More than any Labour Cabinet minister in living memory, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood understands the dangers of uncontrolled immigration.

She appreciates – unlike most white MPs on the Government benches – how racism is fostered by having the kind of open borders favoured by both Tory and Labour governments over the past couple of decades.

Last November she shocked the Commons by describing how she had been ‘regularly called a f****** P*** and told to go back home’. To her, this was proof that the asylum crisis is dividing Britain.

After being criticised by a damp Lib Dem spokesman for advocating robust policies to control immigration, Ms Mahmood responded: ‘I wish I had the privilege of walking around this country and not seeing the division that the issue of migration and asylum is creating.’

Because she is a Muslim and the daughter of immigrants, she got away with it – just. But it was always inevitable that sooner or later the Labour Party would try to nobble her. Last week it struck.

First it was reported that pressure from Andy Burnham acolytes will lead to one of Ms Mahmood’s key reforms being scuppered. She had previously announced that foreign workers legally in the UK would have to wait ten, rather than five, years to be eligible for ‘indefinite leave to remain’.

This change would save the taxpayer billions. The Tories let millions of low-skilled workers and their dependents come to the UK between 2021 and 2024. When they achieve indefinite leave to remain they’ll be able to claim benefits, potentially costing tens of billions.

By deferring residency rights from five to ten years the Home Secretary hoped to limit the economic blow. The inimitable Angela Rayner described this proposed change as ‘UnBritish’. She evidently believes that it is quintessentially British to dole out billions in benefits.

Now it’s suggested that a Burnham government would exempt tens of thousands of foreign care workers and their families from the new rules. Much to Ms Mahmood’s fury, a junior minister in her department with the unlikely name of Mike Tapp wrote an article in The Times praising this policy.

Shabana wants Mike sacked for defying collective responsibility but Sir Keir Starmer won’t oblige, very possibly because he’s miffed that the Home Secretary was a leading member of the posse intent on driving him out of Downing Street. Tapp has also been a Starmer loyalist.

A general mess, then, which gives the impression that Burnham isn’t very preoccupied with keeping a watch on the billions, and takes a much more relaxed attitude towards mass immigration than Ms Mahmood.

The Burnhamites have another ruse to which the Home Secretary has unwisely acceded. She has just announced that she will open ‘safe and legal’ routes to allow a reported 10,000 asylum seekers to come every year to the UK in addition to those already turning up.

In principle this is a humane policy. The trouble is that in the 12 months to March 2026 nearly 94,000 people claimed asylum in this country. Almost half of these crossed the Channel in small boats. So far this year about 40 per cent fewer people have done so compared to 2025, but thousands are still streaming across from France.

While that continues, and while tens of thousands of others successfully claim asylum here having arrived by other means, it seems practically lunatic to open up our borders to another source of immigration.

Moreover, there’s no guarantee that 10,000 a year would be the ceiling. The scheme – modelled on one in Canada that has been running since 1979 and has enabled nearly 400,000 refugees to settle in the country – would rely on community groups inviting asylum seekers.

For example, the Refugee Council might stretch out a hand to unhappy people in Afghanistan, of whom there are countless millions. Or a university or church group might take pity on the dispossessed of Sudan or Somalia, of whom again there are, sadly, millions that no man can number.

Could the Home Office (which was aptly described by a Labour Home Secretary 20 years ago as ‘not fit for purpose’, and hasn’t obviously changed) be relied on to ensure that quotas weren’t exceeded? I hardly think so.

Nor is there any evidence that such a scheme would deter people from crossing the Channel or overstaying their visas. If I were a desperate prospective economic migrant living in Eritrea, I wouldn’t linger there in the hope of a well-meaning community group noticing my existence.

As I say, if illegal and legal immigration were under control – which they aren’t, despite a recent fall in the latter category – an ordered scheme, whereby a restricted number of genuine asylum seekers were invited here, would be decent and civilised.

But with race relations in the unhappy state that Shabana Mahmood accurately describes, it seems extraordinarily foolish to look around for new ways of boosting levels of immigration that are far too high.

It’s hard to believe that the Home Secretary is the author of this scheme. Burnham supporters, or Labour MPs wishing to ingratiate themselves with their chirpy new leader, are promoting an idea that they think will make their party look good.

And Ms Mahmood, aware of her many critics sharpening their knives, and probably feeling a little insecure in her job with a new occupant of No 10 practising his press-ups, has decided to acquiesce in a scheme that runs against her best instincts.

I’m not suggesting the Home Secretary has been entirely neutered. Tomorrow she’s due to introduce her Immigration and Asylum Bill. It will meet with opposition from Lib Dem, and some Labour, MPs, though not from the Tories.

The Bill will include some tough measures, such as stringent age checks for people claiming to be children and new limitations on how Article 8 of the Human Rights Act can be used to help asylum seekers in deportation cases.

However, there isn’t expected to be any mention of the doubling of the time from five to ten years required to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. That allegedly ‘UnBritish’ policy could be kicked into touch for ever.

Ms Mahmood would doubtless argue that she has to make some concessions to get her Bill through. Perhaps, but it seems undeniable that she is being cowed by the Burnhamites.

The new Prime Minister might sack the Home Secretary and replace her with someone who doesn’t have sensible ideas about controlling immigration. More likely, he’ll put up with her, at least for the time being, before despatching her at a time of his own choosing.

In recent weeks some pundits have suggested that support for Reform UK has not only peaked but is ebbing away. Its moment has supposedly come and gone.

One suggested reason is that Reform’s main platform is collapsing because numbers crossing the Channel are down on this time last year, and legal immigration is falling, though largely as a result of measures belatedly applied by the Tories.

But I’m certain uncontrolled immigration remains a major public concern. I also doubt that Reform is finished. Andy Burnham’s Labour Party could be about to hand it a huge gift.