The Government is “steering Britain towards a cliff edge”, a campaigner has suggested, after figures revealed that more migrants have been offered settlement grants than by the same month last year. Government data revealed that 39,621 more people were issued grants for settlement, EUSS settled status and immediate settlement in the year ending June 2026 (537,698). In YE 2025, the same figure was 498,077. The Government earlier this year announced reforms to the process whereby migrants are awarded indefinite leave to remain and settled status. Both of these give individuals a permanent right to live, work and study in the UK.

But the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has been under pressure to alter her plans, including from the Housing Secretary, Angela Rayner, and trade unions. Ms Rayner, before being brought back into the Cabinet by Andy Burnham, said Ms Mahmood was “moving the goalposts”, and branded her proposals “un-British”.

Robert Bates, Research Director at the Centre for Migration Control told the Express: “The Labour government is allowing our country to drift into a fiscal and social calamity. Rather than do what is in the national interest and block the BorisWave, the Cabinet is squabbling amongst itself.

“The open border faction of the Labour Party has clearly grabbed the steering wheel and is now steering Britain towards a cliff edge. The damage done will be huge.”

In June, Ms Mahmood said Asylum seekers would be made to pay up to £10,000 towards the cost of their accommodation and support once they start earning. They would pay off the full amount before they can be eligible for settled status.

Fury as 39,621 More Migrants Are Told They Can Stay in the UK Than Last Year

New immigration figures have reignited debate over Britain’s settlement rules after the number of grants allowing people to remain permanently or obtain settled status increased by 39,621 in the year ending June 2026. The figures have prompted criticism of Labour’s immigration policies, with campaigners questioning whether ministers are doing enough to manage the long-term consequences of migration.

According to figures reported on 20 October, the combined number of settlement grants, European Union Settlement Scheme settled-status grants and immediate settlement grants on family grounds reached 537,698 in the year ending June 2026, compared with 498,077 in the previous year. <Cite refs={[“turn689346search0″,”turn247046search0”]}/>

The increase has become a political flashpoint because settlement can provide a permanent right to live, work and study in Britain, subject to the conditions of the relevant immigration route. Critics argue that decisions granting long-term residence deserve close scrutiny because they can shape the country’s population and future demand for housing and public services.

However, the figures need to be understood in context. They combine several different immigration categories and do not mean that 39,621 additional asylum seekers were granted permission to stay. Settlement, EU settled status and asylum decisions are distinct processes, each governed by its own rules.

Why Have Settlement Grants Increased?

The Home Office’s official immigration statistics show that approximately 200,000 settlement grants were issued in the year ending June 2026, an increase of 24 per cent compared with the previous year. The department said the increase was driven by people previously on work routes and individuals qualifying for settlement after holding permission under the British National (Overseas) route. <Cite refs={[“turn247046search0”]}/>

The EU Settlement Scheme accounts for a much larger number of decisions. Around 336,000 settled-status grants were issued during the same period, with volumes remaining broadly stable over the previous three years. Most grants continued to go to people who had previously held pre-settled status. <Cite refs={[“turn247046search0”]}/>

These distinctions are important when assessing the political claims surrounding the figures. The EU Settlement Scheme was established to protect the residence rights of eligible EU citizens and their family members following Brexit. A settled-status grant under that scheme is not equivalent to a newly arrived migrant receiving asylum or entering Britain through a new visa.

Similarly, a settlement grant generally concerns someone who is already in the country and has met the requirements of their immigration route. The rise therefore reflects decisions about people already living in Britain, rather than simply the number of people arriving at the border during the year.

Nevertheless, the figures raise questions about how the Government intends to manage the different pathways through which people can remain in the UK and how settlement policy fits into its wider approach to immigration.

Shabana Mahmood Faces Pressure Over Reform Plans

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has faced pressure over proposals to reform the route to indefinite leave to remain. The debate has exposed disagreements about how long people should generally have to live in Britain before qualifying for permanent residence and whether applicants should meet stricter conditions.

Supporters of tougher requirements argue that permanent settlement should represent a significant milestone. They believe applicants should demonstrate sustained compliance with immigration rules, make an economic contribution where required and meet clearly defined eligibility criteria.

Campaigners critical of the Government’s approach say ministers must explain how they intend to balance the country’s need for workers with concerns about population growth, pressure on public services and public confidence in the immigration system.

The debate is not confined to the number of settlement decisions. It also concerns the criteria used to determine who qualifies, whether the rules are consistently enforced and how changes affect people who have already spent years building their lives in Britain.

