Closing summary
This blog is now closing. Below is a summary of today's events:
Shabana Mahmood has announced the biggest shake-up of asylum laws in the UK in 40 years.
The plans include forcing people with refugee status to return to their home country if the government seems it safe, changing the number of years people who arrive illegally would have to wait before they can apply for permanent settlement from five years to 20 and plans to consult on measures to allow the removal of financial support for families with children under the age of 18 if they have been refused asylum.
The proposals have faced fierce opposition from some in the Labour party, enough to spark fear for a major rebellion.
Making her case to the Commons, Mahmood said the asylum system feels “out of control and unfair” to members of the public and that if the government does not bring the asylum system under control, there will be more hatred.
Green MP Carla Denyer accused the home secretary of “attempting to out-Reform”. She continued: “Reform is actually just boosting this baseless far-right narrative and will only deepen divisions”.
Reform UK appeared to welcome the plans, with MP Danny Kruger saying he “welcomes” and “recognises” the “rhetoric” used by the home secretary today and suggested that Labour sounds like Reform.
Attempts to toughen up asylum rules in the UK could have significant implications for relations with Ireland, Dublin’s justice minister has said, amid concerns that this could increase migration flows to Ireland.
More than 80% of people who use irregular routes to Ireland originate from Great Britain, travelling to Belfast by plane or boat and then by road to Dublin to make asylum claims, the justice department has said.
“I am committed to ensuring that Ireland is not viewed more favourably than the UK by those seeking to claim asylum,” Jim O’Callaghan said after a meeting of the British-Irish intergovernmental conference in Dublin.
“Consequently, I will closely monitor the changes proposed by the UK government and will respond to those proposals having considered them fully and discussed them with government colleagues,” he added.
On Monday, the UK government unveiled controversial proposals for the biggest changes to migration in 40 years, including plans to make it easier to remove people with no right to be in the country.
Ireland has had a rise in irregular migration in recent years and is experiencing a similar backlash to the UK in certain quarters of the voter base.
Corbyn calls Labour's asylum reforms 'draconian'
Jeremy Corbyn says the home secretary is putting in “draconian measures” against refugees.
He says she fails to recognise that 6,000 of the refugees that crossed the Channel this year come from Afghanistan, “a war-torn country that we helped make into a war-torn country”.
He accuses Mahmood of instead trying to appease “the most ghastly, right-wing racist forces across Europe in walking away from the European Convention on Human Rights”.
Mahmood says she’s “mystified” and that Corbyn should know that there are bespoke schemes for the resettlement of people from Afghanistan.
She says this policy is about securing safe and legal routes.
Greens suggest Mahmood is trying to 'out-Reform' Reform UK
Also on this theme, Green MP Carla Denyer tells Mahmood:
It isn’t people seeking sanctuary that are tearing people apart, it’s toxic, racist narratives and the scapegoating of migrants and asylum seekers for what is nothing to do with them.
The chronic housing crisis, the running down on public services, are not caused by migrants; they are caused by political decisions and the grotesque inequality in this country.
She asks the home secretary if she understands that “attempting to out-Reform Reform is actually just boosting this baseless far-right narrative and will only deepen divisions”.
Mahmood replies that she “couldn’t care less” what any other political party or politician says, she says that “there is a genuine problem” that needs to be fixed.
To pretend it doesn’t exist, she says, “fuels division in the first place”.
She then accuses the Greens of “hypocrisy” for “opposing asylum accommodation in their own constituencies”.
Updated
Reform MP invites Mahmood to join his party, saying he 'welcomes' and 'recognises' her rhetoric
On that point, Reform’s Danny Kruger says he “welcomes” and “recognises” the “rhetoric” used by the home secretary today, suggesting that Labour sounds like Reform.
“Before she puts in her application to join Reform UK ... can I draw out the difference between our parties?” he asks.
Kruger says Reform doesn’t propose giving “illegal immigrants” the right to stay for two-and-a-half years, to work and study, or to bring their families to the UK, nor does Reform want to “contort our law to comply with or fit into the European Convention on Human Rights”.
Mahmood points out that Kruger hasn’t actually asked a question. To his invitation to join his party she adds: “Over my dead body.”
Updated
The SNP’s shadow home affairs spokesperson Pete Wishart points out that Labour’s new policy has been welcomed by the likes of Reform UK and Tommy Robinson.
“From throwing refugees into destitution, to denying any meaningful route to citizenship to forcible evictions, where exactly is the compassion in that?” he asks.
Mahmood says, “given that Tommy Robinson doesn’t even think I’m English”, she won’t comment further on anything he has to say.
Updated
Conservative MP Saqib Bhatti asks what third party countries Mahmood is negotiating with for so-called “return hubs”, where people with failed asylum seeker applications could be sent instead of their home country.
Mahmood says only that these are active and ongoing negotiations, and that she hopes to have announcements to make soon.
Asylum reforms should lead to 'earlier deportations of foreign national offenders', says Mahmood
Labour MP Derek Twigg asks Mahmood about asylum seekers who have been deported after committing crimes but then go on to make a second asylum application.
Mahmood says a combination of sentencing bill changes and the policies announced today “should lead to earlier deportations of foreign national offenders”.
It’s important that offenders face the “full force of the law”, Mahmood says, but the government has made a “policy decision” that, for the vast majority of foreign national offenders, the “appropriate thing to do” is to move to “immediate deportation wherever possible”.
Updated
Conservative MP Ashley Fox, who represents Bridgwater in Somerset, says his constituents want their local Holiday Inn “emptied of migrants”.
The home secretary needs to be “bolder”, he says, before asking:
Does she agree with me that anyone who arrives in this country illegally should be detained on entry and deported automatically?
Mahmood says she won’t take lectures from the party who brought in hotel use in the first place.
She reiterates the manifesto commitment to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this parliament, and says the government is looking into alternative large sites, including military sites.
Updated
Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine asks whether there’s a danger that the people “we do actually need to come to this country legally” (she highlights, for instance, those who work in the NHS and in social care) “will actually look at this country now and say ‘no I don’t want to go there’?”
Mahmood says there is “no reason to believe that”.
She says that figures show the number of people coming on small boats is about the same number of people that come by a legal route and then apply for asylum.
“We need to stop that abuse of the asylum system,” she says, to retain confidence in the legal migration system.
Conservative MP and home affairs committee chair Karen Bradley asks whether there has been any consideration of a deferred payment scheme, like the one used for student loans, which would allow people to start paying back funds they’ve received once they’re in work.
Mahmood says that on the specific point of further contributions, it’s something the government is “currently exploring” but it’s not part of the package of measures announced today.
