Thousands of migrants are settling permanently in Britain every week while Labour bickers over a proposed crackdown.
More than 200,000 people have been granted indefinite leave to remain – entitling them to lifetime benefits, NHS care and social housing – since ministers proposed tough restrictions last year.
Yet the plan is still up in the air following a backlash led by Angela Rayner and trade unions, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood recently signalling that she may have to water it down.
In the meantime, every week at least 5,000 more people who have lived here for five years – having legally arrived on visas – gain settlement.
The numbers are set to rise even further in the coming months as those who arrived in an unprecedented immigration surge following the pandemic gain the right to claim indefinite leave to remain.
Last night, Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, told the Daily Mail: ‘Every single day, hundreds of mainly low-wage or no-wage immigrants get the right to stay here permanently and claim benefits.
‘Yet Shabana Mahmood continues to refuse to implement her own indefinite leave to remain changes to stop this – which she herself admits are needed to save £10billion.
‘Why is she delaying? It’s because she’s scared of Angela Rayner and the Left of the Labour Party, and she hasn’t got the courage to implement her own plans.
+2
View gallery
More than 200,000 people have been granted indefinite leave to remain – entitling them to lifetime benefits, NHS care and social housing – since ministers proposed tough restrictions last year
+2
View gallery
Secretary of State for the Home Department Shabana Mahmood gives a speech on the second day of the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool, United Kingdom on September 28, 2026
‘The Government is on the verge of capitulating, letting hundreds of thousands of low-wage and no-wage migrants stay forever.’
Reform UK home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf said Ms Mahmood had ‘capitulated to Labour’s open-borders zealots.
He added: ‘Labour’s internal bickering means thousands more will get indefinite leave to remain and unfettered access to our welfare system, all because Andy Burnham cannot control Rayner or his backbenchers.’
Migrants who have lived and worked in the UK for five years can claim indefinite leave to remain (ILR), giving them the right to stay as long as they like, apply for benefits and then gain British citizenship just a year later.
Last May, when Yvette Cooper was home secretary, the Government proposed ‘earned settlement’, which would double the qualifying period to ten years because of the large numbers of people soon to get indefinite leave to remain.
Its Immigration White Paper warned: ‘More people are likely to become eligible for settlement and then citizenship over the next few years as a result of the extremely high level of net migration between 2019 and 2024.’
Then last November, Ms Mahmood made it clear that she wanted the more strict rules to apply retrospectively.
She warned that, without reform, 1.6million people would be entitled to settle between 2026 and 2030.
In a speech this year she said the ‘lifetime cost to the taxpayer’ of the cohort, which she said included many ‘low-skilled workers and their dependents’, would be £10billion.
It sparked a backlash, with Labour MPs accusing her of ‘moving the goalposts’ for people already in the UK.
While she was out of Government, Ms Rayner called the retrospective nature of the plan ‘un-British’ and a ‘breach of trust’. Just last month, despite returning to the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, she stood by her criticism.
Britain’s biggest trade union Unison wants care workers to be exempted from the proposed rules, and its general secretary Andrea Egan even claimed: ‘Shabana Mahmood’s proposals have fuelled the far-Right.’
Then the Home Secretary hinted at a climbdown, saying: ‘We will come to a position that balances fairness for those who came here legally and fairness to British citizens.’
Latest official figures show that 199,628 people were granted settlement in the 12 months to June, beginning immediately after the White Paper’s call for action.
If grants have continued at the same rate it would mean another 5,675 settling every week, and well over 200,000 gaining indefinite leave to remain since Ms Mahmood’s detailed plan was announced in November.
The pressure group MigrationWatch UK estimates 225,000 qualified for indefinite leave to remain in the past 11 months.
Chairman Alp Mehmet asked of Andy Burnham: ‘Will you have the courage to back your Home Secretary and extend the ILR qualifying period or will you bottle it and defy public opinion?’
The consultation on the proposal, which received 200,000 responses, closed in February, but the Home Office has not responded. Immigration rules were updated last week with no mention of ILR.
The Home Office said: ‘We are considering responses to our consultation on elements of these reforms.’
“200,000 GIVEN THE RIGHT TO STAY — AND LABOUR PROMISED A CRACKDOWN?!”
Political commentary and argumentative essay – approximately 1,200 words
Britain’s immigration debate has erupted into fresh controversy after figures revealed that almost 200,000 migrants were granted permanent settlement in the UK in the year to June 2026. The figures have raised difficult questions about Labour’s promise to tighten immigration rules and introduce tougher requirements for people seeking the right to remain permanently.
The controversy has placed Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood under renewed scrutiny. While the government has promised a stricter immigration system, critics argue that large numbers of migrants are continuing to receive indefinite leave to remain under existing rules. The central question is whether Labour can deliver its promised reforms while dealing fairly with people who have already built their lives in Britain.
Almost 200,000 Migrants Granted Permanent Settlement
According to figures reported in October 2026, 199,628 people were granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the 12 months to June 2026. This represented the highest annual total since 2011 and attracted considerable political attention.
Indefinite leave to remain allows people to live, work and study permanently in Britain without the usual immigration restrictions. It can also provide access to certain benefits, subject to eligibility requirements.
The figures have become particularly controversial because the government had already announced plans to make permanent settlement more difficult to obtain.
However, it is important to understand that these individuals were granted settlement under the rules applicable to their circumstances. The figure does not mean that 200,000 newly arrived asylum seekers were automatically given permission to remain.
