Andrew Sparrow

November 17, 2025

Home Office says past ‘hesitancy’ over removal of families and children of failed asylum seekers was wrong – live | Politics

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.

Key events

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.

Asylum applications in European countries Photograph: Sunder Katwala

Mahmood says UK government in past has been ‘unwilling to show necessary toughness’ over asylum removals

Rajeev Syal

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.

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”.

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.

Polling on potential asylum changes Photograph: More in Common

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

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.

Source link