Immigration: Earned Settlement

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Diane Abbott

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I tell you what is an affront, Mr Speaker, and that is the shadow Home Secretary’s response. He might have amnesia, but given the muted response from those on his Back Benches, they clearly still remember what happened on their watch when they were in government, as does the country. When he was immigration Minister, it was his Government who ran around the country signing up people to become sponsors of foreign workers. He might have complaints about the companies on the register, but it was his Government who signed them up. Perhaps an apology for that would have been appropriate. His Government were responsible for a number of arrivals in four years that we had previously seen in four decades. Before he starts trying to lecture anybody about being tough on immigration, perhaps an apology for his Government’s abject track record would be appropriate.

It is this Government who have cut net migration by 82%, and it is this Government, with me as Home Secretary, who have found a fair solution to the mess left behind by the shadow Home Secretary and his colleagues. He talks about the cost of those who will be settling. If he had been paying attention to my fair solution and the detail in the response to the consultation document, he would know that the cohort most likely to impose a cost will now, as a result of my measures, wait longer for settlement. That is why the DWP says that these measures will save billions in the benefits bill. Half a million people will settle later as a result of these reforms. That is a fair solution to the mess I inherited from the Conservatives.

The shadow Home Secretary talked about the arrangements for those workers on low pay who were allowed by previous Conservative Governments to extend their visas up to 2030. That was in order to allow them to attain settlement in 2030. To honour the promise made by the previous Government, I have extended that period to 2035, reflecting the changes in the earned settlement consultation. Again, that is a fair solution, honouring promises made previously—there are also exceptional cohorts and exceptional circumstances—in order to clean up the mess left behind by the Conservatives.

I could answer more detailed questions, but apart from political rhetoric, the shadow Home Secretary had nothing else to say, so I have nothing more to say to him.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

It is extraordinary that the Opposition see migration issues as some kind of political football. We are talking about people’s lives, and whatever idea one has about policy and programmes, I think people’s lives deserve more seriousness. It is right that care workers are exempted from the new arrangements for ILR, but for the rest of the workforce, the retrospective nature of those new arrangements still seems unfair. People can come in legally and work legally, and then have their residency rights turned upside down. How can that be fair? May I ask the Home Secretary whether she has read the 276-page “lessons learned review” on the Windrush scandal, published by the Home Office in 2018? If she had read it, she would realise that she is in danger of finding herself in the same position as Home Secretaries who were in office at the time of that scandal.

I have heard Members of this House talk about people coming here just to claim welfare. I have heard Members of this House say that people are not making a contribution. I have heard Members of this House say that we have to look at the rights of British nationals as opposed to migrants, as if many British nationals were not themselves immigrants. My parents were immigrants. My mother was a nurse. She was one of that generation who came to this country to build the NHS after the war, and it remains the case that immigrants play a very important role in our NHS. I say to the Home Secretary, and I say to the House, that we should always remember the contribution that immigrants made and continue to make to our society.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I agree with my right hon. Friend about the contribution made by immigrants. As she knows, and as I said in my statement, I too was a child of migrants, and that experience informs the way in which I think about policy and how to strike the right balance between all the different communities in our country, which is what I have sought to do. As for indefinite leave to remain and what she calls the “retrospective nature” of the changes, she will know that I do not agree with that characterisation. Any Government must be able to make changes in immigration rules to reflect things that are happening, to reflect abuses that we can see in the system, and must also be able to make additional changes based on assessment of numbers and costs. As I said in my statement, that has always been the case. These matters have been litigated before in our courts, and the courts have upheld the principle that the rules that apply to settlement applications are those that apply at the point of application and decision, not the point at which a person entered the country. That is an important principle that will be upheld, and is upheld by the changes that we are making.

