Minister Defends Tough New Asylum Reform Plan

Published: 19 November 2025 Wednesday . The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

The UK government has entered a defining moment in its attempts to overhaul Britain’s asylum system, as Communities Secretary Steve Reed insisted that ministers remain “absolutely committed” to pushing through a sweeping package of reforms despite growing unease within Labour’s own ranks. His remarks followed a series of increasingly heated reactions across the political spectrum triggered by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s announcement of the toughest asylum changes proposed in more than a decade.

The reforms, unveiled in Parliament earlier this week, centre on drastically extending the period refugees must wait before being eligible for permanent residency, increasing the threshold from the current five years to twenty. The government also intends to accelerate the removal of families whose asylum applications have been rejected, including the possibility of deporting children who have been living in the UK for years. Mahmood argues these measures are essential to restore public trust and bring “order and control” to a system that she says has become unsustainable, overstretched and vulnerable to exploitation.

But the political response has been rapid, fierce and sharply divided. Labour backbenchers have pointed to what they call unacceptable moral and humanitarian consequences of the proposals, focusing particularly on plans that could result in children being forcibly removed from the country after spending significant portions of their childhood in British schools, communities and neighbourhoods. Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy described the idea of deporting such children as “not the British way”, warning that the government risked losing sight of compassion at a time when empathy was needed most. Labour peer Lord Dubs, who himself arrived in Britain as a child refugee through the Kindertransport, went further, accusing the government of “using children as a weapon” and warning that harsh measures would not prevent dangerous crossings.

Still, ministers insist that the current system is no longer functioning in a way that reflects fairness or practicality. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Steve Reed underscored his belief that the reforms are necessary to safeguard both humanitarian values and public confidence. He argued that the status quo has created “perverse incentives” that encourage families to risk their lives crossing the Channel in small inflatable boats controlled by criminal traffickers. Reed pointed to the death of 14 children over the past year during attempted crossings, saying the tragedy underscored the urgency of implementing new rules that would deter such dangerous journeys.

Reed acknowledged that some Labour MPs were unsettled by the reforms, but said the government was determined to break what he described as a destructive cycle. “We can’t go on like this,” he said. “It is tearing the country apart in many respects.” He reiterated that the government’s intention was to create a “fair, tolerant and compassionate system”, adding that compassion must include protecting vulnerable children from criminal smuggling networks.

The government’s proposal contains several major structural changes. Under the new rules, refugees will receive temporary status rather than immediate long-term security, with their cases reassessed every 30 months to determine whether circumstances in their home country have changed. Ministers say this approach is aligned with systems used in several other European nations and ensures that refuge is granted only for as long as it is needed. For individuals arriving via new safe and legal routes, the government plans to set an annual cap on numbers, while granting the possibility of permanent settlement after ten years rather than twenty.

The most contentious measures, however, are those aimed at families whose asylum applications have been rejected. The government is considering removing state support for families who fail to comply with departure requirements, along with initiating forced removals if necessary. Critics say these policies risk pushing families into destitution or encouraging hidden homelessness, while supporters argue that clear enforcement is essential to maintaining the integrity of the system.

Within the Labour Party, the internal tensions mirror deeper ideological divisions over immigration more broadly. Sheffield Hallam MP Olivia Blake accused Mahmood of “stoking division” with remarks suggesting successful asylum applicants had “won a golden ticket”. Blake warned that such language undermined the values Labour has traditionally championed. MP Steve Witherden, representing Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr, called on the government to “lead with compassion and fairness”, rather than consigning families to decades of uncertainty.

Meanwhile, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said the proposals did not go far enough to secure Britain’s borders and blamed both Labour and the SNP for policies she believes have eroded public confidence. She argued that the UK could not solve its asylum challenges without leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, a position Labour has rejected. Badenoch insisted that “any plan that doesn’t include leaving the ECHR is wasting time we don’t have”, highlighting the depth of the Conservative Party’s longstanding disagreement with Labour on immigration policy.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also entered the debate, suggesting Mahmood’s shift toward tougher measures signalled fear that Labour was losing voters to his party. He joked that Mahmood might become the “next defector” while stating he agreed with much of her rhetoric, though he accused Labour of avoiding the larger issue of legal migration. Farage repeated his claim that high immigration levels are damaging the economy, despite economists countering that the UK’s labour shortages and ageing population make controlled immigration essential.

From the opposite end of the spectrum, Green Party leader Zack Polanski condemned the government’s proposals as “extreme” and “inhumane”. He argued that the UK’s real problem was not immigration but inequality, claiming ministers were using asylum seekers as a distraction from broader economic challenges, including high living costs and stagnant wages.

Despite the turbulence within Westminster, Mahmood has remained steadfast. In an interview with the BBC’s political editor Chris Mason, she said she viewed the reforms as a moral duty rather than a political strategy. She warned that if public support for the asylum system collapsed, Britain risked losing “something brilliant” about its national identity. She insisted she would not allow far-right parties to dominate the debate on borders and said she believed the “vast majority” of her Labour colleagues ultimately supported her vision.

Mahmood also emphasised the difference between compassion and permissiveness. She acknowledged that elements of the reforms make people uncomfortable but argued that difficult decisions were needed to prevent further loss of life in the Channel. She said the UK’s comparatively generous asylum offer had created strong pull factors, leading more people to make perilous journeys. These journeys, she argued, enrich criminal gangs and endanger children and families who feel they have no other option.

The debate is unfolding against a backdrop of shifting public attitudes and political pressures. Over the past year, the government has been forced to reverse course on several major policies, including welfare cuts and changes to the winter fuel payment, following pushback from its own MPs. That history has heightened expectations that Labour may again face internal rebellion. Approximately 20 Labour MPs have publicly criticised the asylum plan, and several more are believed to be raising concerns privately.

Still, the leadership maintains that the reforms are necessary to modernise a system that has failed to adapt to international migration trends and rising global instability. Ministers point to increasing conflicts, climate-related displacement and rising numbers of asylum seekers across Europe as evidence that reactive strategies are no longer sufficient. They argue that Britain must adopt a stable, long-term framework capable of balancing humanitarian duties with national capacity.

Opponents contend that the government is adopting rhetoric and policies that echo right-wing populist movements across Europe, risking Britain’s global reputation as a country historically committed to protecting the vulnerable. They warn that imposing long periods of uncertainty on refugees will cause significant psychological harm and hinder integration, while deporting children will irreversibly sever ties to communities they consider home.

For now, the future of the reforms depends on how the coming weeks unfold in Parliament. With Conservatives suggesting they may support the legislation and some Labour MPs warning of rebellion, the political chessboard is shifting rapidly. The debate is likely to intensify as the bill progresses through both Houses, with activists, charities and legal experts preparing to challenge aspects they believe violate international obligations.

As the government pushes ahead, one reality remains clear: the asylum debate has once again become one of the most charged and divisive issues in British politics. Whether the reforms succeed or falter, they will have long-lasting consequences not only for the families seeking safety on UK shores but also for the political identity of a country still wrestling with its post-Brexit place in the world.