Labour’s Promise to Make Settlement More Difficult
In November 2025, the government announced proposals to introduce an earned settlement system.
Under the proposed changes, the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain would increase from five years to ten years for most migrants.
Some groups could face longer waiting periods. In particular, migrant workers arriving through health and social care routes could potentially face a 15-year qualifying period.
The government has argued that permanent settlement should reflect an individual’s contribution to British society rather than being treated as an automatic entitlement after a fixed period.
The proposals also include stricter requirements concerning employment, English-language ability and criminal records.
However, these changes have generated significant disagreement within Labour itself.
Why Are So Many People Receiving Settlement?
One explanation is the number of migrants who arrived legally in Britain during previous years and subsequently became eligible for permanent residence.
Under the existing immigration system, many people on qualifying work and family routes could apply for settlement after five years, provided they met the relevant requirements.
The period between 2021 and 2024 saw substantial migration, meaning that many individuals became eligible for settlement around the same time.
Consequently, the increase in settlement grants is connected to earlier immigration patterns as well as the rules currently governing applications.
Critics argue that the government should have introduced its promised reforms more quickly. They believe the delay has allowed large numbers of applications to proceed under the previous arrangements.
The government, however, has pointed to the need to consult on the reforms and consider their legal and practical consequences.
Angela Rayner and Labour’s Internal Disagreement
One of the biggest political difficulties for the government has been disagreement among senior Labour figures.
Angela Rayner previously criticised proposals to apply the longer settlement period retrospectively to migrants already living and working in Britain.
She argued that changing the rules after people had arrived and made long-term commitments could undermine the principle of fairness.
Her position reflects concerns raised by trade unions, particularly those representing workers in healthcare and social care.
Some migrant workers accepted employment in Britain on the understanding that they could qualify for permanent settlement after five years. Extending that period could fundamentally change their expectations.
The disagreement has created a difficult political balancing act for Labour: demonstrating that immigration rules are becoming stricter while maintaining confidence among employers and migrant workers.
Burnham Faces Pressure to Deliver Immigration Reform
Prime Minister Andy Burnham has publicly supported the principle of the proposed immigration reforms.
On 26 October 2026, he indicated that he agreed with Shabana Mahmood’s approach that permanent settlement should be earned through contribution.
However, supporting the principle is not the same as confirming every detail of the proposed changes.
The government is still considering responses to its consultation, which attracted more than 200,000 submissions. The final policy is expected to be announced later in 2026.
This means that the political debate is far from over.
Opposition politicians are likely to continue questioning why the government has not yet implemented the full settlement reforms. Meanwhile, Labour MPs and trade unions are demanding safeguards for people who arrived under previous immigration arrangements.
The Impact on the NHS and Social Care
There is another important dimension to this controversy: Britain’s reliance on migrant workers.
The NHS and social care sector have recruited substantial numbers of employees from overseas.
Many international workers provide essential services in hospitals, residential care homes and community healthcare facilities.
According to Reuters, approximately one-third of the social care workforce is foreign-born. Employers have warned that substantially extending settlement waiting periods could make it harder to recruit and retain experienced staff.
This creates a difficult question for the government.
If immigration rules become significantly stricter, will British employers be able to recruit enough domestic workers to fill the vacancies?
The government argues that tighter immigration rules could encourage employers to improve wages and recruit more British workers. Critics respond that staffing shortages cannot be solved simply by reducing overseas recruitment.
Both the financial implications and the impact on essential services will need careful examination.
What Does This Mean for British Taxpayers?
Taxpayers are also concerned about the financial implications of immigration and settlement policy.
Public services already face substantial pressure, particularly in housing, healthcare, education and local government.
The government must therefore explain how it intends to balance immigration levels with available public resources.
However, migrants who receive indefinite leave to remain are not automatically entitled to every benefit. Access to public support depends on the relevant eligibility rules.
Furthermore, many migrants work, pay taxes and contribute to essential public services.
A serious assessment must therefore consider both the costs and economic contributions associated with migration.
The debate should focus on reliable evidence rather than assuming that every person granted settlement represents an identical financial burden.
What Happens Next?
The government’s final decision on earned settlement will be particularly important.
Ministers must determine whether the longer qualifying periods will apply to people already living in Britain, how existing expectations will be protected and which groups may qualify for exemptions.
The decision could have significant consequences for hundreds of thousands of people who are currently working towards permanent settlement.
It will also determine whether Labour can demonstrate that its immigration reforms are being implemented while maintaining confidence among employers, unions and the wider public.
Conclusion
The revelation that almost 200,000 people received indefinite leave to remain in the year to June 2026 has reignited Britain’s immigration debate.
For critics, the figures raise questions about Labour’s ability to deliver its promised crackdown and explain why settlement numbers have remained so high.
For supporters of the government’s approach, the figures reflect applications processed under existing rules rather than evidence that immigration reform has been abandoned.
Andy Burnham and Shabana Mahmood now face the challenge of turning their promises into a clear and workable policy.
Ultimately, Britain needs an immigration system that is properly managed, economically sustainable and fair to people who have followed the rules. The government must protect the interests of taxpayers while recognising the contribution of migrant workers who help keep essential services operating.
The real test will be whether Labour can deliver meaningful reform without creating unnecessary uncertainty for employers, communities and the people who have already built their lives in Britain.