Tories accuse Shabana Mahmood of ‘u-turn’ on indefinite leave to remain policy – UK politics live

Indefinite leave to remain, or ILR, allows someone to live and work in the UK without a time limit. It is a settlement status, not simply permission to fill a particular job. The article discusses whether foreign workers should be able to qualify for ILR after coming to Britain on skilled worker or health and care visas.

A temporary work visa is tied to a limited period and usually to immigration conditions, such as an eligible job or sponsor. By contrast, ILR removes the time limit on residence. The difference matters because qualifying for ILR can let migrants remain even after their original visa period or job ends.

The government is considering making ILR harder for lower-paid workers, including care workers. That could affect people who arrived through the health and care route and were expected to settle between 2026 and 2030. The article does not specify every proposed eligibility rule, but it presents the change as a major decision about who can stay permanently.

The expected change would raise the difficulty of qualifying for indefinite leave to remain for lower-skilled workers, including people who came to the UK as care workers. The issue matters because ILR determines whether migrants can settle permanently, rather than remain only under temporary visa conditions.

Mahmood has defended the proposal by pointing to an estimated £10bn lifetime cost to taxpayers for care workers and adult dependants. However, the article also reports an IPPR estimate that all skilled workers expected to settle in 2026-30, with adult dependants, could make a £115bn net fiscal contribution.

Conservatives describe the announcement as a “u-turn”. Chris Philp says Mahmood was forced to surrender to Angela Rayner and what he calls the “open-borders Labour left”. He claims the revised approach will allow hundreds of thousands of low-wage and no-wage migrants to stay. The government’s detailed final rules are not given in the article.

The IPPR’s estimate covers all skilled workers, including health and care workers, who were expected to settle in the UK between 2026 and 2030, together with their adult dependants. It puts their combined estimated net lifetime fiscal contribution at roughly £115bn.

The article does not state how many people that figure represents. It therefore cannot support a precise answer about the number of foreign skilled workers and adult dependants. The estimate follows the same general approach used by the Home Office when calculating the £10bn lifetime cost linked to care workers and adult dependants.

The £115bn figure is presented as a warning against deterring skilled workers who make a significant fiscal contribution. It does not mean every individual or visa group contributes positively. The MAC estimates that care workers are fiscally negative over their lifetimes, while other health and care occupations, mainly nurses and doctors, are strongly positive. The figures depend on economic and demographic assumptions.

The disagreement comes mainly from scope. The Home Office’s £10bn estimate concerns the lifetime net cost of care workers and adult dependants. IPPR places that figure beside a wider estimate covering all skilled workers, including health and care workers, plus adult dependants expected to settle between 2026 and 2030.

The MAC estimates that care workers have a lifetime contribution of minus £36,000 each, while workers in other health and care occupations, mainly nurses and doctors, have a contribution of plus £166,000. Combining groups with different earnings and fiscal effects produces a very different overall result. The two sides also emphasise different parts of the MAC report.

Both calculations subtract expected public costs, such as benefits, healthcare and education, from expected tax contributions. They rely on assumptions about earnings, retirement and lifespan. IPPR says the £10bn figure is misleading without the wider context, while the government uses it to argue that some migrants could burden taxpayers.

If lower-paid care workers are discouraged from staying, the UK could lose workers already recruited through the health and care route. That could put additional pressure on the care sector and reduce the workforce available for care services. The article does not quantify staffing losses or describe specific service effects.

The fiscal effect is mixed. The MAC estimates care workers’ lifetime contribution at minus £36,000, so the Home Office argues that some are a net cost to taxpayers. But health and care workers as a broader group are expected to contribute for about 30 years before becoming a net burden, and other health occupations are strongly positive.

The wider implication is uncertainty about who would be deterred. If restrictions also discourage nurses, doctors or other skilled workers, tax receipts could fall and the public finances could lose a significant contribution. IPPR estimates that the wider skilled-worker group could contribute roughly £115bn. These implications are risks, not quantified forecasts in the article.

A visa category can contain people with very different economic profiles. Care workers generally have lower estimated lifetime earnings than workers in higher-paid health occupations. That affects how much tax they are expected to pay compared with their expected use of benefits, healthcare and other public services.

The MAC separates health and care main applicants into care workers and people in other health and care occupations. It estimates a lifetime contribution of minus £36,000 for care workers. For the other occupations, mainly nurses and doctors, it estimates plus £166,000. Higher earnings produce larger tax contributions, which can outweigh public costs.

The result does not mean every care worker costs the same amount or every doctor contributes the same amount. These are modelled estimates based on assumptions about earnings, retirement and lifespan. The article also notes that health and care workers overall are less fiscally positive than UK residents of the same age, but younger workers still benefit the fiscal balance.

To estimate a lifetime fiscal contribution, economists project how much a person will pay in taxes and compare it with public costs linked to that person. Those costs can include benefits, healthcare and, for children, education. The calculation follows people across their expected working lives, retirement and remaining lifespan.

The result depends on assumptions about earnings, when someone retires and how long they live. For example, the MAC estimates care workers at minus £36,000 over a lifetime, but other health occupations at plus £166,000. Higher earnings usually generate more tax, while public-service use and benefits add to the cost side.

The median and mean can therefore tell different stories. The MAC says most UK residents are a lifetime net burden using the median measure. But the tax system is strongly progressive, so people at the upper end of incomes contribute much more than the median. Their larger payments can lift the average, or mean, enough to support the system overall.