𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals are set to be offered more money to leave the UK as part of a radical overhaul of the system.

Labour will trial “increased incentive payments” to convince people to return to their home countries.

Migrants are currently offered up to £3,000 to leave the UK voluntarily.

And the Home Office is set to spark fury amongst Labour supporters by targeting families whose asylum claims have been refused for deportation.

Under the Government’s plans, asylum seekers will only be granted temporary protection in the UK, with reviews every 30 months to determine whether their home country is safe for them to be returned home.

And refugees will be told to wait 20 years before applying for settlement rights. Asylum seekers will also be forced to sell expensive assets, such as cars and jewellery, to pay for their support.

But a new Home Office document, published this afternoon, revealed the Home Office is considering paying migrants more money to leave the UK.

The Restoring Order and Control policy document reveals: “Depending on individual circumstances, financial packages will continue to be available at any stage in the process.

“This is the most cost-effective approach for UK taxpayers and we will encourage people to take up these opportunities, including by trialling increased incentive payments. Enforced removal will be pursued where they refuse to engage.”

In another radical move, the Home Office is also proposing to deport families whose asylum claims have been rejected.

A policy document stated: “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 gold-standard 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.”

Countries that refuse to take back illegal migrants from Britain will face visa bans.

Under Labour’s plans, immigration judges will be prevented from putting migrants’ rights to a family life under the ECHR ahead of protecting the public and controlling the UK’s borders, under new legislation.

But Ms Mahmood’s proposals sparked uproar from members of her own party, with Labour MPs branding it “performative cruelty”, “politically disastrous” and warned of a “real degree of disgust” amongst politicians.

Veteran left-wing MP Ian Byrne said: “We’ve drifted far from the PM’s promise of ‘compassion and dignity’, towards policies dragged from the moral abyss and applauded by far-right figures like Farage and Yaxley-Lennon.

“It’s morally bankrupt and politically disastrous – our party won’t win voters back this way.

“Those who’ve left have turned to progressive parties, and those who’ve stayed will be appalled by these latest attacks on people fleeing war and persecution.”

The Home Office will introduce powers to seize valuables such as jewellery and cars to pay towards asylum hotels.

Only items without sentimental value would be seized, so wedding rings and family heirlooms would be exempt.

The package of measures — hailed as the biggest shake-up of asylum laws since the Second World War — will end the decades-long principle of permanent refuge for those granted asylum and will reform human rights laws.

Lord Sumption, the former Supreme Court judge, warned that ministers’ plans to change how human rights legislation was applied in UK courts would be “limited” because of the European Court of Human Rights.

Left-wing Labour MP Richard Burgon said: “This approach isn’t just morally wrong; it’s politically disastrous.

“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.”

Brian Leishman, the MP for Alloa & Grangemouth, described some of the proposals to be announced this afternoon as “very Reform in their nature”.

He told Times Radio: “Speaking with other Labour MPs I know that there’s a real degree of disgust at some of these proposals.”

He added: “What we’ve got to do is absolutely have an honest and frank analysis and admit that Britain has never actually been this incredibly welcoming place for immigrants…This is nothing new and what I will say, some of the proposals that have been leaked, they do sound very Reform in their nature.”

Labour MP Tony Vaughan KC has said the Government’s asylum system overhaul “doesn’t help society”.

He said: “I totally agree with Shabana that there is public trust ebbing away from our asylum system and we have to regain that trust.

“But the problem I have with this is that I think it is taking the wrong turn. I mean, a particular problem that I have is around the idea that we should be trying to kick refugees out despite having granted them protection.

“I think the idea is that we review their status after two and a half years on a kind of rolling basis, so then hopefully at some point their countries will be safe and we can deport them. I think that is completely the wrong position in principle.

“We need to be making sure that if the system has decided, applying the immigration controls, that somebody should be granted asylum, we should be welcoming and integrating and not creating this situation of kind of perpetual limbo and alienation, which doesn’t help the refugees and it doesn’t help society.”

Downing Street denied that the Government was “chasing hard-right voters” with its plans to overhaul the asylum system.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “This is a policy that we believe reflects the mandate we have been given to secure our borders and deal with the asylum system that we’ve inherited.”

Asked whether it was chasing the hard-right, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “We are responding to the mandate we have been given and the public can tell that the pace and scale of illegal migration is out of control, unfair and placing huge pressure on communities.

“And the Prime Minister wants to fix the chaos in the asylum system so we can move away from division and decline and build a Britain for all.”

Asked whether the Government was “talking the language of Reform”, he added: “No, we are talking the language of dealing with an asylum system that is in chaos.”