Labour MP Graham Stringer says he fully supports the announcement.
He asks if the home secretary would agree to publish targets, for example, to track whether there is a reduction in undocumented and illegal immigrants.
He suggests this would allow her to assess whether the government’s policies are working, and alter them if not.
Mahmood says she won’t set “arbitrary targets or caps” as previous governments have done, but will “get on with delivering these reforms” and assess them as they go.
Updated
Government's use of language that 'stokes division' not helpful, say Lib Dems
Lib Dem spokesperson Max Wilkinson says the home secretary’s claim that the country is being torn apart by immigration is not helpful.
“Acknowledging the challenge facing our nation is one thing, but stoking division by using immoderate language is another,” he says.
Wilkinson then welcomes Mahmood’s plan to end the government’s legal duty to provide asylum seekers with accommodation and the need for them to support themselves.
He says, however, that she is still banning them from working, which “makes no sense”.
In response, Mahmood says she wishes she “had the privilege of not seeing the division the issue of migration is creating across this country”.
She says that, unlike him, she is the one who is regularly faced with racial slurs and “told to go back home”.
She adds that it’s not okay for other members to “not acknowledge the real experience of those outside the House, we are supposed to be here to reflect that experience”.
She also argues that allowing asylum seekers to work straight away would be a “huge pull factor” that would encourage more Channel crossings.
Updated
Backbenchers are reacting to the policy announcement now.
Labour MP Florence Eshalomi says the government was right to say it would tackle the backlog in asylum applications when it came to power.
But the introduction of more assessments on who should be here will “take considerable resources”, she says. She asks the home secretary if she’s confident the government’s plans won’t make things harder.
In response, Mahmood says there “will be an administration system and resources needed” for the changes.
UK will 'never' leave ECHR, says Mahmood
Responding to Badenoch, Mahmood starts off by noting (as Andy did in his last post) that shadow home secretary Chris Philp has been “subbed out after his performance at home office orals” for the leader of the opposition.
She attacks the Tories’ track record concerning the huge backlog of asylum applications when they left office and the increase in removals under Labour.
She says they also never brought forward a bill seeking to clarify the application of article 8 of the ECHR in the UK’s domestic legislation or immigration rules.
Mahmood adds that simply coming out of the ECHR altogether is not the answer, as Labour believes in reform of the convention.
That will not and will “never” be a policy of this government, she says.
Updated
Badenoch dismisses asylum plan as 'baby steps' - and urges government to cooperate with Tories on reform plan
Kemi Badenoch responded to Mahmood on behalf of the Tories. Normally it would be a job for the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, but Kemi Badenoch has quite often jumped in to take the lead herself on Commons occasions like this involving an issue important to the party, and to her personally.
Repeating a line used by the party over the weekend, Badenoch offered to cooperate with Labour on asylum reform.
Badenoch said some of the measures in the government’s plan would not work, but some were positive – albeit “baby steps”, she said.
She said her party’s proposals, which included leaving the ECHR, were better. She went on:
So I urge [Mahmood] to take me up on my offer to work together, not just because we have some ideas she might find useful, but because, judging by her own backbenchers reaction today, she may find more votes come in handy.
That is all from me for today. My colleague Lucy Campbell is taking over now.
Mahmood says courts have applied 'expanding interpretation' of article 8 of ECHR, and says she will restrict it in 3 ways
Mahmood said the courts in the UK had adopted an “expanding interpretation” of article 8 of the European court of human rights, guaranteeing the right to family life. She said the government would change this in three ways.
The courts have adopted an ever expanding interpretation of this right, and as a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to. And we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming.
This includes cases like an arsonist sentenced to five years in prison. His deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer.
Mahmood said that article 8 was a qualified right, and she said this meant its application could be limited. The government would do this in three ways, she said.
First, she said the government would strengthen the public interest test for deportation, meaning the circumstances in which article 8 rights could outweigh the public interest in a deportation would be limied.
Second, she said the government would limit who counts as family to immediate family.
And, third, she said the government would limit the circumstances in which people can make article 8 applications.
Mahmood criticises 'absurdity' of current asylum welfare rules, saying one claimaint able to buy Audi got free housing
In an interview this morning Alex Norris, the border security and asylum minister, referred to an asylum claimaint receiving benefits even though he had an Audi. (See 10.11am.)
In her opening statement, Mahmood referred to the same case. She said:
We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who do receive support pay for it, if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay.
This will end the absurdity that we currently experience, where an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.
Mahmood is now summing up the measures in the policy document.
Here is Rajeev Syal’s snap story on the plan.
Mahmood tells MPs asylum system feels 'out of control and unfair' to public
Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, is making her statement to MPs.
Before she started, Caroline Nokes, the deputy speaker, criticised the Home Office for releasing so much information about the policy before the statement to the Commons.
She says Labour strongly criticised the last government when they pre-announced information in this way.
Mahmood that the asylum system feels “out of control and unfair” to members of the public.
She says if the government does not bring the asylum system under control, there will be more hatred.
The last government left the system in a mess, she says. Labour had a “dreadful inheritance”.
She says stability has been restored.
Speaker tells MPs ministers would have resigned in past over sort of budget leaks that have come out recently
Ministers would have resigned in the past over the sort of budget leaks that have come out in recent weeks, Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, told MPs.
He was speaking during an urgent question tabled by Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, who demanded to know whether Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, had authorised briefings to journalists about potential tax measures in the budget, and OBR forecasts.
James Murray, the chief secretary to the Treasury, sidestepped Stride’s questions.
Hoyle told MPs:
It isn’t normal for a budget to have been put in the press? It’s the hokey cokey budget – one minute it’s in, the next minute it’s out.
I am very worried, like the previous government, which also had to be reprimanded for putting leaks out.
It is not good policy. At one time a minister would be resigning for anything that was released, so what I would say is this house should be sacrosanct in all decisions, it should be heard here first.
Hoyle was referring to Hugh Dalton, who resigned as chancellor after telling a journalist from a London evening paper details of some of his budget measures minutes before they were announced. They made a printed edition before the budget speech was finished, and Dalton resigned – even though the leak had little or no practical impact.
Removing financial support for asylum seekers who cannot work will fuel modern slavery, campaigners warn
Chris Osuh is a Guardian community affairs correspondent.
The government’s new asylum plan proposes removing the legal obligation to financially support asylum seekers and instead make housing and weekly allowances “discretionary”, as well as proposing that refugee status is reviewed every two-and-a-half years during a 20-year wait for eligibility for settlement.
