By Abdul Adil
Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, faced a barrage of criticism from across the political spectrum in the House of Commons today as she unveiled the Labour Government’s “Restoring Order and Control” plan—a sweeping reform of the asylum system designed to strip away the “pull factors” making Britain an attractive destination for migrants.
In a statement that marked a decisive shift to the right on immigration policy, Mahmood argued that Britain’s “comparative generosity” has made it a magnet for asylum seekers passing through safe European countries. Her solution—a move to temporary refugee status, restricted family rights, and a demand for asset contributions from asylum seekers—was pitched as a necessary corrective to a “broken system.” However, the proposals triggered a fierce debate, with Conservatives labelling the plans “baby steps,” while Liberal Democrats and left-wing MPs condemned them as “cruel,” “unworkable,” and drawn from the “fascist playbook.”
The Government’s Case: Fairness and Contribution
Shabana Mahmood’s central argument was that the current system is unfair to the British taxpayer and fuels social division. “The world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it,” she told the House, citing the £3 billion annual cost of the asylum system.
The Home Secretary announced that the automatic path to permanent settlement after five years will end. Instead, refugees will be granted temporary status for 2.5 years, subject to review. Permanent settlement will now take 20 years, unless refugees enter a new “protection work and study route,” which offers a faster track for those who contribute to the economy.
Taking aim at what she termed the “absurdity” of the current system, Mahmood cited the example of an asylum seeker with an Audi car and a monthly allowance from family still receiving taxpayer-funded housing. “It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can,” she declared, announcing the removal of the duty to support asylum seekers with assets.
Furthermore, Mahmood promised to tackle the “expanded interpretation” of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically Article 8 (family life), which she argued is blocking the deportation of foreign criminals. She also signalled a tougher stance on returns, announcing visa penalties for uncooperative countries like Angola and Namibia, and the commencement of deportations for families with failed asylum claims.
The Conservative Counter: “Baby Steps” and the ECHR
Shadow Home Secretary and Opposition Leader Kemi Badenoch welcomed the government’s change in tone but dismissed the measures as insufficient. “It is not enough, but it is a start,” Badenoch said, characterizing the policy as a tacit admission that the previous Conservative government’s approach was correct.
However, Badenoch argued that Mahmood’s plan is doomed to fail because it stops short of leaving the ECHR. “Anyone who comes to this country illegally should be deported,” Badenoch insisted, arguing that the 20-year wait for settlement does not remove the incentive to cross the Channel. She warned that legal challenges would bog down the Home Secretary’s attempts to reform Article 8 domestically. “If the Home Secretary is serious… she must be bolder,” Badenoch urged, calling for a total withdrawal from European human rights jurisdiction to ensure deportations cannot be blocked by judges in Strasbourg.
The Liberal Democrat and Progressive Critique: “Cruel and Unworkable”
From the centre and left, the criticism focused on the humanitarian impact and logistical feasibility of the plans. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Max Wilkinson attacked the government’s refusal to allow asylum seekers to work while their claims are processed, a policy he argued forces people into destitution rather than contribution.
Wilkinson also questioned the practicality of reviewing refugee status every 30 months. “Does the Home Secretary seriously believe that an overstretched Home Office… can also undertake reviews of every refugee’s status every two-and-a-half years?” he asked, predicting bureaucratic chaos.
The attack on the morality of the policy was particularly sharp. Wilkinson described the seizure of assets as “state-sponsored robbery,” while Green Party Co-leader Carla Denyer accused Mahmood of “attempting to out-Reform Reform,” arguing that the policy validates “toxic, racist narratives.”
Labour Rebellion and the “Fascist Playbook”
Perhaps most stinging for the Home Secretary were the attacks from her own backbenches and independent MPs formerly of the Labour party. Zarah Sultana, now of Your Party, accused Mahmood of adopting measures “straight out of the fascist playbook,” citing the seizure of valuables and the deportation of families.
Labour MPs including Apsana Begum and Stella Creasy raised concerns about the welfare of children. Creasy questioned the morality of leaving families in “permanent limbo” for 20 years, unable to plan their lives, while Begum challenged the safety of returning refugees to countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, and now of Your Party, criticized the Home Secretary for failing to recognize the global context of war and displacement, accusing the government of “appeasing the most ghastly right-wing, racist forces.”
The Home Secretary Stands Firm
Facing attacks from all sides, Mahmood remained defiant. She rejected the Conservative call to leave the ECHR as unworkable and dismissed the “unserious” criticisms from the left. To those accusing her of cruelty, she retorted that defending a “broken status quo” that enriches people smugglers is the true moral failure.
“We are the greater Britain… not the littler England,” Mahmood concluded, attempting to frame her harsh new measures as the only way to preserve public consent for asylum. Whether these measures will effectively “stop the boats” or simply add to the administrative backlog of an already overwhelmed Home Office remains the subject of fierce debate.
[Photo: Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood/Official Photo]
