs, including mental healthcare, cannot be fully met in their country of origin.

A claimant may claim that requiring them to leave the UK would breach their human rights due to a serious medical condition, which could be a physical illness or mental health issue. Such cases must be considered in accordance with our obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The threshold in Article 3 medical cases is very high, as set out in the UK Supreme Court case of AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17, which affirmed the Article 3 medical threshold as set out in the European Court of Human Rights case of Paposhvili v Belgium [2017] Imm AR 867.

We are committed to the ECHR and we believe that people should never be subject to torture. However, the interpretation of “inhuman or degrading treatment” has been expanded over time. As a consequence, we see examples of foreign national offenders who are being allowed to stay in the UK on the basis of an Article 3 protection claim, despite committing serious criminal offences in the UK. Others have blocked a deportation because their healthcare needs, including mental healthcare, cannot be fully met in their country of origin.

To retain public confidence, the ECHR and other instruments must evolve to face modern challenges. We are working with key partner countries over concerns that the interpretation of “inhuman or degrading treatment” has extended in scope, limiting their ability to make sovereign decisions on migration in their own democracies. The criteria, for considering healthcare needs, including mental healthcare, will be set out in due course.