Starmer taking advice on whether immigration minister broke with government protocol, spokesperson says
The prime minister’s official spokesperson has told journalists that Keir Starmer is taking advice on whether Mike Tapp broke with government protocol for writing the article in the Times, but confirmed he retains confidence in both Tapp and the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, despite the escalating row.
The spokesperson said:
He’s taking advice in the usual way. You wouldn’t expect me to go into the kind of internal processes around that, but as I say, as I think was said last night, decisions on the ministerial code are for the prime minister, and that’s always been the case.
Key events
Burnham should remove Mahmood as home secretary and rip up her policies, says veteran peer
Rajeev Syal
Shabana Mahmood should be moved out of the Home Office and her asylum policies of “performative cruelty” ripped up by Andy Burnham’s administration, Alf Dubs has told the Guardian.
The veteran Labour peer, who came to the UK aged six in 1939 fleeing the persecution of Jews in Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, said the home secretary’s talents “would be better used elsewhere in the cabinet”.
Instead, an expected Burnham-led government could champion “human rights, compassion, fairness and equality” while advocating control of UK borders, Dubs said.
Asked if Mahmood should remain in post, Dubs said:
I think her talents would be better used elsewhere in cabinet to allow the new PM free rein to put his own stamp on asylum and immigration policy.
At a time when the party needs unity, I do not believe that Shabana Mahmood’s policies represent the right approach.
Dubs, who has been described as “the conscience of the Labour movement”, said:
This is Andy Burnham’s opportunity to correct some of the mistakes that the Starmer government made as regards asylum seekers and refugees.
In the Times article, Mike Tapp said his “strong belief” was that those already working in the UK care system should not have to wait longer to qualify for indefinite leave to remain (ILR). The home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has proposed to double the time it takes for most migrants to qualify for permanent residence to a decade, including for claimants who are already in the UK but have not yet received ILR.
The prime minister’s spokesperson was asked if Keir Starmer agreed with the substance of Tapp’s article, which called for overseas care workers to be exempt from controversial changes to the immigration rules. The spokesperson told reporters:
We’ll always welcome those that come to this country and contribute to our national life, but the privilege of living here forever should be earned and not automatic. Between 2021 and 2024 this country experienced levels of migration that we had not historically seen over four decades. We must be honest about the scale and impact of hundreds of thousands of low-skilled migrants getting settled.
The government will double the route to settlement from five to 10 years. We carried out a consultation on how changes to settlement rules should be applied to people in the UK today who have not received settled status, and we are currently reviewing the 200,000 responses, and will outline our response in due course.
Pressed on whether Starmer agreed with the article, the spokesperson described Tapp’s words as indicative of ideas the Home Office was “exploring”, but insisted it represented only the the minister’s personal views.
Starmer taking advice on whether immigration minister broke with government protocol, spokesperson says
The prime minister’s official spokesperson has told journalists that Keir Starmer is taking advice on whether Mike Tapp broke with government protocol for writing the article in the Times, but confirmed he retains confidence in both Tapp and the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, despite the escalating row.
The spokesperson said:
He’s taking advice in the usual way. You wouldn’t expect me to go into the kind of internal processes around that, but as I say, as I think was said last night, decisions on the ministerial code are for the prime minister, and that’s always been the case.
Tapp will be denied access to sensitive documents and meetings without approval from Mahmood – report
The PA news agency is reporting that the immigration minister, Mike Tapp, will be denied access to sensitive documents and meetings without approval from the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who wants him sacked for writing an unauthorised article in the Times, which she considers a breach of ministerial rules (see this post for more details).
Tapp earlier claimed he had “receipts” showing that he had spearheaded work on an immigration policy which appeared to be out of step with plans announced by Mahmood on curbing indefinite leave to remain for migrants. His remarks appear to have been interpreted by some in government as a threat to share sensitive information, according to PA. A government source said:
Mike Tapp wrote a piece in a national newspaper freelancing on policy without the knowledge or agreement of the home secretary or her team.
He took proposals that the home secretary was working on, and briefed them as his own.
In doing so, he has broken collective responsibility and has breached the ministerial code. Now is he threatening to leak sensitive documents. The home secretary has asked the prime minister to sack him.
The chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, Ruth Curtice, has written an (online) letter to Andy Burnham, breaking down the major challenges he faces and the likely trade offs he will be constrained by if he becomes prime minister.
She argues that addressing cost-of-living pressures on households and pursuing “more radical” reforms to support growth should be among his main priorities.
