Failed asylum seekers could be handed thousands of pounds to leave the UK under Labour’s ‘tough’ new plans.
Proposals set out by Shabana Mahmood this afternoon stress that the government wants to limit the scope for failed applicants to appeal.
The legal obligation to support asylum seekers who would otherwise be ‘destitute’ – inherited from EU law – will be scrapped. Instead people will only be funded if they are vulnerable, contribute and obey the law.
However, current incentives of up to £3,000 to go home could be increased further. Families could get even bigger packages.
The new push emerged with the plans at risk of descending into farce, after a revolt by MPs left ministers backtracking on plans to seize migrants’ jewellery.
Inspired by Denmark’s crackdown, Ms Mahmood wants to quadruple the length of time asylum seekers wait for permanent settlement to 20 years.
There will be reviews of refugee status every 30 months, with people returned if their home countries have become safe.
In a foreword to the policy statement, Keir Starmer said Labour had to recognise that the ‘world has changed’. ‘Our asylum system was not designed to cope with this,’ he wrote.
‘Nor were our rules designed for the situation that sees asylum seekers travelling through multiple safe countries before seeking to cross the English Channel by boat.
‘The result is a severe strain on both our asylum system and our wider social contract.’
Proposals set out by Shabana Mahmood this afternoon stress that the government wants to limit the scope for failed applicants to appeal
Proposals set out by Shabana Mahmood this afternoon stress that the government wants to limit the scope for failed applicants to appeal
The Home Office document said: ‘This is the most cost-effective approach for UK taxpayers and we will encourage people to take up these opportunities, including by trialling increased incentive payments. Enforced removal will be pursued where they refuse to engage.
It added that currently families were not going home even after losing asylum cases.
‘The government will offer all families financial support to enable them to return to their home country,’ the plan said.
‘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.’
It revealed that 700 Albanian families have avoided removal in this way, even though their country has been highly co-operative with the Home Office.
‘The government will offer all families financial support to enable them to return to their home country,’ it said.
‘Should they refuse that support, we will escalate to an enforced return.’
Ms Mahmood’s paper also said there would be a consultation based on powers brought in by the Tories in 2016 to allow taxpayer support to be removed from such families.
The document set out how Labour proposes to stop migrants overturning bids to deport them by bringing human rights challenges.
It will rebalance how claims under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the ‘right to private and family life’ – can be brought.
It will create a stronger ‘public interest test’ so that ‘mitigating pressures on stretched public services’, and other factors, are taken into account, the paper said.
There will be a new legal definition of what amounts to a family.
The new definition will set out how a family ‘should not normally go beyond immediate family members’, it said.
Ms Mahmood said in her foreword to the document: ‘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.’
The proposals insist that those who come to the UK should seek work – suggesting that access to benefits will be contingent on ‘making an economic contribution to the UK’.
‘To encourage this, we are now exploring a change to taxpayer-funded benefits to prioritise access for those who are making an economic contribution to the UK,’ he said.
‘This could see additional criteria that migrants have to meet to receive benefits and actions they need to take in order not to lose them. A consultation on this question will take place in 2026.’
The Home Office plans to ‘remove the current legal obligation to provide support to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute – a requirement introduced in 2005 to implement EU law, to which the UK is no longer bound’.
‘In the coming months this duty will be revoked, and we will restore a discretionary power to offer support, as previously provided under UK law,’ the document said.
‘In doing so, we will deny support to those who have the right to work and could therefore support themselves.
‘This would include those who enter the country on a work or student visa with permission to work before claiming asylum, or those granted permission to work where their claim has been outstanding for more than 12 months.
‘We will also deny support to those who have deliberately made themselves destitute. Anyone who has not complied with the conditions we impose – such as the failure to abide by a removal direction or working illegally – will also see their support removed.’
Earlier, Home Office minister Alex Norris wriggled as he was grilled about the suggestion that the UK could emulate Denmark’s controversial ‘jewellery law’ by seizing Channel migrants’ personal possessions.
Pressed on whether the likes of wedding rings could be taken from arrivals, Mr Norris told Sky News: ‘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.’
He indicated that identifiable assets such as e-bikes could be seized to help fund accommodation, which is costing the taxpayer billions of pounds a year.