The Work Rights Centre, the London-based social mobility and employment charity for disadvantaged Britons and migrants, said the plans would be a “gift to traffickers and exploiters”.
Dr Dora-Olivia Vicol, CEO of Work Rights Centre said:
It is very difficult for people with time-limited leave to secure good work, as most employers look for certainty. Shutting refugees out of sustainable, secure work only pushes them closer to precarious roles where they can be exploited for profit.
How does the government expect people without the right to work or access to benefits to support themselves? Without the basic safety net of housing and financial support, asylum seekers – who are not allowed to work for the most part – will see no way to survive but by taking up dangerous work on the black market, where they risk exploitation and trafficking. This is not a deterrent to dangerous crossings, it is a new low in the history of hostility to migrants that actively creates the conditions for modern slavery.
Meanwhile, a new report from London School of Economics, commissioned by Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) and the coalition Together With Refugees, proposes changes to create a “fair and humane” asylum system that it says would generate a net benefit to the economy of £266,000 for each refugee, by the time they were five years past settlement. The report proposes that investment is made to ensure claims are processed within six months, that people receive legal assistance at all stages of the application process, English language support from the day of arrival and employment support from the day of arrival as an alternative to Mahmood’s plans to toughen the system.
Fran Heathcote, PCS general secretary said:
The government’s latest plans to decimate the safety we offer to people fleeing war and persecution are not just morally reprehensible, they are also inconsistent with their aim of achieving economic growth, which continues to flatline. This report proves that there is an economic value to compassion. This country is currently lumbered with an asylum system that is unnecessarily costly and cruel. A more humane system would improve the working conditions of our members, save the taxpayer money and boost the economy, benefiting the government’s growth agenda.
Updated
This is what the asylum policy document says about taking assets from some asylum seekers (which theoretically could include jewellery, but not heirlooms – see 11.53am).
Contributions mechanism. In addition, we will require individuals to contribute towards the cost of their asylum support where they have some assets or income, but not enough to support themselves independently. We will also take action to recover support costs in scenarios where any assets are not convertible into cash or declared at the point that asylum support is initially provided but become convertible or are discovered at a later date.
Colin Yeo, the immigration lawyer, blogger and author, has posted a useful thread on Bluesky with commentary on what the asylum policy document says.
This is what he says about the “work and study visa route” plans. (See 4.57pm.)
This passage is key. What will criteria and fee for this new route be? How many refugees are expected to qualify? Some refugees will be unable to work or study and they will be very harshly treated under this plan.
A refugee’s ability to live with their family -- and therefore the safety of their family -- will depend on their ability to work or study.
The Home Office document says that people seeking asylum will be offered something called “core protection” if they qualify, not permanent protection. They might have to wait up to 20 years before they can apply for the right to remain in the UK permanently.
This morning Alex Norris, the border security and asylum minister, argued that in practice many asylum seekers would not have to wait 20 years. (See 9.52am.) This is what the document says about how this might work.
A longer path to settlement. In the future there will be no path to indefinite settled status in the UK on core protection, until a refugee has spent 20 years in the country, an increase on the current five years. Settlement requirements will be considered in an upcoming consultation on earned settlement, covering both legal and illegal migrants.
Protection “work and study” visa route. The government does not believe that refugees should seek to remain on core protection long-term. We want to encourage refugees to integrate more fully into the communities providing them sanctuary. To address this, we will encourage refugees to switch out of the core protection route wherever possible. We will introduce a new, in-country “protection work and study” route. A person granted protection will be eligible to apply to move into this route if they obtain employment or commence study at an appropriate level and pay a fee. Once on this route, they will become eligible to “earn” settlement sooner than they would under core protection alone.
In her foreword to the asylum policy document, Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, says:
We have become the destination of choice in Europe, clearly visible to every people smuggler and would-be illegal migrant across the world.
The asylum policy expert Sunder Katwala points out on Bluesky that this is untrue because, in the year ending March 2025, four other countries were getting more asylum applications.
Mahmood says UK government in past has been 'unwilling to show necessary toughness' over asylum removals
Rajeev Syal is the Guardian’s home affairs editor.
The government has failed to show the “necessary toughness” to enforce the removal of families whose asylum claims have been refused, Shabana Mahmood has claimed.
In a policy document published today as the government sets out plans for the biggest shake-up of asylum laws in 40 years, the home secretary also set out plans to consult on measures to allow the removal of financial support for families with children under the age of 18 if they have been refused asylum. (See 4.14pm.)
In her foreword to the document, Mahmood says:
This country’s asylum system was designed for an earlier and simpler era, and has not been updated to reflect our changing times. Asylum seekers in the UK receive generous support, funded entirely by the taxpayer. To be granted refugee status is to essentially receive the ability to live in this country, forever. Until very recently, a refugee’s family could expect the same.
Where asylum seekers have failed in their claims, many frustrate our attempts to remove them. We have shown ourselves unwilling to show the necessary toughness or resolve to assert our right to return those with no right to be here.
As we have held rigidly to the old model, other countries have tightened theirs. This has been most notable in Denmark, though not exclusively so. There, a radical transformation of the asylum system has taken place. Refugee status has become temporary, and not permanent. Refuge lasts only as long as a safe harbour is genuinely required. And the state has taken a far more concerted effort to remove those who are failed asylum seekers. Last year, asylum claims in Denmark fell to a 40-year low.
Home Office says more refused asylum families with children face deportation, suggesting past 'hesitancy' about this wrong
This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.
NEW - The government’s asylum plan confirms that there is an intention to considerably ramp up the deportation of families - including children.
Two senior Labour sources cited this to me as a major cause of unease within other parts of government
And this is what the document says on this topic.
Our appetite for returning failed asylum seekers has been too limited. Asylum seekers have known that should their claim fail, there is a good chance that the UK government will not return them. Our goal will always be to remove people voluntarily, but where this option is not taken, we must show the consequence will be enforced return. Otherwise, our hesitancy will be used against us …
We do not currently prioritise the return of families. As a result, many families of failed asylum seekers continue to live in this country, receiving free accommodation and financial support, for years on end. Our hesitancy around returning families creates particularly perverse incentives. To some, the personal benefit of placing a child on a dangerous small boat outweighs the considerable risks of doing so. Once in the UK, asylum seekers are able to exploit the fact that they have had children and put down roots in order to thwart removal, even if their claim has been legally refused. For instance, there are around 700 Albanian families whose asylum claims have been rejected, yet their removal is not currently being enforced by the Home Office, despite Albania having a goldstandard of cooperation with the UK on returns and being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The government will offer all families financial support to enable them to return to their home country. Should they refuse that support, we will escalate to an enforced return. We will launch a consultation on the process for enforcing the removal of families, including children.