Curtice, previously director of fiscal policy at the Treasury, also suggested there are ways to increase investment without raising taxes or (extra) burrowing while also not breaking the current government’s fiscal rules. She wrote:
Any extra borrowing comes with big costs, and you will need to continue the painful path of consolidation your predecessor started.
UK borrowing continues to be more expensive than in other G7 countries.
Yields on 10-year gilts are still higher than the last time the OBR did a forecast and that, plus the war in Iran, means your headroom has most likely already been eroded.
There are no wheezes out of this dark fiscal hole, only tough decisions.
You can read more here.
Allow content provided by a third party?
This article includes content hosted on platform.x.com. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as the provider may be using cookies and other technologies. To view this content, click ‘Allow and continue’.
Alexandra Topping
Alexandra Topping, a political correspondent for the Guardian, has examined whether or not Andy Burnham will lure back bruised leftwingers if he becomes prime minister, after many were left alienated during Keir Starmer’s premiership. Here is an extract from her story:
Questions are being asked in the depleted ranks of the Labour left about how radical the political shift from Starmer to Burnham could be. Multiple leftwingers said they were cautiously optimistic. Several pointed to a new blueprint for “Manchesterism” in an essay by Mathew Lawrence, who is close to Burnham and has worked with him regarding his stance on public control of utilities.
“If you read that essay you think ‘fantastic stuff’,” said Aaron Bastani, a co-founder of the leftwing media platform Novara Media. “But it’s not just about the motifs, it’s about who’s in the cabinet and who are the influential figures behind him.”
To many on the left, Burnham’s pick for chancellor is seen as a binary choice that will reveal much about his intentions. They hope the former party leader Ed Miliband, who would be expected to take a more interventionist approach, will take up the role, but fear it could go to a figure on the right such as the former health secretary Wes Streeting.
Several figures brought into the Burnham machine are already raising leftwing eyebrows, including the former Bank of England chief economist Andy Haldane and the former Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O’Neill.
Andy Burnham’s foreign policy views remain largely opaque – hardly surprising given that the senior briefs he has held – culture secretary, health secretary, shadow home secretary and, of course, Greater Manchester mayor – have all been domestically focused.
As he seems to be heading towards No 10 uncontested (as soon as 17 July), pressure is mounting on him and his team to spell out some foreign policy platforms given the volatility of global affairs and conflicts around the world. In an interview with the Guardian’s political editor, Pippa Crerar, early in June, Burnham declined to describe Israel’s devastating military actions in Gaza as a genocide. “I can’t judge things of that enormity from where I am as mayor of Greater Manchester,” he said.
While campaigning for the by-election in Makerfield Burnham rolled back on his comments made last year that he would like to see the UK back in the EU within his lifetime, perhaps trying not to alienate Reform voters in the Brexit voting constituency. He is reportedly set to continue the UK’s support for Ukraine and Nato if he does become prime minister.
The Observer’s political editor, Rachel Sylvester, reports that Burnham is planning a speech on foreign policy in the “coming weeks” with sources telling her that there will be “continuity on the major issues” such as Ukraine, Iran and China. One “Labour insider” told the news outlet: “I don’t think Keir ever really believed in his heart of hearts that Brexit was an absolute tragedy and that we should go back into the European Union. Burnham does. He’ll be much warmer to the Europeans and they’ll be much warmer to him.”
Mike Tapp says he ‘won’t be intimidated’ to ‘drop his views’ over unsanctioned article
In response to the ongoing controversy, immigration minister Mike Tapp, who was a strong backer of Keir Starmer, wrote in a post on X this morning:
Ok, morning all. It’s gone from ‘he broke the ministerial code’ to ‘he stole my idea’.
I have put my views across on a policy I’ve been working on for months (I have the receipts) in an Op Ed in the times. Give it a read, and let’s continue to discuss.
I won’t be intimidated to drop my views. Stay classy! Oh and I’m at a wedding in San Francisco, but happy to talk more when I’m back (I promise that’s the Golden Gate Bridge hidden by the fog).
My colleagues Rajeev Syal and Pippa Crerar have some more detail in this story on the extraordinary standoff between Shabana Mahmood and Keir Starmer after Downing Street refused to immediately sack Mike Tapp.
It is being seen as a test of Starmer’s authority which has been drained even further since he announced his resignation on Monday, paving the way for the former Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham to likely replace him as Labour leader and prime minister.
The row comes as senior Labour figures tussle for leading roles in Andy Burnham’s administration, which is expected to take power in No 10 as early as 17 July.
