None of Shabana Mahmood’s asylum reforms is as radical as the terms in which she is talking about this issue. In an op-ed teeing up Monday’s announcement, she writes: ‘Unless we act, we risk losing popular consent for having an asylum system at all.’ I cannot remember the last time a Home Secretary made such a clear-headed statement of the facts: asylum policies, like everything else government does, is contingent on the consent of the governed.
Mahmood’s plans might sit firmly to the right of the parliamentary Labour party but they represent the leftmost asylum policy the British public would be willing to tolerate
When it comes to border security, migration and asylum, too many in the decision-making classes associate democracy with demagogy. The voters are assumed to be too ignorant, frankly too racist, to be allowed a say on who should enter their country and under what circumstances. Everyone is for participatory democracy until the demos wants to participate in the wrong thing.
Many voters, including those who believe in a generous asylum system, feel disregarded by current policies, for the very good reason that they are disregarded. The asylum process is a closed shop between MPs, civil servants, lawyers, judges and activist groups. The public’s concerns do not get a look in.
Mahmood’s proposals address those concerns directly and take many of them on board. They introduce a 20-year waiting period before someone granted asylum can apply for permanent settlement and increase the frequency of refugee status reviews, conducting them every 2.5 years rather than every five, with refugees from countries updated to ‘safe’ returned home. Multiple appeals will end, with unsuccessful applicants given one chance at review then removed. A new interpretation will be placed on Convention rights, limiting the right to family life to immediate family.
This goes further than Labour has been prepared to in the past, in particular on Convention rights and appeals, and reflects the sobering effects of Reform’s polling numbers and the spilling onto the streets of tensions over asylum hotels and public safety. Progressives are already making their displeasure known but their position — essentially, no reforms that will actually tighten up the system — is irresponsible and undermines both the country’s security and the mainstream counter-offer to the more extreme prescriptions of the radical right.
Far from a lurch to the right, Mahmood’s proposals are moderate and temperate and show the country that the government is capable of listening. They are the best chance Labour has of turning down the temperature on these issues. The Tories’ Chris Philp complains that the package of measures outlined does not include speedy deportation of illegal migrants. Many voters will have sympathy with that criticism, something Labour MPs should take on board. Mahmood’s plans might sit firmly to the right of the parliamentary Labour party but they represent the leftmost asylum policy the British public would be willing to tolerate.
For those voters and others who believe she has not gone far enough, the Home Secretary can legitimately protest that she is cleaning up the last government’s mess. The Conservatives lost control of Britain’s borders. They allowed what amounted to an unarmed invasion of the UK by foreign nationals, some of whom were in genuine need of asylum but many others were economic migrants who thought the lawful processes for entering the country shouldn’t apply to them. The consequences for national security of allowing so many unvetted young men to enter the UK are difficult to estimate but, as in the case of Khairi Saadallah, the price could well end up being paid in the lives of British citizens.
Shabana Mahmood aims to bring order to the chaos left behind by a Conservative government that talked tough but consistently failed to act. Instead, a Labour Home Secretary is staking out a new centre ground on border security and asylum. It is an approach that balances Britain’s treaty and moral obligations with its national security and social cohesion concerns. Vitally, it reflects the democratic mood and, while it will fall short for some voters, it tells the public that someone in authority is listening. The only question is whether Labour MPs will allow their Home Secretary to act.
Comments