Shabana Mahmood's Indefinite Leave to Remain Reforms, Explained

The UK government has proposed nearly doubling how long most migrants must wait for permanent settlement, but the plan is still only a proposal, and the Home Secretary herself has signalled it may be softened. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s Home Office wants to overhaul Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) — the status that lets migrants live and work in the UK permanently — under a rebranded model called “Earned Settlement.” As of Tuesday 29 September 2026, none of it has become law.

What is Shabana Mahmood actually proposing to change?

The Home Office has proposed raising the standard qualifying period for Indefinite Leave to Remain from five years to ten. The plan was set out in a consultation document, “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement,” published on 20 November 2025 and open for responses until 12 February 2026. Under the “Earned Settlement” model, a separate ten-year long-residence route would be folded into this single standard track, and settlement would no longer follow automatically after a fixed number of years — applicants would also need to meet a set of additional conditions described below. The consultation drew a very large number of responses, reported as well over 100,000, making it one of the largest the Home Office has received.

How would someone’s pay affect how long they have to wait?

Under the proposal, higher earners would qualify for settlement faster, while many lower-paid workers would wait considerably longer. Reported thresholds from the consultation document include:

The 15-year figure would apply to jobs classed below RQF level 6 (broadly, non-graduate-level roles), which includes many care workers on Health and Care Worker visas — currently on a five-year route. None of these numbers are finalised; they are the figures set out for consultation.

What else would applicants have to prove?

Beyond years lived in the UK, applicants would reportedly need a clean criminal record, English at B2 level, a Life in the UK test pass, and no outstanding debt to the NHS, HMRC or the state. The proposed English requirement is higher than the current B1 standard. Under the plan, failing any single condition would block settlement regardless of how long someone has lived in the UK.

Would this apply to people already living in the UK?

Yes — and this retrospective element is the single most contested part of the proposal. The government has said it is considering applying the new, longer qualifying periods to people already in the UK, not just future arrivals, potentially affecting roughly 1.6 million people who arrived since around 2021 and are approaching the current five-year mark. Committees in both the House of Commons and House of Lords have raised fairness objections, and a newly formed migrant advocacy group has said it is prepared to seek a judicial review if the government proceeds, arguing it would break a reasonable expectation that migrants already had. The Home Office has said the alternative — leaving the current system in place — would cost public finances an estimated £10 billion.

Why did this cause a public row at Labour’s conference?

Because senior Labour figures publicly split over whether the plan, particularly its impact on care workers, is fair. At Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool (Sunday 27 to Wednesday 30 September 2026), Housing Secretary Angela Rayner said extending the wait for care workers to 15 years, applied retrospectively, would be a “breach of trust” and “un-British,” warning that workers recruited to fill staffing shortages now “fear for their future.” Unison, the public service union whose members include many care workers, and more than 100 Labour MPs have also objected. Prime Minister Andy Burnham — who took office in July 2026 after Keir Starmer’s resignation as Labour leader — said he understood Rayner’s concerns and that the government needed to make its immigration case “more effectively,” without either endorsing or rejecting Mahmood’s plan. In her own conference speech on Monday 28 September 2026, Mahmood said: “I know that, throughout our consultation process, some have said elements of these reforms are not fair,” adding that the government would “come to a position that balances fairness for those who came here legally, and fairness to British citizens.” People close to Mahmood say no final decision has been made, and her remarks should be read as a signal of possible softening rather than a confirmed reversal.

What did Mahmood announce for refugees instead?

Separately, Mahmood used her conference speech to announce a new fast-track settlement route for a small number of particularly vulnerable refugees. Rather than the standard 30-month reviewed status most refugees receive, this new scheme would grant immediate Indefinite Leave to Remain to an annually capped group — reported to include Afghan women and girls and Palestinians with critical medical needs — subject to security and criminality checks. This scheme is distinct from, and unrelated to, the “Earned Settlement” reforms for economic migrants described above.

Has any of this actually taken effect yet?

No. The existing five-year ILR system remains fully in force, and no new Immigration Rules have been laid before Parliament. The Home Office’s formal response to its consultation had been expected “in the autumn” of 2026 but had not been published as of this writing. Until new rules are laid and take effect, current settlement rules apply unchanged to anyone applying today.

Given the scale of the disagreement inside government itself, this is very much a live story rather than a settled one. We’ll update this explainer once the Home Office publishes its formal response and any actual Immigration Rules changes are confirmed.