A number of ministers concerned about Shabana Mahmood's immigration changes are working behind the scenes with backbenchers to secure more exemptions, the Guardian has learned. Keir Starmer is consulting on the proposed changes, which would make it harder to achieve settled status in the UK, and is under pressure from within his own party to say the measures should not apply to people who have already entered the UK.
Under the plans, most people would have to wait 10 years to qualify for indefinite leave to remain, rather than the existing five-year period. The Guardian revealed last month that Starmer was already looking at whether to exclude migrants working in the public sector from the changes, as well as those who are on the verge of being settled. However, the prime minister is still being urged to go further if he wants to avoid widespread anger on the backbenches.
The main demand by Labour opponents of the proposals is that the government exempts people who have already arrived in the country, as suggested by the former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner and others. One leading backbench rebel said they believed that stopping the changes applying retrospectively would be enough to calm the anger of most opponents – though several, including the foreign affairs select committee chair, Emily Thornberry, have said that a raft of changes is needed, including on the earned settlement element of the changes.
Labour MPs have also been particularly angered by briefings against one of the coordinators of the letter, Tony Vaughan, the MP for Folkestone and Hythe, who was the subject of a Sun article that criticised his record as a human rights and immigration barrister. The attorney general, Richard Hermer, who has been the subject of similar attacks, is said to have been incensed by the briefing, which Home Office sources have denied came from them.
Several MPs said they believed the Home Office had not effectively managed concerns. “If you’ve signed the letter you just get rung up and shouted at,” said one MP. Another said they had received no reply to a private letter sent to Mahmood. “I wrote more than a month ago and it’s not been acknowledged.” Another MP said there was a degree of “contempt” for MPs expressing concerns because they would not be able to vote against the changes – which do not require a parliamentary vote.
