Chris Philp MP is the Shadow Home Secretary.
Shabana Mahmood promised that indefinite leave to remain would stop being handed out automatically. Andy Burnham has proved that he never intended to let her keep that promise.
Shabana Mahmood, to her credit, supposedly understood there needed to be changes made around the path to settlement in the UK. That said, it was after Conservatives had been making the case in Parliament. Nonetheless, she saw the light and started to argue that indefinite leave to remain, which is the status that hands someone the same rights as a British citizen in nearly every respect, had become ‘near automatic’. At present, it is granted after 5 years almost regardless of what a person has contributed or achieved here, or whether they have integrated.
Labour were proposing to double the standard qualifying period to 10 years, tighten the conduct and contribution requirements, and, crucially, apply the changes to those already in the country without settled status. Mahmood told The Times the reforms would take effect this autumn, delivered by a simple change to the Immigration Rules. No vote required, just a Home Secretary exercising the power she held.
Autumn has now arrived. On 3 September, the Home Office duly published its changes to the Immigration Rules, a lengthy document reworking rules for skilled workers, students, families and the EU Settlement Scheme. Every other change Mahmood had trailed for the autumn round showed up. The one reform that mattered most, the promised the overhaul of settlement itself, was nowhere to be seen.
Labour intentionally chose the rules route precisely because it did not require Parliament’s cooperation. But when the time came, the flagship reform had vanished entirely.
The Conservative Party has never pretended that Mahmood’s proposals went far enough. We would have gone considerably further, and we said so at the time. But we recognised, too, that doubling the qualifying period and introducing a tougher contribution test represented a step in the right direction. We were prepared to welcome that principle, even from a Labour Home Secretary.
Something must have changed over the summer. Indeed something did change over the summer. If Andy Burnham genuinely believed immigration needed to be brought under proper control, he would have backed his own Home Secretary rather than had her reforms shelved. Instead, it seems we are left with a Prime Minister retreating in the face of dozens of his own backbenchers, uncomfortable with the policy.
Anyone who has watched Burnham’s short premiership closely will recognise the pattern immediately. Much like his predecessor, capitulation to his own left flank is something the Prime Minister is making a habit of. Take the Jackdaw gas field, a decision with real consequences for Britain’s energy security and North Sea jobs. The decision on its future is now expected to be delayed until safely clear of the Holborn and St Pancras by-election. This will spare the Prime Minister an argument with the bloc of Labour MPs implacably opposed to new oil and gas licences, and with wavering Labour-Green voters in the constituency.
Or take the Government’s newly announced ban on goods and services from Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Perfectly timed to land just ahead of Labour’s conference in Liverpool, delighting precisely the coalition of backbenchers and activists Burnham needs onside to see off the Greens. Settlements, it turns out, are something this Prime Minister will act on, provided they are several thousand miles away.
A question Burnham will have to answer is whether he is a Prime Minister capable of making a difficult decision and sticking to it, or merely a chairman of internal Labour factions, forever triangulating between whichever grouping is loudest that particular week. Jackdaw was postponed for the by-election, the settlement ban was accelerated for the conference, and now, it appears, a reform that might restore some sanity to our immigration system has been junked for the same overtly political reasons.
Settlement in this country should be a privilege earned by those who have entered legally, abided by our laws and made a genuine economic contribution. Even people coming here legally on a temporary work visa do not have a right to stay in the UK forever.
We cannot waste a moment more. Every day that passes is another day where thousands of low-skilled migrants become eligible for ILR. Time is of the essence. We must increase the ILR qualifying period for everyone in our country to 10 years and require low-skilled, low-wage immigrants to go home once their temporary work visas expire.
What matters now is whether the Prime Minister is prepared to make hard decisions that might not always please everybody. I urge him to put party differences aside and finally put through these changes to settlement. If Labour are willing to take the steps needed to get control of our borders, then we will work with them to deliver.
