POLITICS: Can Labour MPs stomach Mahmood’s Denmark daydreaming? – USSA News

In the Commons yesterday evening Shabana Mahmood took question after question – most probably more aptly classified as statements – from Labour MPs critiquing her new immigration proposals.

Cat Eccles, Abtisam Mohamed, Sarah Owen, Stella Creasy, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Olivia Blake, John McDonell, Rachael Maskell, Nadia Whittome, Apsana Begum, Richard Burgon, Steve Witherden and Tony Vaughan all sat on the green benches ready to criticise the Home Secretary’s approach.

One after the other they slammed her for everything from “deeply offensive rhetoric”, to “creating insecurity”, “flying in the face of decency and compassion”, being “simply wrong”, “scraping the bottom of the barrel, “being “morally wrong” or simply “deeply concerning”. 

Actually, before Mahmood even reached the chamber to deliver her statement, 14 MPs had already broken ranks and expressed their opposition.

Like proposals under Rishi Sunak’s immigration bill, they face the problem of backbench unhappiness. Then it came from senior Tories, now from Labour MPs who surely fear they are only destined for one term. And some in Reform are trying to spin this as Mahmood “doing a Sunak” and pitching reforms her party will not support.

Unlike Sunak’s experience, the opposition has offered to work with Labour to see their proposals through and improve them. Kemi Badenoch said: “I genuinely want her to succeed … I urge her to take me up on my offer to work together.”

Although Mahmood may not be immediately appreciative of how this looks to those critical backbenchers, Badenoch is right to make the offer. Not only is it an issue that needs dealing with for the country, but for the two-party system itself, politically there is the argument that if Labour manages to tackle the immigration problem while the Tories pivot to the economy once again – Reform may, just may, get put back in their box.

So back to what has actually happened so far, other than the rebellions Labour faced before the policy was even formally announced.

Mahmood has set out a radical shake-up of Britain’s asylum regime to make the UK no longer a “destination of choice” for illegal migrants and limiting pull factors that encourage this. Permanent refugee status will end in favour of regular reviews of temporary status based on ongoing safety assessments of the applicant’s home country. The Home Office will have new powers to confiscate items to pay for accommodation and processing. Most asylum seekers will have to wait 20 years to apply for permanent settlement.

Denmark is the blueprint – with a Home Office team sent to study the country’s experience after knocking asylum claims to a four-decade low. But there are still differences in approach. 

For example, when asked by Tory MP Nick Timothy about the idea of following Denmark in their transparency by regularly publishing data on the fiscal contribution of different profiles of migrants, the Home Secretary dismissed the idea. So too has she dismissed the idea of offshore processing aka Rwanda in response to a series of questions from Sir Edward Leigh, Sir Desmond Swayne and Joe Robertson.

Denmark passed legislation a few years ago to allow for asylum seekers to be transferred outside of Europe for processing to partner countries like Rwanda, with whom they agreed to explore setting up a programme – since put ‘on hold’.

Although the country has never actually gone through with it, the option marked a real shift already for a European country. But the Home Secretary has ruled out third-country deportation schemes, telling the Commons: “On Rwanda, no.”

The closest she is getting is looking at return hubs where refused asylum seekers can find a safe third country, with Britain paying for each relocation. Stil though: no third-country processing for small boat arrivals. It is one thing the Conservative Party can cast back to from its time in government, although Rishi Sunak’s calling of a snap election meant the Rwanda plan was never really up and running before Labour’s scrapping.

Another issue these new proposals may have, similar to the Tories, is constant problems in the courts without properly dealing with the Human Rights Act or leaving the ECHR – again something Mahmood has only spoken of tweaking and lobbying to evolve certain articles. There are limits as to what domestic legislation can accomplish with continued membership of the ECHR.

Mahmood does not seem keen on the idea of fighting this through the courts in the way Denmark’s politicians have been, with the woman revered in Denmark, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen willing to take on legal challenges. In Denmark the situation even went so far at one stage that their former immigration minister (under the previous centre-right Venstre government) Inger Støjberg received a two-month sentence – and ended up impeached by her own party – for separating several asylum-seeking couples where the woman was under 18-years-old over accusations she violated the European convention on human rights. She ended up wearing an ankle tag to avoid jail time.

The Home Secretary accessorised with an ankle tag is undoubtedly something she will want to avoid but Mahmood may find that in having the option of third party processing, being willing to take on the courts and publishing immigration data, she may have even better luck with the impact of her new proposals. That is if the rebels within her own party don’t kibosh the whole thing before it gets off the ground.

The post Can Labour MPs stomach Mahmood’s Denmark daydreaming? appeared first on Conservative Home.