Veteran Labour peer Alf Dubs has sharply criticised the government’s new asylum proposals, accusing the home secretary of “using children as a weapon” in an unprecedented overhaul of the UK’s refugee system.
Dubs, who arrived in Britain as a child refugee fleeing Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia in 1939, said Shabana Mahmood’s plans represented “a shabby thing”, warning they would harm vulnerable families and undermine Britain’s historic commitment to protecting children in need.
Government Faces Backlash Over Plan to Remove Support From Refused Families
Mahmood faced a fierce backlash from Labour MPs and refugee charities as she outlined the biggest changes to asylum laws in 40 years.
The Home Office confirmed it would consult on proposals allowing the removal of financial support from families with children under 18 if their asylum claims are rejected.
Ministers argue that the current system encourages parents to put their children on dangerous Channel crossings, saying hesitancy to return families has created “perverse incentives” for asylum seekers hoping to remain in the UK.
A policy paper published on Monday stated that some families “exploit the fact that they have had children and put down roots in order to thwart removal”, even after their claims have been legally refused.
In response, Lord Dubs told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that punishing children was morally wrong and counterproductive. He emphasised the need for compassionate family reunion policies, especially for unaccompanied minors.
Permanent Refugee Status Scrapped Under New 20-Year Rule
Among Mahmood’s proposals is the abolition of permanent refugee status.
Under the changes, refugees would need to live in the UK for 20 years—up from the current five—before becoming eligible for settlement.
Dubs warned that extending temporary status would worsen tensions in communities and make integration nearly impossible. He said children born and raised in the UK should not be threatened with removal, adding that local residents are less likely to welcome families they know will only be in the country temporarily.
He said the plans would “make this country less welcoming than we have traditionally been”, urging ministers to prioritise compassion.
Ministers Defend Tough Stance Over Channel Deaths
Communities Secretary Steve Reed defended the changes, arguing that compassion also requires preventing dangerous Channel crossings.
Reed pointed to the 14 children who died attempting the journey over the past year, saying parts of the current system unintentionally incentivise families to risk their lives at sea.
Reed insisted the government remained “absolutely committed” to the new measures despite internal opposition. He said asylum hotels had harmed “community cohesion”, claiming the rise of far-right parties was partly driven by public frustration over the asylum system’s failures.
Aid Agencies and UN Warn of “Prolonged Uncertainty and Despair”
International organisations strongly criticised the reforms, warning they would destabilise thousands of refugees and undermine social cohesion.
The UN refugee agency (UNHCR) said asylum seekers should not be treated as economic migrants and must be granted a secure status that enables them to rebuild their lives.
UNHCR’s UK representative Vicky Tennant urged ministers not to impose restrictions that create “prolonged uncertainty and despair”.
The International Rescue Committee said the measures would “exacerbate existing challenges”, while Amnesty International described the plans as “cruel, divisive and fundamentally out of step with basic decency”.
UK’s Asylum System Under Intense Political Pressure
The proposals come amid a wider political battle over migration, with the government attempting to reduce crossings after record numbers arrived via the Channel in 2024 and early 2025.
Labour has sought to distinguish its approach from the previous Conservative government, which championed the now-abandoned Rwanda plan.
However, the sweeping reforms have opened deep divisions within Labour, with many MPs warning that punitive measures will not deter desperate families and will instead fuel community tension and legal challenges.