Tapp wrote in an article for the Times it was his “strong belief” that migrant care workers should not have to wait longer to apply for permanent settlement in the UK.
Mahmood was unaware he had written the article, which a source close to her insisted was written “to try to win a job in the new administration”.
It is understood Tapp was involved in ministerial discussions about exempting care workers from the proposed reforms to “indefinite leave to remain”. It is alleged Tapp took an idea proposed in those discussions and attempted to pass it off as his own in the Times article.
The ministerial code says the principle of collective responsibility requires that ministers should be able to express their views frankly in the expectation they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached.
A source close to Mahmood said: “Mike Tapp is expected to be sacked for breaching the ministerial code. He has taken possible ideas that the home secretary and her team were working on, and briefed them as his own to try to win a job in the new administration.”
Minister unwise to write unauthorised article about home secretary’s immigration reforms – whip
In other news, the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has demanded one of her ministers, Mike Tapp, be sacked after he wrote an unauthorised article in the Times calling for overseas care workers to be exempt from her hardline immigration changes.
Downing Street has resisted immediately sacking Tapp, the immigration minister, who is accused of breaching the ministerial code by his actions.
Justice minister and whip Jake Richards told Times Radio this morning that it would ultimately be up to the prime minister, Keir Starmer, whether to sack Tapp, but said it was unwise for the minister to “freestyle” in the way he did.
Richards told Times Radio:
There is a consultation that the home secretary set out last year about exactly the details of immigration rules and the asylum system that we are reforming over the coming months.
That consultation is continuing. The Home secretary will set out the plans over the next few weeks.
Mike’s article in The Times sets out what his views are and some of the issues that he in the Home Office is exploring. It’s not particularly wise in my mind for junior ministers to set that out publicly.
We are part of a team, he has done that and we will deal with that as a government.
Allow content provided by a third party?
This article includes content hosted on platform.x.com. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as the provider may be using cookies and other technologies. To view this content, click ‘Allow and continue’.
The move has been condemned for costing more than placing claimants in hotels and repeating the mistakes of the last government, which faced legal challenges over the use of barracks to house asylum seekers.
Imran Hussain, director of external affairs at the Refugee Council, said:
As the government’s own spending watchdog has said, barracks actually cost more money overall than hotels. We know from experience they also isolate people from local communities and essential services, as they are often miles away from the nearest towns, so people who have fled war and persecution cannot find any security or stability while they apply for asylum.
Politicians in Bicester have questioned why the government would want to build asylum accommodation there, given that the last attempt to do so in 2001 was halted by protests, planning delays and excessive costs.
Calum Miller, the Lib Dem MP for Bicester and Woodstock, said the latest Home Office proposal “looked like a political fix” and would not work.
“Ministers say they are closing asylum hotels, but they appear to be replacing one costly and unsuitable model with another, without giving local communities the answers they deserve,” he said.
You can read more from this story by my colleagues, Rajeev Syal and Diane Taylor, here:
Home Office planning to use more military bases to house asylum seekers
Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of UK politics. We are leading today’s blog on the news that the Home Office is attempting to use three more military sites to house thousands of asylum seekers.
Planning permission is being sought at Ministry of Defence sites in Bicester in Oxfordshire, Barnham in Suffolk, and Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire, to accommodate 3,750 asylum seekers, the Home Office said.
The government also wants to extend the use of existing military sites in Crowborough, in East Sussex, until 2030, and Wethersfield, in Essex, beyond 2027, a statement said.
Refugee charities and local stakeholders have denounced the plans as “arrogant” and “costly”, with the move condemned for potentially costing more than placing claimants in hotels, something the Labour government has promised to phase out.
The number of asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels has fallen to its lowest level since figures were first published in 2022, according to government data.
As of March, 20,885 (21%) asylum seekers were in hotels and 72,768 (75%) were in other forms of accommodation as they awaited decisions about their claims, down from a peak of around 56,000 in September 2023.
Labour has pledged to stop using hotels to house asylum seekers by the next election after the practice was accused of being too costly and triggered protests in local communities. A number of councils, notably Epping Forest district council, either took legal action to remove asylum seekers from hotels in their areas or considered it.
When pressed this morning on whether using barracks costs the taxpayer more than hotels, justice minister, Jake Richards, said it depends on the hotel, insisting that “the real priority” is addressing the problem that hotels caused for communities. “We are determined to close (hotels),” he told Sky News. “That’s not easy and this is one way of doing it.”