Under today’s legislation, families who have one or more children under the age of 18, at the point they were refused asylum, continue to receive support until the youngest of those children turns 18. This is true even if the family has exhausted all their appeals and is not cooperating with the returns process. This creates a perverse incentive to remain in the UK without status, undermining the integrity of the system. Therefore, as part of the aforementioned consultation, we will consult on commencing measures in the 2016 Immigration Act which will allow us to remove support from families who do not have a genuine obstacle to leaving the country.
Updated
Home Office publishes its asylum policy document
The Home Office has published its asylum policy document. It’s a 32-page paper called Restoring Order and Control.
The New Statesman is keeping a tally of all the Labour MPs who have criticised the asylum plans (including those who are doing criticism via retweet – see 10.56am). Most of the names are one that are already covered here, but they have also got:
Brian Leishman, who told the New Statesman: “We need to build a caring compassionate society that looks after people from the UK and also from other countries. And that needs to be done with real Labour party values.”
Ian Byrne, who has described the policy on social media as “morally bankrupt and politically disastrous”.
And Rachael Maskell, who told Times Radio: “The dehumanisation of people in desperation is the antithesis of what the Labour party is about”.
Labour MP Nadia Whittome describes government's asylum plans as 'dystopian' and 'cruel'
During Home Office questions in the Commons the Labour MP Nadia Whittome described the asylum plans being proposed by the government as “dystopian”.
She said:
The Denmark-style policies briefed in the last couple of days are dystopian.
It’s shameful that a Labour government is ripping up the rights and protections of people who have endured unimaginable trauma. Is this how we’d want to be treated if we were fleeing for our lives? Of course, not.
How can we be adopting such obviously cruel policies? Is the home secretary proud that the government has sunk such that it is now being praised by Tommy Robinson?
Responding to Whittome, Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, replied:
I’m disappointed at the nature of the question from my friend. I hope she will look at the detail of the reforms, and what I’ve said already on these matters is that we have a problem, that it is our moral duty to fix, our asylum system is broken. The breaking of that asylum system is causing huge division across our whole country.
Richard Burgon claims the asylum policies being announced today won’t help Labour win back voters are now more inclined to back other progressive parties. (See 3.03pm.)
But it is probably important to differentiate between that people think about the rhetoric the government is using (for example, Shabana Mahmood telling the Sunday Times at the weekend that being granted asylum in the UK amounted to a “golden ticket”), and the policies being proposed.
Luke Tryl from More in Common has released some polling suggesting ideas similar to those being announced by the government are broadly popular with people who voted Labour last year. More in Common asked about measures introduced in Denmark, after it was reported that the Home Office plans were in part inspired by recent Danish ones. The proposals are less popular with people currently supporting the Greens, but even this cohort is more in favour than opposed.
Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, has joined those criticising the government for saying the government saying it might take jewellery from asylum seekers to help cover the costs of processing their applications. He said:
This proposal has deeply troubling echoes of some of the worst treatment of refugees in history. The government is losing sight of the fact that we are talking about real people who have fled unimaginable horrors in places like Sudan and Afghanistan and arrived here with almost nothing. To take away the few precious belongings they still have would be cruel.
Sunder Katwala, director of the British Future thinktank, has also highlighted some problems with this proposal in a thread of Bluesky.
The Labour government will articulate a principle that a person who meets the criteria of being a refugee (have a genuine fear of persecution, sufficient to have to leave their home) has a responsibility to contribite to the cost of a democratic society meeting its obligation to hear that claim
Lots of good contributory principles in society. They are foundational to social democracy. Eg rights & responsibilities, pay tax for public services, welfare
There are need-based principles in society, that are foundational to social democracy. Eg if you have cancer we don’t assess your assets
It will be interesting to see if the Home Secretary are asked to articulate why this principle applies here.
Visa migrants pay high fees + NHS surcharges. They should contribute because they may be taking out. (We overcharge them - on NHS surcharge, on visa + citizenship fees. Captive market)
Economic migrants gain from migration. The UK state seeks to extract some of those gains. This meets fairness and contribution legitimate concerns (in theory, though the public are unaware of the NHS surcharge). We get away with overcharging: monopoly supplier of visas. There are gains
Asylum policy not just 'morally wrong', but 'politically disastrous' too, says Labour MP Richard Burgon
The leftwing Labour MP Richard Burgon has become the latest government backbencher to issue a statement condemning the asylum plans. In a statement on social media, he expresses alarm about the fact that the approach has been welcomed by Tommy Robinson. (See 1.06pm.) And he says “this approach isn’t just morally wrong; it’s politically disastrous.” He explains:
Labour voters who have abandoned the party will not be won back by this. They haven’t flocked to Reform but mainly to other progressive parties or now simply say they don’t know who to vote for. Many who have stuck with Labour so far will be repulsed by these attacks on vulnerable people fleeing war and persecution.
Poll after poll shows the cost-of-living crisis remains the single biggest issue in British politics. That is what the Labour leadership should be relentlessly focused on. That is how to win back voters.
Instead, this failing Labour leadership is choosing to fight on terrain set by Farage. In doing so, it is paving the way for the first far-right government in our history.
The latest episode of the Guardian’s Politics Weekly podcast is out. In it, Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey are discussing the asylum plans.
The Green MP Carla Denyer is also using the phrase “performative cruelty” to describe the government saying it might take jewellery from asylum seekers to help cover the costs of processing their applications. She says:
This is a new low from a govt plumbing the depths of performative cruelty in hopes that the public won’t notice they have no answers to the real issues facing this country
A sensible, humane govt would focus on safe routes to prevent people making dangerous small boat crossings
Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice complains about Send children wearing ear defenders in schools
Peter Walker is the Guardian’s senior political correspondent.
Some middle class parents are gaming the system to get underserved special education needs (Send) support for their children in state schools specifically to avoid paying private school fees made higher due to the imposition of VAT, Richard Tice has argued.
Speaking at a press conference in London, the Reform UK deputy leader said also there was “a crisis of over diagnosis of children with neurodiverse issues” and said that ear defenders, which can help students with autism or other sensory sensitivities focus on class, should be banned.
Talking about what he said was the unnecessarily rapid increase in Send diagnoses, and children given education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which give them extra assistance in school, Tice said:
One of the key issues here is these EHCPs, middle class parents playing the game in order to save the VAT on independent school fees. If you get the EHCP you don’t pay the VAT, so they’re employing solicitors in order to file their claims.
Tice called for an end to EHCP reports every year, and to end the use of specialists to assess children’s needs.