Any reform must also distinguish between different immigration routes. People arriving on work visas, family routes, humanitarian programmes and the EU Settlement Scheme do not necessarily face the same requirements. Treating them as a single group risks obscuring the legal differences that determine their rights.

The Asylum System Is a Separate Issue

Immigration and asylum are frequently discussed together in political debate, but the latest figures show why the distinction matters.

The Home Office recorded approximately 86,000 people claiming asylum in the year ending June 2026, a 21 per cent decrease compared with the previous year. Over the same period, 116,000 initial decisions were made on asylum claims, and the grant rate was 38 per cent. <Cite refs={[“turn247046search0”]}/>

These figures describe a different part of the immigration system from settlement grants. An asylum applicant is seeking international protection, and the authorities must assess the claim under the applicable rules. Settlement generally concerns a later stage or a separate immigration route.

The distinction also matters for government spending. Accommodation and financial support for eligible asylum seekers are costs associated with the asylum process. Settlement figures, by contrast, count decisions granting permanent residence or settled status. It would be misleading to assume that every person receiving settlement has been supported through the asylum system.

The Government reported spending approximately £4 billion on asylum accommodation and support in 2025, according to figures cited in recent reporting. Accommodation costs vary depending on the type of housing provided, with hotels generally costing more than dispersal accommodation. <Cite refs={[“turn689346search0″,”turn247046search0”]}/>

These costs have fuelled calls for improved management of the asylum system, but they cannot be directly attributed to the increase in settlement grants. A meaningful assessment of immigration policy needs to examine the different categories separately.

What Does Permanent Settlement Mean for Britain?

Indefinite leave to remain allows eligible people to live in Britain without the time limit attached to a temporary visa. It generally allows them to work and study without needing to renew that immigration permission, although other legal requirements can still apply.

For migrants who qualify, settlement can provide greater security and enable them to plan their lives over the long term. Employers may benefit from a more stable workforce, while families can gain greater certainty about their future.

Critics, however, argue that the Government must consider the cumulative effects of settlement decisions alongside wider migration patterns. They point to housing availability, public-service capacity and the need for transparent planning when setting immigration rules.

The figures alone cannot determine whether the settlement system is too generous or too restrictive. That assessment would require consideration of the eligibility rules, the circumstances of applicants, labour-market needs and the Government’s broader objectives.

What the figures do establish is that settlement decisions remain a substantial part of Britain’s immigration system. The increase in settlement grants makes it important for ministers to explain how the rules operate and why the numbers have changed.

The Government’s Wider Immigration Challenge

Labour faces competing demands. Some employers rely on international recruitment, while other communities are concerned about the pace of population change and pressure on local services. The Government must also maintain legal commitments arising from Brexit and existing immigration arrangements.

The official figures show mixed trends across the system. Work visas issued in the year ending June 2026 fell compared with the previous year, while settlement grants increased. Family visas also declined, and the number of people claiming asylum was lower than a year earlier. <Cite refs={[“turn247046search0”]}/>

This means the headline increase in settlement should not be treated as a complete measure of whether immigration is rising or falling overall. Different visa categories follow different timelines, and settlement decisions may reflect people who arrived years earlier.

For voters concerned about immigration, the central questions are whether the Government can control future arrivals, enforce eligibility rules and plan adequately for the consequences of migration. For people seeking to settle, the key issues are whether the rules are clear, lawful and applied consistently.

What Happens Next?

The increase of 39,621 in the combined settlement-related total is likely to remain part of the political debate as ministers consider changes to the immigration system.

The Government will need to explain the purpose of its proposed reforms, the groups affected and how any new rules would apply to existing visa holders and future applicants. It will also need to distinguish between changes intended to reduce new migration and changes affecting people already eligible for permanent residence.

The reported figures provide a starting point for that discussion, but they do not, on their own, demonstrate that every additional grant represents a new arrival or an asylum claim approved by the Government.

Ultimately, the challenge for ministers is to maintain a system that applies immigration rules consistently, meets the UK’s legal obligations and responds to concerns about population growth and public-service capacity. Whether Labour’s reforms achieve those aims will depend on the final rules, their implementation and the evidence emerging from future official statistics.

For now, the clearest conclusion is that settlement grants increased over the year ending June 2026. The reasons differ across categories, and understanding those differences is essential to evaluating what the figures mean for Britain’s long-term immigration policy.