Andy Burnham 'won't be backing down' on immigration reform say allies despite demands from left-wing Labour MPs to ditch Shabana Mahmood's tough proposals

By MARTIN BECKFORD, POLICY EDITOR and DAN HODGES, DAILY MAIL COLUMNIST Published: 22:40, 10 July 2026 | Updated: 22:40, 10 July 2026 Andy Burnham is to stand firm on immigration reform despite dozens of Labour MPs urging him to back down. The incoming Prime Minister is said by allies to understand the importance of the issue and to remain committed to the Home Secretary’s tough stance. He is already under pressure to abandon Shabana Mahmood’s proposal to make migrants wait twice as long before they can settle permanently in Britain, after nearly 80 backbenchers sent him a letter demanding he change course. And he will witness another show of strength from the rebels on Monday when dozens are expected to refuse to vote for her Immigration Bill. It has echoes of the revolt a year ago that forced Sir Keir Starmer into abandoning proposed welfare cuts, fatally damaging his authority. But a senior source close to Mr Burnham told the Daily Mail: ‘Andy gets it. He knows how important it is to get proper control of immigration. He won't be backing down.’ A second insider said: ‘The majority of the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party] and wider party are fully behind Shabana and Andy on this.’ And a Cabinet minister who supports Mr Burnham added: ‘He's been speaking to colleagues about this and reassuring them that there will be no backsliding. Andy Burnham on stage at an awards ceremony in London on Thursday night ‘The thing people forget about Andy is he's from Wigan, not central Manchester. He understands how working people feel about this. He's on their side.’ In the letter sent to him by Labour MPs this week however he was told that voters in his Makerfield constituency are more concerned about illegal migrants than ‘making it harder for nurses and care workers to settle here’. Mr Burnham was warned that under Ms Mahmood, Labour had ‘decided to fight on Reform’s territory’. The backbenchers said her plan to double the time to qualify for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) to ten years, and to apply it retrospectively to those already in the UK, ‘does not pass the fairness test’. They said the party was ‘expending huge political capital’ and ‘huge Home Office resource’ as well as ‘losing progressive voters’ on a policy that ‘few really understand or want’. ‘We need a more strategic, cross-party approach, less focused on political point-scoring, which risks this Labour Party being seen as a pale imitation of Reform,’ they urged. Although the ILR proposal is not part of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, the rebels will use its return to the Commons next week as an opportunity to demonstrate their opposition to Ms Mahmood. Dozens are expected to abstain rather than voting for it at its Second Reading on Monday, and some will try to speak out against it in the debate. One senior MP told this newspaper: ‘I do think a lot of people are using the Bill as a referendum on how Shabana has handled both the PLP and immigration. ‘A lot of us are going to abstain.’ Another MP said they were considering voting against it and had been offered a discussion with a Home Office minister. There is also anger at Sir Keir’s Government for tabling the Second Reading of the legislation for Monday despite knowing Mr Burnham would soon be taking over. ‘They set a test of how serious he is about immigration reform,’ a source said. As part of the Bill, refugee status will no longer be permanent and those granted asylum will face reviews every 30 months to see if they still face danger in their home countries or if they could safely return. Labour MP Stella Creasy said: ‘I think the Home Office have to get the basics right before we start spending more money asking the same refugees if they are still victims of torture. It’s difficult to see how the answer is going to change.’ In an intervention that could further increase left-wing opposition to the bill, Britain’s equalities watchdog has written to MPs about the proposal to make it harder for foreign criminals to use their right to a family life avoid deportation. Mary-Ann Stephenson, Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: ‘The Bill includes a definition of “family life” under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and how this should be applied in immigration cases. ‘Article 8 protects all of us and applies to children as well. The definition therefore requires particularly close attention.’