Indefinite leave to remain changes ‘risk breaking promise to Windrush survivors’

Shabana Mahmood, the current Home Secretary, is facing intense scrutiny and a significant revolt from within her own Labour party over controversial new plans that critics argue betray promises made in the wake of the devastating Windrush scandal. Her proposal to significantly extend the qualifying period for immigrants to obtain indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK from five to ten years, and to apply these changes retrospectively to individuals already residing in the country, has ignited a fierce debate.

A charity actively collaborating with dissenting Labour Members of Parliament, the Work Rights Centre, has publicly accused Mahmood of a “staggering lack of transparency and accountability.” Their primary concern revolves around the Home Secretary’s alleged failure to conduct and release official impact assessments alongside these proposed immigration policy changes. This omission, they contend, directly contravenes a key recommendation from the Windrush Lessons Learned Report, which explicitly called for rigorous assessments to accompany any alterations to immigration policies, making them available for public scrutiny.

Mahmood has consistently defended her hardline stance on migration, arguing that settlement in the UK is a “privilege” that must be earned, rather than an automatic entitlement after a five-year period. This position is seen by some as an attempt to appeal to voters who have been shifting allegiances from the Labour Party towards more right-leaning groups like Reform UK.

In a move to amplify their concerns, Labour MPs are scheduled to attend an event hosted by the Work Rights Centre in Parliament next month. This gathering will provide a platform for Windrush survivors, as well as health and care workers who stand to be directly affected by the proposed ILR changes, to share their experiences and highlight the potential ramifications. The MPs intend to emphasize that the Labour party had previously endorsed the recommendations outlined in the Windrush Lessons Learned Report. One of these crucial recommendations mandated that all immigration policy changes undergo a “rigorous” impact assessment before implementation.

While the Home Office has stated its commitment to publishing an impact assessment after reviewing over 200,000 responses to a consultation on the ILR changes and finalizing its policy proposal in the autumn – a timeline that suggests a potential concession to the rebels – the Work Rights Centre remains deeply critical. They assert that the impact assessment should have been made public when the proposals were initially published and opened for consultation, allowing the public to make informed responses.

The charity further points to a 2022 House of Lords Committee report which stipulated that government guidelines on regulation clearly indicate that any laws likely to have a significant impact on businesses, a category that would undoubtedly include the proposed ILR changes, should be accompanied by an impact assessment during the consultation phase, with updates provided later.

Dora-Olivia Vicol, CEO of the Work Rights Centre, articulated her dismay to *The i Paper*, stating that while Labour MPs vociferously supported the Windrush review’s recommendations in opposition, their government’s “earned settlement” proposals represent a stark U-turn. She reiterated that the Windrush review unequivocally urged ministers to ensure all immigration policies are subject to rigorous impact assessments. Vicol condemned Mahmood’s Home Office for failing to release these assessments, deeming it a direct breach of that recommendation. She stressed that the public required an impact assessment at the outset of the proposals and consultation, not at a later stage when ministerial decisions might already be set. This lack of transparency, she concluded, is particularly alarming given that the Home Office is proposing the most significant restrictions to settlement rules in a generation.

Vicol also highlighted another critical recommendation from the Windrush review: the explicit request for officials to always consider the risk of adverse impacts on legitimate racial groups within the country. She argues that the government’s entire approach to “earned settlement” disregards this vital recommendation, potentially jeopardizing the futures of two million individuals who legally arrived in the UK and have contributed significantly to its economy and society. The Work Rights Centre contends that the Home Office is fully aware of these potential consequences but chooses to disregard them.

In response, a Home Office spokeswoman confirmed that reforms were introduced last November to double the standard qualifying period to ten years for most migrants, while maintaining shorter routes for those deemed to contribute most to the UK. She affirmed that a consultation on these reforms has concluded, and a response will be issued in due course, along with a commitment to publishing a full impact assessment alongside the reforms. The current debate underscores fundamental questions of fairness, transparency, and the government’s commitment to protecting the rights of individuals residing in the United Kingdom.