“`html
Despite the phased unveiling of Shabana Mahmood’s asylum reform package in recent days, her Monday statement to the House of Commons contained a novel and potentially contentious element.
“We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are,” the Home Secretary stated to MPs. “Currently, we do not remove family groups, even when their country of origin is demonstrably safe.”
The language within the government’s accompanying policy document was even sharper, asserting that the “hesitancy” to deport families “creates particularly perverse incentives,” specifically encouraging asylum seekers to include children in their perilous journey across the English Channel.
“Once in the UK, asylum seekers are able to exploit the fact that they have had children and put down roots to thwart removal, even if their claim has been legally refused,” the document elaborates.
The government proposes offering financial incentives to families with rejected asylum claims to return to their home countries. Refusal will result in deportation, with a forthcoming consultation to determine the precise procedures for enforcing family removals, including those involving children.
This policy is likely to become a significant flashpoint, particularly for Labour MPs already concerned about the government’s overall direction.
Several MPs raised their concerns with Mahmood in the Commons on Monday, focusing on the treatment of children deported alongside their parents.
This issue, alongside the conversion of refugee status to temporary status and the quadrupling of the waiting period for permanent residency (from five to twenty years), is poised to be among the most contentious aspects of Mahmood’s reforms.
These changes will require legislation, leading to parliamentary votes. The degree of opposition, especially within the Labour Party, will be crucial in determining whether the package becomes law.
Considerable anxiety exists amongst many Labour MPs, exceeding the number who have publicly questioned Mahmood’s proposals. These concerned MPs extend beyond the usual critics of Sir Keir Starmer on the party’s left wing.
Notably, conversations with those uneasy about the government’s approach on Monday revealed a tempered unease, stemming from recognition of public frustration with illegal immigration and a belief that constituents desire such policies.
Furthermore, a significant minority of Labour MPs feel local pressure to advocate for the rights of asylum seekers fleeing war-torn regions.
The division within the Labour Party on this issue appears less ideological and more influenced by whether individual MPs face challenges from parties on the right or left in the next election.
Mahmood’s performance in the Commons on Monday was notably strong, earning praise from Labour colleagues for her ability to argue the case while delivering sharp dismissals of political opponents.
One complaint from Labour MPs regarding the welfare proposals that the government was forced to retract earlier this year was their abrupt introduction without sufficient preparatory work.
In this instance, Mahmood has articulated the arguments, but the first crucial votes are still months away.
Consequently, there is a long road ahead with potential for significant changes. As it stands, the situation does not entirely resemble the previous welfare policy episode.
Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Josh Newbury, MP for Cannock Chase, says he does not remember details from the night he was raped.
The government is considering using taxpayer money and private finance to build new health centres.
Clive Lewis says his comment about standing down was an answer to a “hypothetical question”.
Shabana Mahmood says becoming part of the UK is “not a right but a privilege – and one that must be earned”.
Burnham says he is focused on his current role as Manchester mayor but could not say what the future holds.
“`