From the experts and the teachers that I’ve spoken to and the officers, the best thing to do, actually, is to push it, almost all of it, back to the schools. The schools know best, the teachers know best. And stop labelling people. Just say you need a bit of extra support.
Such was the over-diagnosis of conditions, Tice argued that “children who don’t have any form of label now sometimes feel left out”.
He singled out the use of ear defenders in classrooms as a problem, without expaining why.
The sight of children in classes wearing ear defenders – I’m sorry, this is just insane. It’s got to stop. The teachers want it to stop. Heads wanting to stop. It’s not the right way forwards.
Autistic children in particular are often highly sensitive to noise, and some of them wear ear defenders in a classroom setting to minimise the distress they can experience from hearing yelling.
Plaid Cymru and SNP condemn 'performative cruelty' of Labour's asylum plans
The SNP and Plaid Cymru have both accused the government of facilitating Nigel Farage’s agenda with its asylum plans.
In a statement, Pete Wishart, the SNP deputy leader at Westminster, said:
It is outrageous that Labour is considering kicking people out who have been in the country for up to 20 years.
That would mean families torn apart, communities destabilised, and people denied the chance to contribute – and Labour can’t even offer reassurance to Ukrainians who have become part of every community across the country …
It’s no wonder people feel let down by Labour – prices are soaring, wages are stagnating and households are at breaking point, but Labour’s primary focus is on fighting each other and pandering to Nigel Farage.
And Liz Saville Roberts, the Plaid leader at Westminster, said:
With this announcement, Labour is bowing to the populist right, enabling Nigel Farage’s agenda by trading principles for lazy soundbites. Their proposals will punish people who have already endured unimaginable hardship. To confiscate personal belongings and leave families in bureaucratic limbo for up to 20 years is neither necessary nor just …
Clear rules and controls are necessary. But rules without humanity corrode trust and fuel division. The measure of a civilised country is not how many people it turns away, but how it treats the most vulnerable.
Plaid Cymru will reject performative cruelty. We stand for decency, fairness, and compassion. That is vital if we are to keep communities safe, maintain trust in systems, and uphold our values.
The Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey told the BBC’s Politics Live she was worried about some of the language being used by the government to defend its asylum proposals. She told the programme:
I’ll be honest; I think some of the language that we’ve seen coming from government in recent months has fed into that divisive rhetoric and I want to see that change today.
I’m sure all MPs in my party are prepared to have discussions with the government about what a fair and humane immigration system can look like, but not if we’re trying to feed into the rhetoric of quite far-right organisations, quite frankly.
BBC chair Samir Shah tells staff Trump has 'no basis' for libel case and corporation 'determined' to fight it
The BBC chair, Samir Shah, has told staff that the corporation is “determined” to fight any defamation action brought by Donald Trump. The president has no case, Shah says.
In a note to staff seen by PA Media, Shah says:
There is a lot being written, said and speculated upon about the possibility of legal action, including potential costs or settlements.
In all this we are, of course, acutely aware of the privilege of our funding and the need to protect our licence fee payers, the British public.
I want to be very clear with you – our position has not changed. There is no basis for a defamation case and we are determined to fight this.
Last week I took the opportunity to speak with the executive team and am reassured of their resolute focus on ensuring the BBC continues to deliver on behalf of audiences and staff.
I know they plan to spend as much time as possible with their teams over the coming weeks to reinforce the importance of that work and answer your questions.
Mahmood's asylum statement delayed until after 5pm, after speaker grants 3 UQs
There will be three urgent questions in the Commons after 3.30pm. That means that Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, will not start her asylum statement until after 5pm – and probably nearer 5.30pm, or perhaps even later.
The UQs are, in order:
A Treasury minister responding to a Tory UQ on “briefings to the press about the contents of the budget”.
An energy minister responding to a Plaid Cymru UQ about the new modular nuclear reactors being built at Wylfa.
And an environment minister responding to a Lib Dem UQ about the Environment Agency and the dumping of waste in the countryside.
This announcement won’t be welcome by the media, because it means Mahmood will still be responding to questions in the Commons by the time the main evening news bulletins start going out, and reporters file their first stories for the morning papers.
Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, is the person who decides whether or not to allow UQs, and he may be angry that the Home Office has already announced much of what’s in the asylum policy over the weekend. Ministers are supposed to make big policy announcements in the Commons first.
Normally No 10 likes big ministerial statements to start earlier. But today, with many Labour MPs lining up to criticise the policy, the Downing Street spin doctors may not worry too much if the statement goes past deadline hour.
Reform UK deputy leader won't criticise student wing president who says UK-born BAME people not necessarily British
Peter Walker is the Guardian’s senior political correspondent.
The deputy leader of Reform UK has declined to distance the party from the views of the head of its student wing, who argued that UK-born people from minority ethnic backgrounds are not necessarily British.
The comments by Richard Tice at a press conference are significant in that they indicate a change to Nigel Farage’s longstanding policy of trying to keep far-right and ethno-nationalist viewpoints and supporters out of the parties he has led.
Asked about the opinions expressed by Matthew Goodwin, a former academic who is now a prominent Reform supporter and was unveiled last week as honorary president of Students4Reform, Richard Tice pushed back against the idea that these echoed far-right opinions, appearing to say that they instead reflected mainstream voter opinions.
Tice told the Guardian:
I just think your assessment is completely wrong. Matthew is putting out some really important messaging. You may or may not agree with all of it, any of it, or none of it, but that’s the joy of free speech. The very fact that Reform has moved the whole debate on illegal immigration, legal immigration, shows that actually we’re in touch with the wishes of the people. I know about all these sort of smear labels. I just think the message from the voters, voting for us in record numbers, tells a story.
Goodwin’s arguments came in posts on the day after a mass stabbing on a train in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire. Goodwin was challenged for saying immigration was to blame after it emerged that two men arrested – one was later released – were black Britons born in the UK.
Goodwin responded: “So were all of the 7/7 bombers. It takes more than a piece of paper to make somebody ‘British’.”
In another X post later that day, Goodwin referred to the two then-suspects as “Black ‘British’ men”.
Asked if he agreed with Goodwin on this, Tice dodged the question:
I can agree with Matthew on lots of things. Life would be boring if you agree with absolutely everything.
Goodwin told the Guardian last week that he stood by the posts but that the views were not far-right. He said people who were first or second generation immigrants “are more likely to retain cultural traits and habits from parents”.
He added:
Clearly many integrate successfully but fact remains we have British citizens who reject integration in favour of retaining their origin culture. This is as much our failure as theirs but it is the reality we are living with. It is not ‘far-right’ to think this.
