Wednesday, November 19, 2025
Labour are seeking “to use children as a weapon”
The Guardian reports on claims by veteran Labour peer, Alf Dubbs, who came to Britain as a child refugee, that the home secretary is seeking “to use children as a weapon” in her changes to the asylum system.
The paper says that Dubbs, who arrived in the UK aged six in 1939 fleeing the persecution of Jews in Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, described Shabana Mahmood’s proposals as “a shabby thing”:
Mahmood faced a backlash from Labour MPs and refugee charities on Monday as she set out plans for the biggest shake-up of asylum laws in 40 years.
The Home Office said it would consult on measures to allow the removal of financial support from families with children under the age of 18 if they had been refused asylum. Ministers argue that the current system incentivises asylum seekers to subject their children to dangerous crossings.
A policy document published by the department on Monday said: “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.”
In response, Lord Dubs told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “There is a proper case for children, there is a proper case for family reunion when there are children who are on their own,” and he said that “to use children as a weapon as the home secretary is doing I think is a shabby thing”.
Mahmood’s proposals include scrapping permanent refugee status and requiring those arriving in the UK as asylum seekers to stay for 20 years – up from five – before they are eligible to settle permanently.
Dubs said he was “depressed” by the government’s “hard line” and said: “On the whole I think we’re going in the wrong direction.”
He said: “What it will do is to increase tensions in local communities and will make this country less welcome than we have traditionally been to welcome people who come here fleeing for safety. What we need is a bit of compassion in our politics.”
Dubs argued that the changes would cause bigger problems with community cohesion because there would be no incentive for communities to welcome asylum seekers who were here only temporarily. He also said it was wrong to remove children who were born and raised in the UK.
“My particular fear is integration in local communities: if people are here temporarily, and people know they’re here temporarily, then the danger is that local people say, well, you’re only here for a bit, why should we help you to integrate? Why should your kids go to local schools? And so on,” he said, adding that refugees “want to make a contribution to our country, that’s their overwhelming wish”.
The more I see of these proposals the more they appear badly thought through and unworkable.
The paper says that Dubbs, who arrived in the UK aged six in 1939 fleeing the persecution of Jews in Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, described Shabana Mahmood’s proposals as “a shabby thing”:
Mahmood faced a backlash from Labour MPs and refugee charities on Monday as she set out plans for the biggest shake-up of asylum laws in 40 years.
The Home Office said it would consult on measures to allow the removal of financial support from families with children under the age of 18 if they had been refused asylum. Ministers argue that the current system incentivises asylum seekers to subject their children to dangerous crossings.
A policy document published by the department on Monday said: “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.”
In response, Lord Dubs told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “There is a proper case for children, there is a proper case for family reunion when there are children who are on their own,” and he said that “to use children as a weapon as the home secretary is doing I think is a shabby thing”.
Mahmood’s proposals include scrapping permanent refugee status and requiring those arriving in the UK as asylum seekers to stay for 20 years – up from five – before they are eligible to settle permanently.
Dubs said he was “depressed” by the government’s “hard line” and said: “On the whole I think we’re going in the wrong direction.”
He said: “What it will do is to increase tensions in local communities and will make this country less welcome than we have traditionally been to welcome people who come here fleeing for safety. What we need is a bit of compassion in our politics.”
Dubs argued that the changes would cause bigger problems with community cohesion because there would be no incentive for communities to welcome asylum seekers who were here only temporarily. He also said it was wrong to remove children who were born and raised in the UK.
“My particular fear is integration in local communities: if people are here temporarily, and people know they’re here temporarily, then the danger is that local people say, well, you’re only here for a bit, why should we help you to integrate? Why should your kids go to local schools? And so on,” he said, adding that refugees “want to make a contribution to our country, that’s their overwhelming wish”.
The more I see of these proposals the more they appear badly thought through and unworkable.





