EXCLUSIVE: Angela Rayner brutally slammed on GB News over migrant defence
Angela Rayner has come under sharp criticism on GB News after opposing proposed changes that could make some migrants already living legally in Britain wait longer for permanent settlement.
Rayner, who returned to government as Housing Secretary in July 2026 after previously serving as deputy prime minister, has argued that retrospectively changing settlement expectations for people who came to Britain legally risks becoming a “breach of trust”.
Her comments were challenged by security and intelligence expert Anthony Glees during an appearance on GB News, where he also raised concerns about a series of recent small-boat crossings.
Rayner Warns Against ‘Moving the Goalposts’
The dispute centres on government plans for a new “earned settlement” system.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said the standard route to indefinite leave to remain is being reconsidered, with the Government previously proposing to increase the usual qualifying period from five years to 10.
Mahmood told MPs on September 15 that settlement should be “earned through contribution” and confirmed that ministers were still considering transitional arrangements. She also said that, under the existing legal framework, the immigration rules in force when somebody applies generally govern their application rather than those that existed when they first arrived.
Rayner has objected particularly to applying tougher requirements to people already living in Britain.
Earlier this year, she argued that changing expectations after migrants had arrived would amount to “moving the goalposts”, describing that approach as “un-British” and a “breach of trust”.
Anthony Glees Hits Back on GB News
Appearing on GB News, Glees rejected Rayner’s use of the phrase “un-British”.
“Well, I think we should be very concerned,” he said, before turning the expression back on the Housing Secretary.
“It’s not very British to do what these people are doing. Angela Rayner might need to note that.”
His remarks represented his own assessment of the immigration and security situation rather than an official government finding.
Glees then highlighted recent Channel incidents, including a lengthy crossing that began off Normandy.
A boat carrying 51 people eventually arrived in Dover after spending more than 30 hours at sea. French authorities said those on board had been in “precarious conditions” and had declined assistance before British rescue vessels were deployed.
Initial reports suggested the group might be brought ashore at Gosport in Hampshire, prompting hundreds of protesters to gather there, but the passengers were ultimately taken to Dover by water.
Glees Raises Security Concerns Over Undetected Arrivals
Glees argued that the Normandy route itself should attract attention because it differs from many of the shorter crossings traditionally associated with the Channel.
He also raised alarm about boats reaching heavily monitored sections of the Kent coast without being intercepted.
At least one such incident has been independently reported this week: five people were detained after a dinghy reached Folkestone on September 21 without interception. The Home Office described that incident as isolated and rare and said an investigation was under way.
Glees characterised undetected arrivals as a “national security threat”, arguing that authorities may initially have limited information about people who reach the country without being intercepted.
That is Glees’s assessment; the Home Office has not publicly characterised the Folkestone incident in those same terms.
Government Still Working Through Settlement Changes
The row comes as ministers continue developing the details of the earned-settlement system.
Mahmood told the Home Affairs Committee that the Government intends to set out its policy later in 2026 and that decisions on transitional protections have not yet been finalised.
The disagreement therefore involves two separate questions: how Britain should respond to irregular Channel crossings, and whether tougher settlement rules should apply to migrants who originally entered the country legally under different expectations.
Rayner has focused her criticism on the second issue, arguing that legal migrants should not unexpectedly face substantially different terms after building their lives in Britain.
Glees, meanwhile, used the recent Channel incidents to argue for a tougher approach to border control and questioned Rayner’s description of retrospective rule changes as “un-British”.
With ministers still considering the final shape of the settlement reforms, the political argument over fairness, border control and whether existing migrants should receive transitional protection remains unresolved.