I have heard a number of people try to suggest that these settlement changes are akin to what we saw during the Windrush scandal. Again, respectfully, I disagree with my right hon. Friend on that. The issue relating to the people who were caught up in the Windrush scandal made it a scandal precisely because the country already had obligations to those people relating to their right to be in this country, and failed to honour the obligation that we already had. That is different from the position of workers arriving in this country on temporary work visas, and the rules that apply to them for settlement itself. The two are not the same. Let me, however, assure my right hon. Friend that I will always be mindful of the lessons that were revealed during the Windrush scandal, and I will make sure that those lessons are learnt.

Immigration and Asylum Bill

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Diane Abbott

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the Bill is specifically about the changes we are making to our asylum system, to human rights laws, and to the approach that the Government want to take to asylum appeals. This is not a Bill about indefinite leave to remain. When we have settled policy later this year, those changes will be subject to the usual procedure for changes to immigration rules, which always take place with the scrutiny of this House.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will give way to the right hon. Lady, but I will make progress after that.

[Ms Abbott]

The Home Secretary referred earlier to immigrants coming here to live off the taxpayer. I put it to her that not only do a disproportionate number of immigrants find themselves in work, whether legal or illegal work, but the children of immigrants pay tax. She should remember that.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I say to the right hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest respect, that it is not as if I am about to forget my own background, so I do not really need other people to remind me of my own history or background in my own country. We are talking about people smugglers, and about men, women and children—these days, primarily young men—getting on small boats in the channel and crossing into this country. They are not arriving in a safe and legal way. They are not migrants in the usual sense.

We wish to pivot to a system in which this country will live up to its responsibilities to help those in need across the world and fulfil our international obligations by taking people through safe and legal routes. We will be able to increase the numbers that we take on those routes, and that will be subject to debate in this Parliament. We will ensure that we are playing our full part, but in a controlled way that does not put tens of thousands of pounds per person in the hands of people smugglers. The right hon. Lady knows that that is the trade we are trying to break. We have been going after the gangmasters, and now we must make legal changes to change the calculus of those who seek to get on a boat in the north of France.

The Bill focuses on how we reduce the numbers arriving unsafely and illegally in this country and on reducing the burden placed on local communities. It is designed to be fair to genuine refugees and fair to British citizens. It will ensure that asylum claims are fair and fast, with legitimate claimants not stuck in limbo, and ensure the swift removal of those with no right to be here. It will ensure that human rights protections remain robust where they must be, but are also tightened where necessary to eradicate the abuse that has crept into our system. Finally, the measures in the Bill ensure that we support those in their hour of need while making it clear that, although this may be a right, it comes with responsibilities. When the recipients of public support are in a position to contribute to their costs, they should do so.

With those goals in mind, I will take the House through the detail of the Bill. It begins with measures to make asylum decisions fast and fair. Today, the backlog in appeals hearings is a major barrier to this. Although the Government have slashed the backlog in initial decisions, the vast majority of failed asylum seekers lodge an appeal. There are now more than 150,000 people waiting for an appeal decision, with average wait times of well over a year. We must be honest about the nature of the appeals queue.

Death of Ann Widdecombe

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Diane Abbott

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Ind)]

The Home Secretary will be aware of how important it is to make sure that Members of this House get the protection and defence that they need. At one point, I got as much abuse and as many threats of violence as all the other women MPs put together, so it is important that we take this issue seriously. We should recognise—I can speak to this, because of my years in the House—that the situation has gotten much, much worse with the rise of online activity. We need to find a way to make online companies more accountable for the abuse and threats of violence that they allow on their platforms. We need to make them aware of the importance of protecting Members of Parliament.

