Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood dramatically called for Mike Tapp to be sacked after he penned an article demanding her immigration rules are watered down without her knowledge10:05, 26 Jun 2026Updated 19:54, 26 Jun 2026Shabana Mahmood has sensationally barred her own immigration minister from accessing files without her permission as No10 rebuked her for calling for him to be sacked.‌The Home Secretary urged Keir Starmer to dismiss Mike Tapp after he wrote an article calling for care workers to be excluded from new migration laws. In an explosive public row, he was accused of "freelancing on policy" and passing off ideas as his own.‌On Friday night, No10 said he had been "reminded of his obligations" but would remain in post. A Downing Street spokesperson said: "It is not for any individual Secretary of State to determine whether the Ministerial Code has been followed, it is a matter for the Prime Minister alone.‌"Mike Tapp has been reminded of his obligations under the Ministerial Code including collective responsibility and procedures relating to the clearance and presentation of government policy.”Earlier, Ms Mahmood insisted all of his requests for documents and meetings will now have to be approved by her in response to fears he could leak government documents.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 he is threatening to leak sensitive documents. The Home Secretary has asked the Prime Minister to sack him.”Home Office insiders claim Mr Tapp broke strict rules by publicly discussing the care worker exemption in an article for The Times. It was suggested that he is vying for a job under Andy Burnham, who is said to be considering ditching parts of Ms Mahmood's under-fire plans if he becomes PM.Earlier, Downing Street said the PM was taking advice on whether the ministerial code had been broken but refused to get into private conversations.‌In his first words since the call for him to be fired, Mr Tapp - who is in San Francisco attending a wedding - wrote on X: "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!"‌On Thursday night an insider suggested Mr Tapp was trying to curry favour from PM-in-waiting Mr Burnham. They said: “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.”Under the ministerial code, ministers must take collective responsibility for decisions. The code says ministers should be able to "argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached".Content cannot be displayed without consent‌In a deleted tweet on Friday morning, Mr Tapp wrote that the intimidation is "quite a sight". He went on: "I've seen off the Taliban and taken out terrorists. Country first, always!" He also responded to a user accusing him of declaring war on his boss by saying: "Not at all, just responding to the mad briefings I've missed whilst living life."Jake Richards, a justice minister and Labour whip, told Sky News on Friday morning: "I don't think it's wise for ministers to sort of freestyle in government. We are a team, we are a collective effort, so I don't think it's wise."‌Mr Richards admitted there was a debate happening internally over Ms Mahmood's controversial immigration reforms. But he said it should happen in private. He continued: "There's a debate internally about where that balance is and how we get this right."We launched a consultation late last year, and that debate is continuing. The Home Secretary will be setting out her proposals in the next few weeks. I would prefer that debate to happen in private rather than that... because we're a government, we're a team, and that's right."Mr Burnham - who is widely expected to replace Mr Starmer in No10 - is weighing up whether to water down a string of proposals put forward as part of a migration shake-up. Proposals to change indefinite leave to remain rules and apply them retrospectively have sparked an outcry.‌If it went ahead, it would mean care workers who came to the UK after the Covid pandemic would see their wait for qualification go up to 15 years, three times the current five. This requires them to seek a new sponsor every time they change job and unions warn it could lead to an exodus in the embattled sector.Over 100 Labour MPs have written to Mr Starmer demanding a rethink. Last month Lydia Kabute, who came to the UK from Kenya in 2023 on a health and social care visa, told The Mirror: "Why shift the goalposts from five years to 15 years? Did we do something wrong?"Covid had ravaged everything, it had messed everything up (in the care sector). We came to help and assist. Remember, you (the UK Government) told us to come and help and you gave us the conditions. But now the goal has been shifted."‌Trade union Unison warns the rule change is morally wrong and said it could deepen the crisis in social care. It says migrant staff make up nearly 30% of the sector's workforce.Under current rules a person needs to be in the UK for five years before they can get settled status. This is going up to a standard 10 years - but Ms Mahmood says NHS workers, high earners and people who volunteer will be fast-tracked. On the flipside, migrants who claim benefits or who came to the country illegally will be penalised.Ms Mahmood has insisted her reforms will create a compassionate but controlled system.Article continues belowIn his article for The Times, Mr Tapp wrote: "It is my strong belief that those who have come to the United Kingdom on care worker visas who have played by the rules should not be required to wait longer to apply for settlement. That is the issue I am working hard to address."