The idea of people being less likely to be properly British based on their ethnicity is, however, closely linked to far-right views.
Nigel Farage has long refused to accept such opinions in his party, from refusing to work with the British National party as leader of Ukip to maintaining a distance from the far-right anti-Islam agitator Tommy Robinson.
Updated
No 10 defends asylum plans, saying voters want system brought under control
Last week Tommy Robinson, the far-right activist (whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), welcomed the news that the government was planning to stop most asylum seekers being allowed to stay in the UK permanently.
At the Downing Street lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson was asked how Keir Starmer felt about the fact Robinson seemed to be endorsing these plans. The spokesperson would not engage on the Robinson point, but he defended the proposals in general terms. He said:
For too long Britain has lived with an asylum system that’s broken, spiralling costs and growing public frustration. It has undermined trust, it’s placed pressure on public services, it’s left genuine refugees trapped in limbo. That is not fair on anyone involved, and this government has been fixing the mess we inherited.
As the home secretary has said, across Europe, asylum claims are falling, but in Britain they are rising. In the last four years, 400,000 people claimed asylum here. More than 100,000 are housed and supported at the taxpayers’ expense, putting huge pressure on local communities.
That is why, we are announcing plan today first, to make it less attractive for illegal migrants to come to Britain, second to make it easier to remove illegal migrants from British soil, and third to maintain fairness through safe legal routes for genuine refugees.
This is about reducing the pressure caused by uncontrolled immigration while keeping Britain true to its proud tradition of offering refuge to those in danger.
UPDATE: At the lobby briefing, asked if the government was “chasing hard-right voters” with this policy, the PM’s spokesperson replied:
We are responding to the mandate we have been given and the public can tell that the pace and scale of illegal migration is out of control, unfair and placing huge pressure on communities.
And the prime minister wants to fix the chaos in the asylum system so we can move away from division and decline and build a Britain for all.
Asked whether the government was “talking the language of Reform”, he added:
No, we are talking the language of dealing with an asylum system that is in chaos.
Updated
Trump and Starmer have yet to speak about BBC and $1bn damages claim, despite president proposing call over weekend
At the end of last week Donald Trump told reporters that he planned to speak to Keir Starmer over the weekend about the BBC. The US president is still angry about the way his 6 January 2021 speech was edited in a Panorama documentary, and says he will sue for at least $1bn in damages.
But no call has yet taken place, government sources have indicated.
Downing Street says, when calls with the president do take place, a readout is provided in the usual way.
Updated
Labour MP Sarah Owen describes jewellery removal threat in asylum plan as 'repugnant'
The Labour MP Sarah Owen, who represents Luton North and who chairs the women and equalities committee in the Commons, has also spoken out against the asylum plans. In posts on Bluesky she said:
A strong immigration system doesn’t need to be a cruel one.
It shouldn’t need saying - but refugees & asylum seekers are real people, fleeing war and persecution.
This daughter of an immigrant is proud of our British and Labour values of respect and not turning our backs on people in real need.
There is no evidence that stripping refugees’ rights one by one will have any impact on people crossing the channel.
Taking jewellery from refugees is akin to painting over murals for refugee children.
These repugnant ‘deterrents’ did not work for the Tories, and they won’t work for us.
The majority of us want to stop the crossings & any gaming of the system - not least for those whose lives are endangered, exploited by criminals and cheated out of £thousands.
We can have both a tough stance on illegal migration & build a compassionate, fair & legal path for those seeking refuge.
Labour MP Abtisam Mohamed says asylum plans likely to create further 'chaos, cost and division'
The Labour MP Abtisam Mohamed, who worked as an immigration lawyer before being elected for Sheffield Central last year, has also joined those speaking out against the asylum plans. In a post on social media she said:
For more than a decade we’ve seen that hostile policies don’t fix the asylum system they just create chaos, cost, and deeper division. The latest proposals repeat the same mistake.
When our own process recognises someone as a refugee, stripping them of stability later doesn’t strengthen control; it weakens trust in the system. Other countries have tried constant reassessments, and it simply swallowed resources without delivering mass returns.
If we truly want an asylum system that works, the answer is clear: faster decisions, better accommodation, and a functioning agreement with France. Punishing recognised refugees won’t achieve any of that.
We need a fair, workable approach, not another round of policies that divide communities and fail on their own terms.
These arguments are similar to Simon Opher’s. (See 11.27am.)
The government is describing its plans being announced today as the “most sweeping reforms to the asylum system in modern times”. But, in a thread on Bluesky, Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, a thinktank focusing on migration, race and identity, argues that is not correct.
Here are some of his posts.
I am not sure these are the biggest reforms for decades/for a generation.
Core proposal is incredibly similar in analysis, spirit and content to 2022 Nationality and Borders Act of Priti Patel (offer temporary protection of 30 months)
The 2023 Illegal Migration Act more sweeping Both failed
That this was 2022 policy of last government is not necessarily a reason not to do it.
But ignoring that avoids question of why it failed
Much tougher policy on “pull factors” (refuse all claims) failed
So analysis of asylum system rules as pull factor is exaggerated/wrong & changes won’t impact
If this 2025 policy was likely have major impacts on journeys, the boats would already have stopped in 2022-2023-2024 when it and a tougher policy were tried
Britain had much tougher asylum rules in 2023-24 than Denmark after the Illegal Migration Act. That is a proof that Danish rules in the UK won’t deliver a similar outcome: the drivers of journeys to the UK and Demark differ. (Eg English language; eg the smuggling route in place now)
Asylum seekers won't lose 'family heirlooms' under plan to make them contribute if they have assets, minister says
The Liberal Democrats did not say much about the government’s asylum plans over the weekend. But this morning Max Wilkinson, the party’s home affairs spokersperson, has issued a statement criticising the suggestion from Alex Norris this morning that asylum seekers with valuable assets could have to surrender them to contribute to the costs of processing their claims.
The government must fix the asylum system, but stripping vulnerable people of their family heirlooms will not fix a system that is costing taxpayers £6m 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.
The government has specifically said that it will not remove heirlooms from people. Norris told Times Radio: “We will not be taking family heirlooms off individuals.”
These are from my colleague Peter Walker, who has been at the Reform UK press conference, where Richard Tice, the deputy leader, has been speaking.
I’m at a Reform UK press conference where Richard Tice is setting out how the party plans to save money in local government. On Send support he singles out what he calls “a crisis of over-diagnosis” among children.
Tice: “One of the key issues here is these EHCPs [education, health and care plans], middle class parents playing the game in order to save the VAT on independent school fees.”
