Home Secretary Mahmood Confronts Criticism Over Shift in Legal Migration Policy

Just weeks before the recent intervention, the Home Secretary had doubled down on her proposals. Addressing the centre-left IPPR think tank, she warned that the UK had experienced migration levels in four years that previously took four decades.

“It was not just the scale, but also the nature of that change that was so destabilising,” she argued.

She cited a striking figure: “We have never, in the history of this country, had so much low-skilled migration in so little time. We estimate, based on findings from the Migration Advisory Committee, that the lifetime cost to the taxpayer will be £10bn. That figure would be paid for by working people in this country.”

She added: “It is an affront to the idea of fairness within our migration system.”

The £10bn estimate, however, is contested. The IPPR argues the original plans were never likely to generate such long-term savings, as they were designed to delay care workers’ eligibility for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) rather than prevent settlement entirely. Delaying ILR would save on welfare costs, whereas the £10bn figure incorporates broader long-run expenses incurred once care workers retire, claim the state pension, and increase their use of health and social care.

Nonetheless, the Home Secretary’s March message left senior Conservatives privately agreeing with her approach, struck by her unflinching stance. Yet around 100 Labour colleagues publicly voiced their opposition.

By May, during a visit to a sports club near Wigan to speak with by-election candidate Andy Burnham, a shift was clearly imminent. Burnham emphasised the need to “work hard to get the balance right” but conceded the “broad thrust” of the Home Secretary’s direction “is right.”

That phrase—”broad thrust”—now accounts for the gap between her previous rhetoric and her current position.

The Conservatives have seized on the change, labelling it an “excruciating U-turn” that is “deeply personally embarrassing” for the Home Secretary, according to a senior party figure. They also question the legislative mechanism, suggesting that failing to use primary legislation—such as an amendment to the Immigration and Asylum Bill currently before Parliament—could leave the plans vulnerable to legal challenge.

The Home Secretary will argue she has sought a policy the widest range of people might view as fair. The full spectrum of reaction will become clear in the coming hours and days.

Source link