Keir Starmer appears to have moved to avoid a potential new flashpoint with volatile Labour backbenchers on immigration after hardline plans to make it harder to stay in Britain legally were left out of the King's Speech.
Background of the ILR Proposals
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood unveiled proposals in March to double the time it will take immigrants to qualify for indefinite leave to remain (ILR), from five to 10 years. Controversially, the plans would apply retrospectively to migrants already here, affecting 2.2 million people who have arrived since 2021. This prompted a minor revolt among Labour MPs, with Angela Rayner, the former deputy Prime Minister and potential challenger to Sir Keir, labelling it 'un-British'.
King's Speech and Policy Direction
The Speech given by the King today included plans for an Immigration and Asylum Bill that would 'restore order and control to the immigration system', but documents released alongside it make no mention of the move to harden criteria for ILR. Reports this week suggested Sir Keir has gone cold on the idea, and the situation is unlikely to have been improved by the Home Secretary reportedly being one of the senior ministers telling him to set out a path to quitting in recent days.
Home Office Reassurances
However, Home Office sources today insisted the plans would go ahead by changing immigration rules without the need for a vote in parliament. 'The change [from] five to 10 years as the norm is government policy and will be implemented,' they added. A particular concern on the Labour benches is the potential for the change in the ILR timetable for people who are already in the UK and had expected to receive permanent settlement under the five-year qualification period.
Potential Climbdown
But Downing Street has already opened the door to a climbdown, saying it was looking at 'transitional arrangements' that could allow some recent migrants to wait much less than ten years if they have contributed to the economy and society. When the plans were unveiled, Ms Rayner said the proposal amounted to 'moving the goalposts', saying it 'undermines our sense of fair play'.
