A growing rebellion within Labour ranks has exposed deep divisions over immigration, with almost 80 Labour MPs urging Andy Burnham to dilute plans designed to tighten Britain’s migration system.
The intervention will raise fresh questions about whether Labour is serious about reducing immigration, or whether the party remains trapped between public demands for stronger border controls and pressure from its own activist base.
In a joint letter to the prime minister-in-waiting, Labour backbenchers criticised Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s proposed reforms, arguing that the Government’s approach is too focused on control and not sufficiently “compassionate”.
The MPs claimed the reforms risk alienating what they described as “progressive voters” and complained that Labour was spending political capital on measures making it harder for some migrants to secure permanent settlement in Britain.
Among the key proposals in Mahmood’s Immigration and Asylum Bill is a plan to double the length of time most migrants must wait before becoming eligible for indefinite leave to remain. The legislation would also require asylum seekers to repay some of the costs associated with taxpayer-funded accommodation and support once they are able to work.
The MPs argued that migrants who had followed existing immigration rules should not face retrospective changes and questioned whether tougher settlement rules were something voters had demanded.
They also criticised what they described as “hostile rhetoric” surrounding migration and asylum policy, calling for a more compassionate approach.
The row is the latest sign of Labour’s continuing struggle to reconcile the views of its parliamentary party with the concerns of voters, particularly in former industrial and Leave-supporting areas where immigration remains a major issue.
Polling has consistently shown that the public wants tighter controls on both legal and illegal migration, yet a significant section of Labour MPs appears increasingly uncomfortable with measures aimed at achieving that objective.
Mahmood’s reforms go beyond settlement rules. The legislation would also strengthen deportation powers, restrict the use of human rights claims to delay removals, curb modern slavery claims that are deemed abusive, and introduce a fast-track appeals process intended to speed up deportations and asylum decisions.
Foreign offenders would face tougher deportation rules under the plans, with removal no longer dependent on receiving a prison sentence of at least 12 months.
At the same time, Labour is continuing work on new “safe and legal routes” for refugees, based on sponsorship schemes similar to those used in Canada and the UK’s Homes for Ukraine programme. The Government has indicated there will be an annual cap on numbers, although no figure has yet been announced.
The letter comes after previous opposition from Labour MPs to Mahmood’s immigration agenda. Earlier this year, more than 50 Labour MPs reportedly threatened to rebel unless elements of the package were softened.
For many voters, however, the latest intervention may reinforce a perception that Labour remains disconnected from public opinion on immigration.
While Labour MPs argue for greater compassion, critics point out that Britain continues to face significant pressures on housing, public services and infrastructure, alongside record levels of migration in recent years.
The dispute also places Burnham in a difficult position. During his campaign in Makerfield, a constituency that strongly backed Brexit, he supported measures aimed at restoring greater control over immigration. Any attempt to weaken the reforms could risk accusations that Labour is once again retreating from promises made to voters.
The latest row highlights a fundamental question facing the party: when Labour MPs say voters do not want tougher immigration controls, are they listening to the country, or simply to each other?
With public concern about immigration remaining high, many Conservatives will argue the answer is increasingly obvious.
