Burnham warned of mutiny if hardline migration reforms are not watered down

Andy Burnham and Shabana Mahmood have been warned they could face a blocking motion in the House of Lords if controversial immigration reforms are not watered down. Labour peers who oppose the Home Secretary’s plans to double the time needed to live in Britain before being granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR) from five to 10 years, told The i Paper ministers may be preparing to make key concessions to avoid a cross-bench revolt. The proposed changes would apply retrospectively to migrants already on the path to settlement in the UK – meaning those coming to the end of their five years may find they have another five years to go. Shorts Key concessions thought to be under consideration include an exemption for care workers, in line with the Prime Minister’s commitment to establishing a new national care service, or scrapping the retrospective nature of the proposed reforms for those already in the UK. The Government is currently reviewing 200,000 responses to a consultation on the plans, with the Home Office saying a response will be set out “in due course”. It would not rule out that concessions around care workers and retrospective changes are under consideration when asked. Last month, The i Paper revealed that around 80 Labour MPs and peers signed a private letter urging Burnham to retreat on Mahmood’s controversial reforms, in a sign of deep divisions within the party. In June, former immigration minister Mike Tapp sparked a public spat with Mahmood by writing an unauthorised newspaper article arguing that overseas care workers who followed the rules should be exempt from the extended settlement period. Now, key Labour figures in the Lords have signalled their opposition to plans to make earned settlement changes apply retrospectively, which could affect up to 1.6 million people forecast to become eligible for settlement between 2026 and 2030, according to Home Office figures. Labour’s Baroness Lister said she would “strongly oppose” the measures, adding: “In the Lords, there’s a small number of us who I think do feel very strongly.” She said she has been “taken aback” by the public response from “a wide range of people who feel betrayed, angry [and] upset” by the plans to make retrospective immigration changes, adding that it is causing “great insecurity”. Former child refugee Lord Dubs, who fled the persecution of Jews in Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia in 1939, also said the retrospective nature of the proposed changes is “something people are particularly concerned about”. “I have a sense that the one issue on which the Government may climb down is retrospection, in other words, to stop it being retrospective,” he told The i Paper. Do Lords have the power to stop reforms? A group of Liberal Democrats and rebel Labour peers have signalled potential opposition to the retrospective ILR changes, but they would be outnumbered if the Conservative peers vote alongside the Government to implement the restrictions. The battle is further complicated because the ILR restrictions are likely to be introduced via secondary legislation, meaning the House of Lords would not have the chance to make amendments – only to offer a “fatal motion” to reject the law entirely. Dubs and Lister said the Lords should have the opportunity to scrutinise and amend legislation, but questioned whether an unelected House has the right to reject a law passed by the House of Commons. Lister said it is “absolutely absurd” to introduce sweeping immigration changes without allowing both Houses to amend legislation, while Dubs added: “My criticism is that the method of doing it means that we have no chance to propose amendments.” But Lord German, a Lib Dem peer, said the party “might be prepared” to put down a “fatal amendment” to block ILR changes if they come in via secondary legislation. This is a rarely used power of veto that enables the House of Lords to block legislation entirely, rather than just amend it. “Whatever legislative tool was available to me, we would use because this is entirely damaging for the fabric of our society,” he said, explaining that the retrospective changes would capture people who are already settling in the UK, and would “split families”. “Fundamentally, I think the retrospective nature of this project was what was frightening many people,” he added. But he suggested that there is “a deal to be done on those issues”, adding that there is a “general view” that the new Prime Minister would be “likely to make some changes”. Lister agreed, saying she is hopeful Burnham will offer concessions to avoid a full-scale rebellion, adding: “There’ve been too many hints made that if there were no compromise, I think the response would be really quite strong.” Burnham could look to appease peers Hinting at a change in direction last month, Burnham told the BBC he wanted to bring “a new pair of eyes” to Mahmood’s migration reforms and to “find where the fairness is and the right point of balance”. Earlier this week, Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh said there needed to be “compassion” around changes to immigration and that “on ILR we are consulting on it, we’ve had record responses”, and the Government will “set out its policy in due course”. But Lister added that even if the rebel Lords “won the complete battle on retrospectivity”, it still leaves “a lot of issues some of us are very unhappy about”. This includes proposed changes that some refugees would have to wait 20 years before ILR and people who claim benefits would have to wait longer before they can settle. “The question is, how far the compromise goes,” she said, adding: “I suspect a compromise would appease some people, but others probably would want to see the whole thing looked at again in full.” Rachel Padoan, of the Refugee Asylum and Migration Policy Project, who advises MPs and peers, said MPs are waiting to see what the new Prime Minister’s direction of travel will be, but that it would be “odd” for Burnham to make it harder for carers to settle due to his focus on social care. A Home Office spokesperson said: “Last November, we announced reforms to settlement that double the standard qualifying period to 10 years for most migrants, with shorter routes for those making a strong contribution to the UK. “A consultation on elements of those reforms has now closed, and we will set out our response in due course.”