Asylum seekers could have jewellery or other valuables taken to pay for the costs of processing their cases, a Home Office minister has said, in another detail of changes to migration policy likely to cause concern among Labour MPs.
Speaking to broadcasters before the formal announcement of sweeping changes to asylum policy on Monday, the Home Office minister Alex Norris said while this would not involve seizing wedding rings, jewellery without sentimental value could be taken.
The idea is another borrowed from Denmark’s tough approach to asylum by Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, in an attempt to reduce the number of refugees coming to the UK.
While Mahmood has billed the changes as the only way to see off “dark forces … stirring up anger” over migration, a number of Labour MPs are known to dislike some of the ideas, with at least one minister on resignation watch.
Norris defended the confiscation of valuables from refugees, telling Sky News: “At the moment, the British public pay billions of pounds a year so that those seeking asylum, or those who have already failed in their applications, can be supported in their accommodation and their living.
“It is right if those people have money in the bank, people have assets like cars, like e-bikes, they should be contributing. No, we’re not going to be taking people’s heirlooms off them at the border. But … people have cars. People have e-bikes. Those are assets they should contribute to the cost of benefits.”
Asked if jewellery without sentimental value could be taken, Norris said people should wait for Mahmood to set out the plans to the House of Commons on Monday afternoon.
Pressed on whether the likes of wedding rings could be included, Norris said: “In the instance you’re talking about, no, of course not. If someone comes over with a bag full of gold rings, well, that’s different to what I said about the heirloom.”
Norris also confirmed that countries that refuse to take back asylum seeker nationals could face diplomatic sanctions such as restrictions on visas. Briefings to newspapers have identified Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo as among possible targets.
“There are significant numbers of people who’ve been through the system – they’ve come to this country, have an asylum claim rejected, they’ve appealed it, that’s been rejected and now they’re in accommodation paid for by the taxpayer, going nowhere fast. Terrible for those people, terrible for us collectively.
“But the country of origin, which is a safe country, which often we have a returns agreement with, aren’t doing their bit in helping us remove their citizens back to home.”
A Home Office source sought to clarify Norris’s comments. “We will not seize items of jewellery at the border – we aren’t coming after anyone’s sentimental items of jewellery. But where people have a large number of high-value items, we would expect them to contribute to the cost of their accommodation,” the source said.
Mahmood confirmed on Sunday that refugees would be liable to be returned if their country was no longer deemed dangerous, with their status reviewed every 30 months, including families with young children in school.
Tony Vaughan, the Labour MP for Folkestone, said this would in effect make it impossible for refugees to integrate properly into British life.
“We should be welcoming, integrating and not creating this situation – a kind of perpetual limbo and alienation, which doesn’t help the refugees, it doesn’t help society,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
Asked about Vaughan’s concerns, Norris, who spoke after him on Today, said this situation would apply only to people who arrived as refugees unofficially, for example on a small boat.
However, this seems to be incorrect. Under the plan as set out, all refugees will have their claims reassessed regularly, but with official arrivals having a shorter time span towards permanent status – 10 years rather than 20.
The government will announce that it will legislate to toughen how courts apply the European convention on human rights (ECHR) regarding family life, enabling more deportation of people with family members still in the UK.
In his interview, Vaughan said the number of refugees who use provisions in the ECHR was “very, very small”, adding: “We need to be realistic about what those sorts of reforms are going to achieve. We can’t promise the public things which is not going to deliver.”
Asked about the idea that the number of cases involving the ECHR was under 1,000, a tiny proportion of the total asylum claims, Norris said: “I probably wouldn’t challenge the number itself, but what I would challenge is the impact that that has on the wider system.”
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Max Wilkinson said: “The government must fix the asylum system, but stripping vulnerable people of their family heirlooms will not fix a system that is costing taxpayers £6 million every day in hotel bills.
“This policy goes against who we are - a nation that has long responded with compassion to those fleeing the worst atrocities imaginable.”
