Several UK government ministers are reportedly working behind the scenes with Labour backbench MPs to soften controversial immigration reforms proposed by Shabana Mahmood, according to reports.
The internal discussions come as Keir Starmer continues consultations on proposed changes that would significantly tighten the pathway to settlement in the UK. The reforms aim to make it more difficult for migrants to obtain indefinite leave to remain (ILR), with growing pressure from within the Labour Party to ensure the changes do not apply to individuals already living in the UK.
Key proposed change: doubling the settlement period
Under the current proposals, most migrants would need to wait 10 years before qualifying for ILR, doubling the existing five-year route.
Previous reports indicated that Starmer is already considering potential exemptions, including:
- Migrants working in the public sector
- Individuals who are close to qualifying for settlement under current rules
However, many Labour MPs believe these exemptions do not go far enough.
Growing pressure from Labour backbenchers
The central demand from critics within Labour is that the reforms should not be applied retrospectively. This means migrants who have already entered the UK under the current rules should not be forced into a longer settlement route.
This position has been backed by senior figures, including former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner.
One senior backbench MP suggested that removing the retrospective element could be enough to calm widespread opposition within the party. However, othersβincluding Emily Thornberry, have called for broader revisions, particularly concerning the βearned settlementβ framework.
Another MP openly criticised the proposals, stating they personally opposed all changes to ILR but believed compromise might be accepted by many if retrospective application is removed.
Retrospective application remains a major concern
Sources from Downing Street confirmed that all aspects of the reforms, including whether they apply retrospectively, are still under consultation.
As it stands, migrants who have arrived in the UK within the past five years could be required to wait significantly longer before becoming eligible for settlement.
Internal tensions and criticism of handling
Tensions within the Labour Party have been further inflamed by internal disagreements and media briefings.
Labour MPs expressed frustration over reports targeting Tony Vaughan, who helped coordinate opposition to the reforms. He was criticised in a media article referencing his work as a human rights and immigration barrister.
The UK attorney general, Richard Hermer, was also reportedly angered by similar briefings, although the Home Office denied responsibility.
Several MPs have complained about poor communication from the Home Office:
- Some claimed they were contacted and pressured after signing opposition letters
- Others reported receiving no response to formal concerns submitted to Mahmood
One MP described the situation as showing βcontemptβ toward those raising concerns, noting that MPs would not even have the opportunity to vote on the changes, as they do not require parliamentary approval.
Political pressure from both left and right
The issue is also becoming politically sensitive beyond Parliament.
Labour MPs in London have raised concerns that the proposed changes are being used in campaign materials by the Green Party. One leaflet reportedly accuses Labour of:
- βPunishing hardworking migrantsβ
- Changing settlement rules unfairly
Meanwhile, Mahmoodβs tougher stance on immigration is seen as part of Labourβs response to rising support for Nigel Farage and his Reform UK party.
However, recent electoral results, including a Green Party victory in the Gorton and Denton by-election, have increased fears that Labour is losing support from the left as well.
Widespread opposition within Labour
Around 100 Labour MPs previously signed a letter opposing the reforms. The letter argued that:
Public confidence in the asylum system cannot be restored by threatening to remove refugees who have lived lawfully in the UK for 15 to 20 years.
Sarah Owen also criticised aspects of the policy, comparing the potential use of force in immigration enforcement involving children to practices associated with Donald Trump and US immigration authorities.
Angela Rayner reinforced these concerns in a recent speech, warning that constantly changing settlement requirements undermines fairness:
βWe cannot talk about earning a settlement if we keep moving the goalpostsβ¦ itβs un-British.β
Government stance remains firm
Despite growing internal resistance, the Home Office has maintained its position.
A spokesperson stated:
- The UK will continue to welcome migrants who contribute to society
- Settlement should be βearned, not automaticβ
- Migration levels between 2021 and 2024 were historically high
The government confirmed its intention to:
- Extend the settlement route from 5 to 10 years
- Potentially apply this change to migrants already in the UK without settled status
Officials also confirmed they are currently reviewing over 200,000 consultation responses, with a final decision expected in due course.
News Source: The Guardian
LawSentis viewpoint
At LawSentis, we view these proposals as a major shift in UK immigration policy.
Retrospective changes raise concerns around fairness and legal certainty, as migrants rely on existing rules to plan their lives. Applying the 10-year route only to new applicants would be more consistent and avoid disruption.
Such changes could lead to more refusals and legal challenges, while also impacting key sectors like healthcare.
For those already in the UK, this is a crucial time to review your immigration strategy. Contact LawSentis today for expert advice and tailored support to protect your pathway to settlement.