Asked about Shabana Mahmood’s plans to shake-up asylum, Tice says the home secretary “is beginning to sound as if she is sort of putting in an application” to join Reform.
Just spotted that Sarah Pochin is at this press conference. She’s being allowed out again, if not in a speaking role. She is sat next to party chair David Bull, who is presumably instructed to hustle her out of the door if she starts talking about burqas or the ethnicity of people on TV
Labour MP Simon Opher criticises asylum plans, saying party should challenge Reform UK's 'racist agenda', not 'echo it'
The Labour MP Simon Opher, a GP who won Stroud from the Conservatives at the last election, has released a statement criticising the government’s asylum plans. He says Labour should “push back on the racist agenda of Reform rather than echo it”.
Here is the statement in full.
We should stop the boats because it’s dangerous, and we should stop the scapegoating of immigrants because it’s wrong and cruel.
Controlled migration is good for the country, helps build our economy and diversity strengthens our communities.
We need faster decisions, a relationship with the French authorities that works and better accommodation. In other words, a fair and workable approach that offers certainty, treats people with dignity and reflects our humanity.
Measures that create bureaucracy and insecurity do not offer clarity or strengthen control – they cost money, waste time and weaken the system.
We should push back on the racist agenda of Reform rather than echo it. And over all this, our focus needs to be tackling inequality: housing, the economy, education, health and all those other areas where we know that we can make a real difference to people’s lives.
Failing to deliver there is what leads to people looking for scapegoats and being persuaded by the dangerous rhetoric of those who don’t care about equality or improving the life chances of ordinary working people.
That’s why I came into politics, it’s why I’m a Labour MP and it’s why we elected our Labour government last year.
Updated
Tony Vaughan’s tweet criticising the government’s asylum plans has been shared by eight other Labour MPs, the Express is reporting. They are: John McDonnell, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Stella Creasy, Clive Lewis, Nadia Whittome, Kate Osborne, Olivia Blake and Peter Lamb.
But that does not count as “civil war”, as the Express headline implies. Sharing a tweet is about the mildest form of dissent available.
In private, there must be many Labour MPs uncomfortable about these plans. But at the moment the number speaking out publicly is very limited. No 10 has been unusually strict about removing the whip from MPs who criticise the government, and that may be one reason why people are holding back. But there are also Labour MPs who accept that drastic action is needed on small boats.
We’ll get a clearer sense of what backbenchers actually think when Shabana Mahmood addresses the Commons later.
Momentum, the leftwing Labour group, has also denounced the government’s asylum plans. In a statement it says:
The home secretary’s new immigration plans are divisive and xenophobic.
Scapegoating migrants will not fix our public services or end austerity.
The government must fundamentally change course. Refugees are welcome here.
'Truly frightening' and 'awful' - Diane Abbott condemns government's asylum plans
The Labour MP Diane Abbott has strongly condemned the government’s asylum plans in two posts on social media.
Draconian, unworkable and potentially illegal anti-asylum policies only feed Reform’s support.
The government has learnt nothing from the period since the general election.
Some of the legal changes being proposed are truly frightening:
Abolishing the right to a family life would ultimately affect many more people than asylum-seekers.
Overriding it if the risks of violence are greater is a mob’s charter.
Watering down the Modern Slavery Act. Awful.
Reform UK and Tories claim Labour's proposed asylum changes won't be implemented
Reform UK and the Conservatives are both claiming the government’s proposed asylum changes will never actually get implemented.
This is what Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, said yesterday.
The home secretary sounds like a Reform supporter.
It’s a shame that the Human Rights Act, ECHR and her own backbenchers mean that this will never happen.
And this is what Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said:
The government are pretending to be tough, but while inside the ECHR they will get stopped in their tracks by leftwing lawyers and judges – probably including their own attorney general.
The only way to control our borders is to leave the ECHR and deport every single illegal immigrant upon arrival, with no court hearings.
Minister rejects claim new, hardline policies risk stigmatising asylum seekers as cheats
In his Today interview Nick Robinson also asked Alex Norris, the border security and asylum minister, if he was worried the new Home Office asylum policy was sending a message to the public that asylum seekers were “cheats … illegals … people who should be hounded out of their accommodation”.
Norris said he did not accept that.
That is not the message that we’re expressing.
When you have low public confidence, that’s when people start to make perhaps unfair or superficial assessments.
If we restore order and control at our borders, it’s the government’s job to do it, then we can have the system we all want.
But, in an earlier interview, Norris was talking about asylum seekers driving Audis. This is what he told Times Radio when he was asked about the proposal to ensure that asylum seekers with assets have to contribute to the cost of getting their claims processed.
The British taxpayer subsidises bed and board and support for individuals to the tune of multiple billions of pounds per year. It is right if people have assets that they should contribute to them.
You know, there’s an individual, for example, who’s getting £800 a month from outside the country, who’s just picked himself up an Audi, if people have cars, if they have e-bikes, well, they should be making a contribution to their support.
On the Today programme Nick Robinson put it to Alex Norris that only 2.5% of asylum seekers facing deportation challenge this in the courts on ECHR grounds. Robinson was getting him to respond to the Tony Vaughan argument that changing the way the ECHR is applied won’t make much difference. (See 9.36am.)
Norris said he would not challenge Robinson on the numbers. But he said even a small number of court cases affected decision making more widely. “The government’s legal appetite for pushing claims has been reduced because there’s a sense that the courts will not rule in our favour,” he said. He said Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, had encouraged government lawyers to resist this assumption.
Minister suggests most asylum seekers would be able to avoid 20-year wait for permanent settlement under new rules
Alex Norris, the border security and asylum minister, has been giving interviews this morning defending the government’s asylum plans.
Even though the government has said that people who arrive in the UK illegally could have to wait 20 years before they can get permanent settlement under the proposals, Norris played down the prospect of this happening.
When it was put to him that 20 seemed far too long to have to wait (one of Tony Vaughan’s main complaints), Norris replied:
Those individuals who were on that 20-year route to settlement – we will give them the chance to switch to work or study routes so that they are learning English, so that they are taking part in the economy, so they’re contributing to their own lives and to British society. And if they do that, they can earn their right to settlement, like others on on work and study routes do already.
When Nick Robinson, the presenter, put it to Norris that this mean that the 20-year would in practice apply to almost no one, and that the government was just trying to send out a “tough message”, Norris said he did not accept that. He went on:
Let’s not forget, I’m afraid, that of those who have successful [asylum] claims, 50% of them end up on benefits.
If your intention is to come to the country illegally, to have a claim assessed and, if you’re successful, then sit at home, not contribute, not learn English [or] integrate into [the] community, not to build a life away from the dreadful circumstances that you may have come from, then that is going to come with much greater checks.
