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

What was the government proposing to do before Monday?

Under Keir Starmer, the home secretary had been tasked with driving down net migration, and had drawn up proposals to tighten up the criteria under which people can apply to remain indefinitely in the UK.

She had proposed forcing many low-paid workers including care workers to wait 15 years before being able to apply to live permanently in the UK, despite the fact that when they came to the UK they had expected to wait five years. The new norm for most workers will be a 10-year wait.

How did these proposals change on Monday?

Mahmood scrapped plans for lower-paid workers to wait for 15 years. She went further, and said that if care workers earned at least £25,000 and had arrived in the UK before May 2025, they would be eligible for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) after five years.

What will that do to the numbers of workers who will have their settlement in the UK delayed?

Under the original version of the plans, 799,000 people would have had their settlement delayed. Under the updated version, that figure will now drop to 517,000.

Why has she compromised over her plans?

Mahmood came under pressure from cabinet colleagues, while Labour backbenchers were threatening a rebellion.

Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, said the retrospective nature of Mahmood’s plans was “un-British” and amounted to changing “the goalposts”. She and others had also criticised the impact on social care workers, who under the old plans would have had to wait 15 years for settlement.

Are other proposed rule changes retrospective?

Yes. While compromises have been drawn up to ensure that care workers who arrived before May 2025 would not face a longer route to settlement, other professions were not protected, analysts said.

Marley Morris, the associate director for migration at the IPPR thinktank, said thousands of workers would still face the shock of having to wait 10 years before being able to apply to settle in the UK, despite the rules saying they faced a five-year wait when they actually arrived.

“It is unfair that workers who were in the UK before these rules were raised in May 2025 are not protected. The government could well be accused of moving the goalposts,” he said. “Engineers, chefs and architects are examples of workers who may not necessarily meet high salary thresholds and will still be on a 10-year route to settlement under these new proposals.”

Who else can apply to remain indefinitely in the UK even if they have been here for five years?

Workers on a salary of more than £50,000 a year and those who have made contributions in healthcare and education, as well as refugees who have come to the UK via safe and legal routes, can apply.

People earning over £125,141 a year, as well as “highly skilled” migrants such as those on global talent or innovator founder visas, will qualify after three years.

Which other 'public service' professions will still be eligible for settlement after five years even for those earning less than £50,000 a year?

The Home Office has released a list of “public service” jobs where foreign workers will continue to be able to apply for ILR after five years, as now, instead of having to wait 10 years, which will be the new norm.

They include psychotherapists, physiotherapists, children’s nurses, dental practitioners and midwifery nurses.

Did Mahmood soften proposals to lengthen the amount of time that refugees may have to wait to apply for indefinite leave to remain?

No. The new rules will place particularly stringent requirements for settlement on refugees – with those entering via small boats and reliant on public funds to wait a minimum of 30 years for permanent settlement.

The exception will be the small number of refugees who enter through designated safe and legal routes, such as the reopening of the scheme for Afghan women and girls and Palestinians.

How have the proposals been received by politicians?

The Labour MP Diane Abbott raised concerns in parliament that they could result in another Windrush-type scandal when British citizens were wrongly detained, deported or threatened with deportation despite having the right to live in the UK.

The shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, described the announcement as a “U-turn”.