Shabana Mahmood has put herself on a collision course with Labour MPs after announcing a set of changes to the immigration system that one backbencher said mimicked Donald Trump and another claimed would lead to a Windrush-style scandal.
The home secretary announced her plans on Thursday, including an end to permanent refugee status and the removal of government support from asylum seekers who are deemed not to need it or who break the law.
She also launched a pilot project to pay 150 families whose asylum claims had been rejected up to £40,000 each to voluntarily leave the country or face forcible removal. The families have been contacted and have seven days to decide whether to accept or refuse the offer.
In a speech in central London, Mahmood said: “The generosity of the British people will become conditional on those seeking asylum following the law, living by our rules and not working illegally.
“Taxpayer-funded accommodation will be reserved for those who have no right to work and will otherwise be destitute, such as for any British citizen. Rights must come with responsibilities, and British taxpayers cannot be expected to fund the lives of those who refuse.”
She said the proposals were needed to restore control at the border and combat the rising appeal of hard-right parties such as Reform UK. “If we don’t resolve these problems, others with none of our values will be given the chance to do so instead,” she said.
But they risk a damaging fight with her own party, which is already in fractious mood after last week’s damaging loss to the Green party at the Gorton and Denton byelection.
With the prime minister’s position already in peril, many Labour MPs believe he can ill afford another legislative fight with his parliamentary colleagues.
Tony Vaughan, the Labour MP for Folkestone and Hythe, organised a letter that he said had been signed by 100 of his party colleagues, saying the proposals undermined the government’s commitment to integration and social cohesion. He said: “We can change our immigration system for the better without forgetting who we are as a Labour party.
“You don’t win back public confidence in the asylum system by threatening to forcibly remove refugees who have lived here lawfully for 15 or 20 years. That just breeds insecurity and fractured communities.”
His sentiments were echoed by Stella Creasy, the MP for Walthamstow, who said: “There’s no ‘fairness’ in repeatedly spending money on asking victims of trafficking and civil war if they are still in that category – especially when we have already given them refugee status so confirmed they are at risk of harm.
“Ukrainians, Iranians [and] Afghans alike will all now live in a perpetual state of limbo, not able to plan any kind of life either here or in their home nation because they can’t guarantee their status, making them easier to exploit too. I look forward to reading the NAO [National Audit Office] report and the inevitable Windrush-style scandal coming that none of us stood on a manifesto to implement.”
Sarah Owen, a leader of the Tribune group of centre-left Labour MPs, said: “Of course we need an immigration system that is both credible and fair but what has been touted by the Home Office satisfies neither criteria. The idea of deporting children mimics Trump’s ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detention of children.
“Moving the goalposts for people who have upped their lives to work in and for our country is unjustifiable. This, and the language it’s being delivered with, will only have negative implications on our economy, integration and social cohesion, at a time when communities are already stretched to breaking point. This is the wrong direction politically and morally – as a party and as a country.”
Labour MPs are gearing up for a possible Commons rebellion on the issue. While some of Mahmood’s plans, including reviewing people’s refugee status every 30 months, can be implemented without a parliamentary vote, others will require the consent of MPs.
On Thursday the home secretary laid down three pieces of secondary legislation that will allow her to remove support from asylum seekers who are given criminal sentences of 12 months or more, or are working or deemed to have enough money to support themselves.
Creasy has objected to the proposals, giving the government a choice over whether to allow a vote on them.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch welcomed Mahmood’s extension of the time period before immigrants can apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR).
In a letter to Keir Starmer, she urged him not to backtrack on the proposal due to pushback from Labour MPs.
Addressing the prime minister, she said that given the “size of rebellion brewing on your backbenches, I am concerned that you may be inclined to water down this policy or even pull it altogether”.
She added: “Therefore, in the national interest, and recognising that a large number of immigrants who entered our country in the past five years will be able to apply for ILR in the very near term, I am making an offer to lend Conservative party votes to pass this legislation rather than abandoning it as you did with proper welfare reform.”
Later this year, Mahmood plans to bring in separate legislation to make it harder for some people to earn settled status in the UK. Some people – for example, benefits claimants – will be made to wait 10 years before qualifying, double the present length of time.
She insisted on Thursday she intended to press ahead despite the concerns of colleagues, saying she was “confident” she would be able to enact the changes.
Refugee groups criticised the plans on Thursday. Mubeen Bhutta, the director of policy at the British Red Cross, said: “There is little evidence to suggest that making life harder puts people off coming to the UK, when they have been forced to flee their homes.”
Others criticised the proposal to forcibly remove families – including children – who refuse the government’s offer to leave voluntarily.
Labour opposed expanded child detention powers in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 when in opposition and the government removed these powers from the statute book in 2025.
Imran Hussain, the executive director of communications at the Refugee Council, said: “Giving families just seven days to decide whether to uproot their children’s lives, often without access to proper legal advice, risks creating chaos rather than control. Many families simply do not feel safe to return to their countries of origin. And nobody wants to see distressed children detained and forced on to deportation flights.”
