How will UK immigration rules change under Shabana Mahmood’s latest plans?

Indefinite leave to remain, or ILR, is permission to live permanently in the UK. It is the settlement status migrants may apply for after meeting the required conditions and waiting period. The article presents ILR as the step that allows people to settle rather than remain on a temporary route.

The waiting period depends on a person’s work, salary, visa route and arrival circumstances. Most workers are expected to face a 10-year route under the latest proposals. Some care workers who arrived before May 2025 and earn at least £25,000 can still apply after five years.

ILR matters because changing the route can delay when someone achieves permanent settlement. Lower-paid workers may wait longer, while people earning above £50,000 can still qualify after five years. People earning more than £125,141, and some highly skilled migrants, may qualify after three years.

The proposals make settlement timing more unequal. Most workers will normally wait 10 years before applying for ILR, rather than the five-year wait many expected when they arrived. The earlier plan would have pushed many lower-paid workers, including care workers, onto a 15-year route.

Mahmood removed the 15-year rule. Care workers earning at least £25,000 who arrived before May 2025 can apply after five years. Workers earning more than £50,000, and people making contributions in healthcare or education, also remain eligible after five years. Certain public-service jobs receive the same treatment even below £50,000.

Higher earners and selected migrants have shorter routes. People earning above £125,141, plus highly skilled migrants on global talent or innovator founder visas, can qualify after three years. Refugees arriving by small boats and relying on public funds face a minimum 30-year wait.

The number of people facing delayed settlement fell after Mahmood revised the proposals. Under the original version, 799,000 people would have had their settlement delayed. That figure included workers affected by the proposed longer routes, including the 15-year route for many lower-paid workers.

The updated plan protects more care workers from the sharpest change. Those earning at least £25,000 and arriving before May 2025 can still qualify after five years. The government also abandoned the proposal to make lower-paid workers wait 15 years, replacing it with a 10-year norm for most workers.

Even after the compromise, 517,000 people are expected to have their settlement delayed. The reduction is therefore substantial, but the revised package remains a major tightening. Analysts say workers in professions such as engineering, catering and architecture may still face a 10-year route despite previously expecting five years.

A five-year route remains available to several groups. Workers earning more than £50,000 can apply for ILR after five years. The same applies to people who have made contributions in healthcare and education, and to refugees who entered through safe and legal routes.

Some lower-paid public-service workers also retain the five-year option. The Home Office list includes psychotherapists, physiotherapists, children’s nurses, dental practitioners and midwifery nurses. Care workers who earn at least £25,000 and arrived before May 2025 are also protected under the revised proposals.

The three-year route is narrower. It covers people earning more than £125,141 a year and “highly skilled” migrants, including those on global talent or innovator founder visas. These categories create faster routes for higher earners and selected visa holders, while many other workers move onto the 10-year norm.

Under the proposed rules, refugees who arrive in small boats and rely on public funds will face especially strict settlement conditions. They must wait at least 30 years before qualifying for permanent settlement. This is far longer than the five-year route retained for some refugees entering through approved channels.

The article identifies a limited exception for refugees arriving through designated safe and legal routes. Examples include the reopened scheme for Afghan women and girls and routes for Palestinians. Those refugees can still apply for ILR after five years, according to the proposals.

The change links settlement timing to both arrival route and financial circumstances. It means refugee status alone will not guarantee the same path to permanent settlement. The article does not give a total number affected, but describes the small-boat and public-funds requirement as particularly stringent.

Mahmood changed parts of the package after pressure from cabinet colleagues and Labour backbenchers. Labour MPs were threatening a rebellion, creating a serious political risk for the government. Cabinet criticism focused particularly on the effect on social care workers and the retrospective nature of the proposed changes.

Housing secretary Angela Rayner called the retrospective approach “un-British”. Under the earlier plan, care workers could have been forced to wait 15 years even though they had expected a five-year route when they arrived. Mahmood responded by removing the 15-year proposal and protecting qualifying care workers who arrived before May 2025.

The compromise reduced the number affected from 799,000 to 517,000. It did not reverse the wider direction of policy. Most workers still face a 10-year route, and professions such as engineering, catering and architecture were not protected. The government therefore softened the package without abandoning its tougher settlement aim.

A country’s immigration system sets visa routes and conditions for living and working there. It can also define when a person may apply for permanent settlement. In these proposals, the criteria include salary, occupation, contribution to healthcare or education, visa type, arrival route and use of public funds.

The controversy comes from applying new conditions to people already in the country. Many workers arrived expecting to apply after five years, but the revised plans would move some onto a 10-year route. Engineers, chefs and architects are examples cited as potentially affected. Care workers received protection only if they met the salary and arrival-date conditions.

The article reports criticism that this could amount to “moving the goalposts”. Angela Rayner called the retrospective nature “un-British”, while Diane Abbott warned of a possible Windrush-type scandal. The revised package reduces the impact but leaves many people facing longer waits.