Will the government strip jewellery from migrants arriving in Britain? Many were under that impression following Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s changes to the asylum system were announced this week.
Except Mahmood never announced such a policy. The claim that “illegal migrants’ valuables such as jewellery and watches will be seized and sold to pay towards their accommodation costs” first appeared as an exclusive in Monday’s edition of the Sun.
It then appeared to be backed up by Home Office minister Alex Norris when he appeared on the Monday media round. While Norris ruled out the confiscation of sentimental items after being asked by journalists if wedding rings would be seized, he said: “If someone comes over with a bag full of gold rings, well, that’s different to what I said about the heirloom.”
When Mahmood stood up in the Commons to announce her full proposals, she was asked critical questions about the jewellery story from Labour and Lib Dem MPs. She repeatedly denied the story and told the House: “it is not the policy of this Government to confiscate jewellery from those who are accessing asylum accommodation.”
It seemed that something which had started as a colourful line of pre-announcement briefing to the Sun had got out of control. The notion of people having their personal items seized at the border came to dominate the conversation about a much broader package of measures.
The real policy has now emerged. Sources close to Mahmood clarified that no jewellery or personal items of any sort will be seized from migrants when they arrive in Britain.
But the Home Office will attempt to seize “high value cashable assets” held by those living in state-provided accommodation. As far as jewellery is concerned, this means in practice the policy would only apply to large quantities of precious metals and gems stored as an asset. Sentimental and personal items will be off limits. It will more often be used to seize items like cars.
The proposal was developed because Mahmood was frustrated by instances of people living in accommodation despite receiving outside income. There was one case of an asylum seeker in accommodation who, while receiving an £800 per month stipend from family, came into possession of an Audi car. The Home Office unsuccessfully tried to compel him to contribute to his accommodation but this was rejected by a court.
A source close to Mahmood characterised the earlier discussion of jewellery being seized at the border as speculation. Nevertheless it has helped to generate a wave of antipathy to her broader proposals for reform of the asylum system, and forced the government to sharply clarify earlier briefings. A less skilful politician might have been left embarrassed by this sideshow to their major announcement. She has yet again emerged unscathed.
[Further reading: Shabana Mahmood is reckoning with reality]
Content from our partners
Related
