Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
UK ministers plan to step up child deportations as part of a package of asylum reforms designed to make the country less attractive to refugees that has already provoked unrest among Labour MPs.
Home secretary Shabana Mahmood on Monday said the asylum system was “out of control” and dividing Britain as she sought to win over backbenchers uneasy about the changes, which will increase from five to 20 years the waiting period for permanent settlement.
In a policy paper published on Monday, the Home Office said “hesitancy” around deporting families with children was creating “perverse incentives” for asylum seekers to put children on small boats across the English Channel.
Under current rules, the department does not typically deport failed asylum seekers if they have children under the age of 18, but continues to offer them support. However, officials said they would consult on denying state support to such families and “enforcing the removal of families, including children”.
So far 18 Labour MPs have publicly criticised the proposed rules, which also include returning asylum seekers from the UK to Syria in the wake of the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime and replacing the current immigration appeals tribunals with a single independent adjudicating body.
The reforms borrow heavily from tough measures that were introduced by Denmark over the past decade and were credited with slashing the number of asylum seekers arriving there.
Along with other Home Office ministers, Mahmood, who has said reducing small boat Channel crossings is her top priority, has begun outreach efforts with backbench MPs.
They argue that if the government does not address voters’ concerns with the immigration system, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK will introduce an even tougher system if it wins the next election, which must be held by summer 2029.
One senior backbencher said Mahmood was a “good person to sell the message” and that the “political message is landing, for sure”.
Another MP said lawmakers were being swayed by backing for the package from former minister Justin Madders, who warned on Sunday that the electorate would not listen to Labour unless it could “control the borders”.
But along with serial rebels, several newer MPs on the left of the governing party were openly critical. Simon Opher, MP for Stroud, said Labour should “stop the scapegoating of immigrants” and “push back on the racist agenda of Reform, rather than echo it”.
Under the new approach, the UK will no longer routinely offer people who succeed in winning refugee protection the permanent right to remain in the country. Their right to stay will instead be reviewed every 30 months, in case their home country has become safe again.
Groups advocating for refugees and immigration lawyers expressed opposition to the plans over the weekend, saying they would delay integration into UK society of people fleeing danger and persecution.
But Mahmood said voters were right to feel that the current system was “unfair”. Speaking in the House of Commons, she said: “The pace and scale of change has destabilised communities, it is making our country a more divided place”
There was also controversy over suggestions that refugees would have to forfeit their jewellery to fund their accommodation in Britain.
The policy paper said that “those who have assets will be forced to contribute to their bed and board”, with officials indicating this could include bags of gold jewellery.
Asked about the measure, Mahmood told MPs that “We are not taking jewellery at the border . . . We are not going after their sentimental items like wedding rings.”
She added that the policy was aimed at other assets, labelling as an “absurdity” the fact that taxpayers were forced to fund accommodation for an asylum seeker who owned an Audi car and had income of £800 a month.