Kate Whannellpolitical correspondent
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has defended a sweeping overhaul of Britain’s asylum system, telling MPs the current situation is “out of control and unfair”.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Mahmood said: “If we fail to deal with this crisis, we will lead more people down a path that begins in anger and ends in hatred.”
Under the plans, refugee status would become temporary, guaranteed accommodation support for asylum seekers would end and new “safe and legal routes” into the UK would be created.
Some Labor MPs expressed concern, with Nadia Whittome calling the plans “dystopian” and “shameful”, but the Conservatives cautiously welcomed the measures.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said the proposals were “positive baby steps”. However, he warned that unless Britain leaves the European Convention on Human Rights, Mahmood’s efforts will be “doomed to fail”.
Badenoch urged the Home Secretary to work with the Conservatives, saying Labor backbenchers may find their votes “will come in handy” if they do not support the changes.
In the past year, the government has been forced to backtrack on some of its policies – including welfare cuts and the winter fuel payment – following objections from its own MPs.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Max Wilkinson welcomed the introduction of the new safe and legal routes – but accused the Home Secretary of “stoking division by using intemperate language”.
“I wish I had the privilege of traveling around this country and not seeing the division that the issue of immigration and the asylum system is creating in this country,” Mahmoud angrily told the MP.
She said she regularly faced racist abuse – she said racial slurs were used against her – as well as being told to “go back home”.
Nearly 20 Labor MPs have so far criticized the plans. Whittome, MP for Nottingham East, accused the government of “eroding the rights and protections of people who have suffered imaginable trauma”.
Folkestone and Hythe MP and immigration lawyer, Tony Vaughan, said that making refugee status temporary would lead to “a state of perpetual limbo and isolation”.
Richard Burgon said the measures were “morally wrong” and would “push away Labor voters”.
“Why not recognize this now rather than in the next few months and have to do a U-turn,” the Leeds East MP said.
Other Labor MPs expressed support for Mahmood. Chris Murray told BBC Radio 5 Live that the system had to be fair “otherwise it would collapse, and there is nothing progressive in letting that happen”.
Graham Stringer, MP for Blackley and Midleton South, said the Home Secretary was “going on the right track”.
She said she would seek “compromise” with Labor MPs, but added: “It could all be for naught if we don’t pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Speaking to the BBC later, Mahmood said that changing the system was a “moral mission” for him.
“If we don’t win this argument … we’ll lose public support for the asylum system and so we’ll lose something that’s wonderful about this country.
“I am not willing to lend public support to jeopardizing the asylum system.”
He acknowledged that some Labor MPs had concerns but insisted that “the majority of my colleagues agree with me”.
111,800 people have claimed asylum in Britain so far this year – 39% arrived in small boats, while 37% arrived by legal means before making an asylum claim.
The government says its plans are aimed at reducing the number of people coming to Britain and removing those who do not have the legal right to remain in the country.
The Home Office published the changes in a 30-page document and a few hours later Mahmood presented them in the House of Commons.
Under the proposals, people with refugee status would only be allowed to stay in the country temporarily, with their status reviewed every 30 months – half the current time period.
People can be returned to their home countries when it is deemed safe to do so.
The period refugees must stay in Britain before being allowed to apply for permanent residence will be quadrupled from five years to 20 years.
Families with children who are refused asylum will be offered incentives to leave, but may be forcibly removed if they refuse to leave voluntarily.
Asylum seekers with income or assets must contribute to the cost of their stay in the UK.
Mahmood told MPs that this would “put an end to the absurdity where an asylum seeker receiving £800 a month from his family and an Audi was getting free accommodation at the taxpayer’s expense and the courts ruled we couldn’t do anything about it”.
Home Office sources have rejected suggestions that items of sentimental value such as wedding rings could be confiscated to pay for asylum seekers’ accommodation.
The government intends to change the way it applies the European Convention on Human Rights and the Modern Slavery Act, to make it easier to remove unsuccessful asylum seekers.
Mahmoud also threatened to stop granting visas to people from three African countries – Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Namibia – unless those governments improved cooperation on deportations.
Setting out his plans for limited safe and legal routes, Mahmood said voluntary and community organizations would be given “greater involvement” in receiving and supporting new arrivals.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage praised Mahmood’s “strong language” and suggested she was auditioning to join his party.
However, he said he had “serious doubts” that his plans would survive objections from Labor backbenchers or the European Court of Human Rights.
Zak Polanski, Green Party leader of England and Wales, told BBC Newsnight: “Every single Labor MP needs to listen to their conscience.
“This is extreme, this is inhumane and this is a government of cowards.
“They went for pensioners, they went for the disabled and now they’re going for people fleeing war and conflict.”
Enver Solomon of the Refugee Council charity said tightening the system would not stop people “fleeing for their lives”.
He said people are not coming to Britain because of asylum rules, but because they speak English or have family ties or community ties in the country.
“We have those communities because of our historical ties and our past history as a large colonial nation,” he said.