Chris Philp MP is the Shadow Home Secretary.
Shabana Mahmood promised that indefinite leave to remain would stop being handed out automatically. Andy Burnham has proved that he never intended to let her keep that promise.
Shabana Mahmood, to her credit, supposedly understood there needed to be changes made around the path to settlement in the UK. That said, it was after Conservatives had been making the case in Parliament. Nonetheless, she saw the light and started to argue that indefinite leave to remain, which is the status that hands someone the same rights as a British citizen in nearly every respect, had become ‘near automatic’. At present, it is granted after 5 years almost regardless of what a person has contributed or achieved here, or whether they have integrated.
Labour were proposing to double the standard qualifying period to 10 years, tighten the conduct and contribution requirements, and, crucially, apply the changes to those already in the country without settled status. Mahmood told The Times the reforms would take effect this autumn, delivered by a simple change to the Immigration Rules. No vote required, just a Home Secretary exercising the power she held.
Autumn has now arrived. On 3 September, the Home Office duly published its changes to the Immigration Rules, a lengthy document reworking rules for skilled workers, students, families and the EU Settlement Scheme. Every other change Mahmood had trailed for the autumn round showed up. The one reform that mattered most, the promised the overhaul of settlement itself, was nowhere to be seen.
Labour intentionally chose the rules route precisely because it did not require Parliament’s cooperation. But when the time came, the flagship reform had vanished entirely.
The Conservative Party has never pretended that Mahmood’s proposals went far enough. We would have gone considerably further, and we said so at the time. But we recognised, too, that doubling the qualifying period and introducing a tougher contribution test represented a step in the right direction. We were prepared to welcome that principle, even from a Labour Home Secretary.
Something must have changed over the summer. Indeed something did change over the summer. If Andy Burnham genuinely believed immigration needed to be brought under proper control, he would have backed his own Home Secretary rather than had her reforms shelved. Instead, it seems we are left with a Prime Minister retreating in the face of dozens of his own backbenchers, uncomfortable with the policy.
Anyone who has watched Burnham’s short premiership closely will recognise the pattern immediately. Much like his predecessor, capitulation to his own left flank is something the Prime Minister is making a habit of. Take the Jackdaw gas field, a decision with real consequences for Britain’s energy security and North Sea jobs. The decision on its future is now expected to be delayed until safely clear of the Holborn and St Pancras by-election. This will spare the Prime Minister an argument with the bloc of Labour MPs implacably opposed to new oil and gas licences, and with wavering Labour-Green voters in the constituency.
Or take the Government’s newly announced ban on goods and services from Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Perfectly timed to land just ahead of Labour’s conference in Liverpool, delighting precisely the coalition of backbenchers and activists Burnham needs onside to see off the Greens. Settlements, it turns out, are something this Prime Minister will act on, provided they are several thousand miles away.
A question Burnham will have to answer is whether he is a Prime Minister capable of making a difficult decision and sticking to it, or merely a chairman of internal Labour factions, forever triangulating between whichever grouping is loudest that particular week. Jackdaw was postponed for the by-election, the settlement ban was accelerated for the conference, and now, it appears, a reform that might restore some sanity to our immigration system has been junked for the same overtly political reasons.
Settlement in this country should be a privilege earned by those who have entered legally, abided by our laws and made a genuine economic contribution. Even people coming here legally on a temporary work visa do not have a right to stay in the UK forever.
We cannot waste a moment more. Every day that passes is another day where thousands of low-skilled migrants become eligible for ILR. Time is of the essence. We must increase the ILR qualifying period for everyone in our country to 10 years and require low-skilled, low-wage immigrants to go home once their temporary work visas expire.
What matters now is whether the Prime Minister is prepared to make hard decisions that might not always please everybody. I urge him to put party differences aside and finally put through these changes to settlement. If Labour are willing to take the steps needed to get control of our borders, then we will work with them to deliver.