Even though elements of Shabana Mahmood’s package of asylum reforms had been pre-announced over the course of several days, there was something new and potentially controversial left over for Monday’s House of Commons statement.

“We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are,” the home secretary told MPs. “Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe.”

The language in the accompanying document published by the government was starker, arguing that the “hesitancy” to deport families “creates particularly perverse incentives” – namely, encouraging asylum seekers to bring children with them on the perilous journey across the Channel.

“Once in the UK, asylum seekers are able to exploit the fact that they have had children and put down roots in order to thwart removal, even if their claim has been legally refused,” the document says.

The government says it will instead offer families whose asylum claims have been rejected financial incentives to return to their home countries, and if they refuse it will deport them. There will be a consultation on the precise process for enforcing the removal of families, including children.

It’s not hard to see this becoming one of several flashpoints, especially for those Labour MPs who are already anxious about the government’s direction of travel.

A handful of them raised the issue with Mahmood in the Commons on Monday – particularly the question of how children being deported alongside their parents would be treated.

This is likely to sit alongside the conversion of refugee status into a temporary status and the quadrupling of the waiting period for refugees to get permanent residence in the UK from five to 20 years as the most controversial features of Mahmood’s reforms.

This matters because the government is going to have to legislate to bring in some of the changes, and that means there will be votes in Parliament. So the extent of opposition, especially within the Labour Party, will determine whether the package becomes law.

Certainly there is tangible anxiety about this among many Labour MPs – far more than have publicly questioned Mahmood’s proposals. And those MPs who are concerned range beyond the usual critics of Sir Keir Starmer on the left of the party.

Yet it was striking in conversations with those uneasy about the government’s approach on Monday that in quite a few cases that unease was tempered by a recognition of the scale of public frustration over illegal immigration, and a belief that their constituents wanted policies like this.

There is also a minority, though a significant one, of Labour MPs who feel local pressure to speak up for the rights of asylum seekers fleeing war-torn parts of the globe.

In fact, it feels like the split on this issue within the Labour Party is less conventionally ideological and more a question of whether the challenge particular MPs are facing at the next election is likely to come from parties of the right or of the left.

It matters too that in the eyes of her colleagues Mahmood performed very, very well in the Commons on Monday, attracting genuine praise from her Labour colleagues for her ability to argue from first principles for the package while unleashing vicious put-downs on political rivals of all hues.

One of the complaints of Labour MPs about the welfare proposals on which the government was forced to backtrack earlier this year was that they were sprung on them without enough groundwork having been laid.

In this case, Mahmood has set out the arguments now but it will be some months before the first crucial votes.

That means there is a very, very long way to go and much can change. But right now, it does not quite feel like this is set to be a repeat of the welfare episode.