One Government insider highlighted the case of an asylum seeker who was receiving £800 each month from his family and drove an Audi, but had free housing at taxpayer expense. ‘That isn’t right,’ the source said.
Other changes mooted include weakening the right to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights and restricting the number of appeals allowed against refusals for asylum.
Channel boat arrivals face having assets such as cars and e-bikes seized, with alarm that some have been living in hotels at the taxpayers’ expense while driving high-end Audis (file picture)
Ms Mahmood said she must take urgent action to ‘restore order and control’
The Home Office has also announced a ban on visas from three African countries – Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo – if they do not co-operate more on the removal of illegal migrants.
However, Ms Mahmood’s ‘moral mission’ is facing massive resistance from Labour MPs, who accused her of trying to ape Reform’s hardline policies.
There are claims that at least one minister is on ‘resignation watch’, with MPs describing the proposals as ‘disgusting’ and ‘performative cruelty’.
As resistance mobilised this morning, Kent MP and former immigration lawyer Tony Vaughan warned that the Government’s rhetoric ‘encourages the same culture of divisiveness that sees racism and abuse growing in our communities’.
His position was echoed by former frontbencher John McDonnell, while a host of others reposted his criticism on social media.
Olivia Blake, Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam, branded Ms Mahmood’s asylum reforms as ‘deeply concerning’.
‘For years, hostile asylum policies have failed,’ she said. ‘They do not control migration; instead, they create fear, chaos, and unnecessary suffering.’
Ian Byrne, Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, accused ministers of making ‘yet another desperate bid to outflank Reform on asylum seekers’.
‘It’s morally bankrupt and politically disastrous – our party won’t win voters back this way,’ he said.
‘Those who’ve left have turned to progressive parties, and those who’ve stayed will be appalled by these latest attacks on people fleeing war and persecution.’
Ms Mahmood was directly challenged over her ‘cruel’ asylum overhaul in the House of Commons on Monday afternoon.
Speaking during Home Office questions, Nadia Whittome – Labour MP for Nottingham East – 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.’
She asked the Home Secretary if she was ‘proud that the Government has sunk such that it is now being praised by Tommy Robinson?’
Ms Mahmood 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.’
As resistance mobilised this morning, Kent MP and former immigration lawyer Tony Vaughan warned that the government’s rhetoric ‘encourages the same culture of divisiveness that sees racism and abuse growing in our communities’
His position was echoed by former frontbencher John McDonnell, while a host of others reposted his criticism on social media
Olivia Blake, Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam, branded Ms Mahmood’s asylum reforms as ‘deeply concerning’
Ian Byrne, Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, accused ministers of making ‘yet another desperate bid to outflank Reform on asylum seekers’
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn waded in to condemn the idea of seizing property
Touring broadcast studios this morning, borders minister Alex Norris pleaded for his colleagues to wait before passing judgment.
Mr Norris told Times Radio that backbenchers ‘have not seen the package yet and I ask them to look at it closely. I know they will.’
He added: ‘What I say to them is we cannot be defenders of a broken system.
‘The system is not safe, the system is not controlled and it’s eroding public confidence.’
Mr Norris said it was ‘right if people have assets that they should contribute’ to asylum costs, but insisted the Government would ‘not be taking family heirlooms off individuals’.
Labour MP Stella Creasy said: ‘Plans to leave refugees in a state of perpetual uncertainty about where and if they can rebuild their lives are not just performative cruelty, they are counterproductive to integration and the economy.
‘It doesn’t have to be like this – there is a better way forward rooted in Labour values that also ensures control at our borders.’
Brian Leishman, who was only recently restored to the whip, told Times Radio: ‘Speaking with other Labour MPs I know that there’s a real degree of disgust at some of these proposals.’
Sarah Champion, chairwoman of the Commons International Development Committee, said: ‘The Home Secretary is absolutely right to tighten loopholes to prevent those gaming the system.
‘However, the UK has a proud record for supporting refugees.
‘My biggest concern is that refugees, asylum seekers and migrants become conflated, to the detriment of our reputation as a principled country that stands by the most vulnerable.’
Downing Street denied that the Government was ‘chasing hard-right voters’ with its plans to overhaul the asylum system.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: ‘This is a policy that we believe reflects the mandate we have been given to secure our borders and deal with the asylum system that we’ve inherited.’
Asked whether it was chasing the hard-right, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: ‘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.’