Now, I don’t want anybody to do that. But we do know that that does happen. And this is a very practical way of making sure that it doesn’t in the future.
Updated
Changing how courts interpret ECHR unlikely to have big impact on asylum returns, Labour MP says
In her statement to MPs this afternoon Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, is due to set out further details of her proposals to legislate to limit the extent to which courts can use article 3 (protection from torture) and article 8 (right to a family life) of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) to restrict removals.
In an interview on the Today programme, Tony Vaughan, the Labour MP and immigration law KC, explained his opposition to Mahmood’s plans. He is particulaly opposed to the idea that people told they can stay in the UK because they are at risk in their home country should have their asylum status continually reviewed.
But he also implied that Mahmood’s ECHR plans were a bit of a red herring. He explained:
The numbers of people who are prevented from return by the Strasbourg court are very, very small.
And we need to be realistic about what those sorts of reforms are going to achieve. We can’t promise the public things which it’s not going to deliver.
The way to the way to solve the politically salient challenge of small boats arriving on our shores is [by] making things like the UK/France deal work, by sorting out the asylum accommodation problem, by sorting out the appeal backlog … not spend money on reassessing status after two and a half years or so.
This morning, in a news release sent to journalists (but not on its website yet), the Home Office said that it might stop granting visas to nationals from Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo if their governments do not start cooperating more with the UK on accepting removals (see 8.58am) and it said “similar measures against other countries remain under consideration”.
This morning, in an interview with Sky News, Alex Norris, the border security and asylum minister, was asked if countries like India could also face visa restrictions if they do not cooperate more on removals. He replied:
The countries that we’ve started with are the ones that we’ve named. We wouldn’t rule it out with anybody else.
The reality is, with most countries, we’ve got much better relationships. We need to see these agreements work, and we’re not going to rule anything out in order to make they do.
Why Labour is going Danish on immigration – podcast
Shabana Mahmood’s asylum proposals are partly modelled on policies that have been implemented in Denmark. The Danish journalist Nilas Heinskou and Syrian refugee Agob Yacoub discuss them here on our Today in Focus podcast.
Starmer braced for backlash from Labour MPs as Mahmood sets out asylum plans
Good morning. At the 2024 general election Labour sought to appeal by right-leaning voters by telling them that Keir Starmer would not raise the main rates of tax, and to left-leaning voters by telling them that he would get rid of the Tories’ Rwanda scheme. These days there must be a lot of people in government who think life would be easier if they had done it the other way round – offering tax rises to the left, and Rwanda (or something similar) to the right.
Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, isn’t resurrecting the Rwanda policy today (although recently Josh Glancy reported in the Sunday Times that privately some government figures now believe that scrapping it was a mistake). But she will announce plans that would drastically tighten the UK’s asylum laws. One feature of the plans would require asylum seekers to wait 20 years before being allowed to get permanent settlement in the UK – which would be the longest wait in any European asylum system.
With the budget only 10 days away, we are now in a period bookended by two announcements that could decide the fate of Starmer and his government. The rise of Reform UK is driven more than anything by anger about the small boat arrivals, and Mahmood hopes that her plans will have a significant impact on the problem.
Like a budget, the asylum plan contains so many news lines that the Home Office has been dribbling them out over a period of days. Here is Alexandra Topping’s summary from yesterday of what we are expecting in asylum policy paper.
And here are the main developments this morning.
The Home Office has announced a further element of the plan – a threat to “stop granting visas to nationals of Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo if their governments do not rapidly improve co-operation on removals”. The Home Office says:
Thousands of illegal migrants and criminals from these nations are currently in the UK, with the Home Office continually frustrated in its efforts to remove them.
Visa penalties could mean VIPs and tourists alike not being able to enter the UK unless co-operation improves in the coming months.
Similar measures against other countries remain under consideration. This includes a possible ‘emergency brake’ on visas to block entry from countries with high rates of asylum claims from legal routes.
Alex Norris, a Home Office minister, has confirmed that refugees could have jewellery or other valuables taken to pay for the costs of processing their cases. He was standing up a story first reported by the Sun. Peter Walker has the details here.
Starmer is braced for a backlash against the plans from Labour MPs. So far only a few Labour figures have spoken out against the plans publicly, but that may change when Mahmood gives a statement to MPs this afternoon (and when Labour MPs read the jewellery story). One MP who has spoken about this policy is Stella Creasy, who was written an article for the Guardian saying “if this policy becomes law the UK will require ICE-style raids to remove people – and their children”.
Another is Tony Vaughan, a KC specialising in immigration law who was elected MP for Folkestone and Hythe in 2024. Last night he posted this on social media.
The Prime Minister said in September that we are at a fork in the road. These asylum proposals suggest we have taken the wrong turning.
The idea that recognised refugees need to be deported is wrong. We absolutely need immigration controls. And where those controls decide to grant asylum, we should welcome and integrate, not create perpetual limbo and alienation.
The rhetoric around these reforms encourages the same culture of divisiveness that sees racism and abuse growing in our communities.
The Government is wrong to think that reviews of safety in the person’s country every few years will mean refugees can be returned at scale. That hasn’t happened in Denmark. Brutal dictators tend to hang onto power. It would just move huge amounts of resource away from making our asylum system work as it should - by cutting initial decision delays and the appeals backlog, sorting out asylum accommodation, making the UK-France deal work, removing those whose claims fail etc.
The Government must think again on this.
Commenting on Vaughan’s post, John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, said many Labour MPs probably share Vaughan’s concerns.
Tony Vaughan is one of the new MPs elected for Labour last year & in his contributions to Commons debates has displayed a considered approach to issues. He’s certainly not what the media would call a “usual suspect”. I suspect he is reflecting here what many in the PLP feel.
Reform UK and the Conservatives are dismissing the proposals on the grounds that they do not believe they will ever be implemented – either because of opposition from the Labour party, or from the courts. The Daily Mail is reporting this with a headline treating this as fact, not an assertion.
Mahmood has used an article in the Guardian to argue that her plans are necessary to stop “dark forces” overwhelming the country. She says:
This is a moral mission for me. I know that a country without secure borders is a less safe country for those who look like me.
Dark forces are stirring up anger in this country, and seeking to turn that anger into hate. We must take the opportunity we have to stop that from happening. And I know we can.
I will be mostly focusing on this story today, but there are other political stories around. Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, holds a press conference.
Morning: Kemi Badenoch is on a visit in the south-east of England.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Mahmood makes her statement to MPs about changes to the asylum system.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
