Will foreign workers have to wait longer to stay in the UK for good?

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she may change plans to make foreign workers wait longer for permanent stay in the UK.

Speaking to Labour's annual conference, Mahmood said she had heard the argument that parts of the reforms were unfair. The Government, she said, would try to balance fairness to people who came here legally with fairness to British citizens. BBC

She spoke after pressure from a significant number of Labour MPs and trade unions to soften the plans. Housing Secretary Angela Rayner is one of the internal critics. Unison also opposes the changes.

Indefinite leave to remain, often called settlement, means permission to stay for good. Think of it like a permanent pass that lets you live, work and study here with no time limit, and claim benefits if you qualify. It has long been the last step on most work routes. It gives secure status and a path to citizenship.

Mahmood had proposed raising the wait for most migrants from five years to 10 years. Staff who came on health and social care visas would wait 15 years. People who had claimed benefits for more than 12 months would wait 20 years.

No final decision has been taken. Home Office sources said no final decision on changes to the immigration rules had been taken.

Rayner criticised the plans earlier this year when she was a backbench MP, an MP without a ministerial job. She said the Government was "moving the goalposts" and called the plans "un-British". She kept that view after she returned to the cabinet as Housing Secretary.

Unison general secretary Andrea Egan said the changes would unfairly penalise overseas care workers. The union's point is about the longer wait for health and care staff. Ministers have repeatedly said social care relies heavily on workers from abroad.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham denied Mahmood had been forced to drop the plans because Rayner called them "un-British". The reforms, he said, had to strike the right balance. Asked by LBC if he was "Team Shabana" or "Team Angela", Burnham said he was both: "Team Angela and Shabana".

To put the conference words in context, they are a change of tone rather than a confirmed change of policy. Mahmood had earlier said migrants would have to show they contribute to society to earn the right to stay. Her programme, set out in Government statements last autumn and in spring, centred on earned settlement, where people must meet conditions such as having a job and a clean criminal record. GOV.UK

Ministers said the package was a substantial overhaul of the legal migration model. A Home Secretary statement in November 2025 called 'A fairer pathway to settlement' set the direction. On 5 March 2026 the Government said migrants would need better English to settle. Mahmood set out the case in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research that day. Earlier reporting in March said the plans included ending permanent residence for migrants and making refugee status temporary.

Mahmood is also expected to use conference to announce the reopening of a scheme to resettle refugees in the UK. It covers Afghan women and girls and Palestinians.

The broader context here is that the Government is speaking to two groups at once. Conference delegates want reassurance on fairness and on staff numbers, especially in care. The Home Office wants to keep a system based on contribution, with longer waits and stricter conditions. Mahmood's wording keeps both options open.

In practical terms for workers and employers, the detail to watch is narrow. The main waiting time is one question. The longer waits for care staff and for benefit claimants are another. The rules on jobs, conduct and English around any wait are a third. None is fixed in law. Until a draft or a statement of changes in immigration rules is laid, employers, advisers and caseworkers are working from a proposal, not law.

On the Westminster politics, how the cabinet handles this matters. Open disagreement between a Home Secretary and a Housing Secretary would normally raise questions about collective responsibility, the rule that ministers support agreed policy in public. Burnham's answer tries to close that down. He presents any rethink as joint agreement on balance, not a win for one side. Whether Labour MPs and unions accept that will depend on the final waiting times and exemptions.