[Shabana Mahmood]

Given the sheer range of threats that have been made to the Mother of the House personally, it is a testament to her personal bravery that she has continued to be an active parliamentarian, but it should not take such levels of bravery just to be able to represent the people of your constituency. She is right that we must always ensure that our security arrangements can keep pace with the changing nature of threats. Let me assure the Mother of the House that the Government will do that. We work closely with the Parliamentary Security Department to ensure that that is the case so that all Members can make their contributions just as effectively and for just as long as she has.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Diane Abbott

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. That is why we have offered the additional context in the explanatory notes. Personal characteristics and personal circumstances have, over the years, been elided in different court judgments, and the different definitions of the two have sometimes slipped. I wanted to make it clear in the Bill that we are constraining the Sentencing Council’s ability to create guidance for PSRs in relation to personal characteristics. We refer in the Bill to race, religion, culture and belief, specifically to ensure that the Sentencing Council understands that we are targeting this part of the offending section of the imposition guideline. It will then have its own interpretation of how personal circumstances and personal characteristics should apply. I would expect this to be analogous to protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010, in terms of the way in which the courts are likely to approach the question of what a personal characteristic is for the purpose of the Bill.

However, I wanted to make the intention behind the Bill very clear to the Sentencing Council, and to everyone else. It is tightly focused on the offending section of the imposition guideline and leaves the wider question of personal circumstances untouched. As I will explain later in my speech, there is helpful Court of Appeal guidance on circumstances and on other occasions on which a PSR should normally be required, and nothing in the Bill will affect the Court of Appeal precedents that have already been set.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Is the Lord Chancellor aware that the Sentencing Council guidelines, and indeed the Bill, turn on issues that some of us have campaigned on for decades? I think that there would be concern if the Bill undermined the independence of the judiciary.

[Shabana Mahmood]

It certainly does not undermine the independence of the judiciary. There is a long tradition of campaigners, including my right hon. Friend, who have a lengthy track record of campaigning on issues relating to disparities within the criminal justice system and, indeed, across wider society. In so far as those disparities relate to the criminal justice system, my strong view is that they are matters of policy.

Parliament is the proper place for that policy to be debated, and Parliament is the proper place for us to agree on what is the best mechanism to deal with those problems. It is not within the purview of the Sentencing Council, because this is a matter of policy. Judges apply the laws that are passed by this House; that is their correct and proper function. I will always uphold their independence in that regard and will never interfere with it, but this turns on a matter of policy. It is right for the Government of the day to seek a policy response to this issue, and it is right for it to be debated and, ultimately, legislated for in the House.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Debate between Shabana Mahmood and Diane Abbott

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Mother of the House.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I realise that this is not a popular view in the House, but the Justice Secretary will be aware that some of us are astonished that she thinks our judges are so weak-minded as to be affected by what are guidelines in relation to how they sentence black and brown defendants.

The Justice Secretary will be aware that report after report and repeated statistical analysis have demonstrated what some of us consider to be unfairness in relation to black and brown people and the criminal justice system. She will also be aware that the reason the Sentencing Council was made a statutory independent body was to avoid even the appearance of ministerial interference in sentencing. This is not the United States; our political and judicial systems are entirely separate. Can she explain why she is so triumphant about not just interfering in sentencing, but passing a piece of legislation to cut across what the Sentencing Council is saying?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her questions—at least she asks some proper questions. She says that her view on the policy might be an unpopular one, but this is the place where views on policy, popular or unpopular, can and should be debated. That is at the heart of my disagreement with the Sentencing Council on the guideline.

I think that the matters that my right hon. Friend raises in relation to race and the disparities in the criminal justice system are the proper preserve of politicians. The answer to how we deal with those issues will be a policy answer, and it is for the Government, the Opposition and other Members to debate that policy answer and pursue it through Parliament. That is why I reject entirely the suggestion that anything I have done impinges upon the independence of the judiciary or calls into question the separation of powers in this country.

The Sentencing Council is itself a creature of statute; it is only 15 years old. It is entirely proper for a politician—a Government Minister, the Lord Chancellor—to assert that there is a boundary between that which is policy and a matter for Parliament and that which is judicial practice and consistency in judicial cases. I have sought to reassert that boundary. I look forward to working with Members with differing views from across the House in considering the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council. As I have said, I will return to those matters in the coming months.