Shabana Mahmood is showing much-needed leadership on the migration issue

As the dust settles on one of the most combative parliamentary performances delivered by a minister in this Labour government, two things are becoming clear. One is that Shabana Mahmood is a politician to be reckoned with. The other is that there are elements of her reforms to the asylum regime that push at the boundaries of decency.

On one score, the home secretary retreated before she had even advanced. She denied reports that she wanted to seize jewellery from anyone claiming asylum: “We are not taking jewellery at the border – I cannot say it any more clearly than that.” She claimed that she was talking, instead, about ending state support for people who “have assets and access to money and can afford quite expensive cars”. That seems reasonable.

The more difficult suggestion, which has not been withdrawn, is that state support should be withheld from those granted refugee status if they are unemployed.

And Ms Mahmood has been criticised by Alf Dubs, the conscience of liberal Labour, for “using children as a weapon”, because of her determination to make it harder for migrants to resist deportation if they have children, or have had children since arriving.

Lord Dubs is someone to whom the government should listen. But Ms Mahmood would be justified in pointing out that the government should resist sentimentality about parents who use children as a weapon in their efforts to game the rules.

More generally, though, ministers do need to be careful, as we have said repeatedly, to avoid language that incites anti-immigrant sentiment. They should talk about “illegal migration”, for instance, rather than “illegal migrants”.

To be fair to Ms Mahmood, she stresses that “this country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger”, and she makes the case that a compassionate asylum policy is possible only if there is control over who can enter the country and who cannot.

She is absolutely right to say that “unless we act, we risk losing popular consent for having an asylum system at all”.

And she showed leadership and courage when she rounded on critics from the Labour left, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and the nationalists. She has a “moral duty”, she said, to fix the broken asylum system. Her critics, indeed, often show a shocking complacency, imagining that the status quo can continue without causing significant damage to public trust in the asylum system, and in immigration policy more generally.

For all that Ms Mahmood is accused of trying to out-Farage Nigel Farage, it is her critics on the left who seem oblivious to the dangers of a Farage-led government – a potential outcome if the reasonable concerns of centre-ground voters about asylum and immigration are not taken seriously.

Many of Ms Mahmood’s proposals are sensible, and bear no resemblance to the incoherent policies put forward by Mr Farage. The way in which the European Convention on Human Rights is interpreted by British courts, for example, needs to be reformed, as experienced Labour voices such as Jack Straw have argued in these pages. This is quite different from Reform’s plan to withdraw from the Convention altogether.

After a difficult few weeks, Ms Mahmood has at last put some fire in Labour’s belly. If Sir Keir Starmer has any sense, he will give her a more prominent role in his team. Here is an outspoken politician brimming with confidence, impatient to find solutions to an extremely difficult problem. Some of her solutions may not be perfect, of course, and constructive parliamentary criticism should be focused on ensuring that any legislation is improved before it takes effect.

Ms Mahmood may not wholly succeed, but we should respect and admire a cabinet minister of such single-minded determination.