Andy Burnham May Keep UK’s Five-Year ILR Route for Existing Migrants Amid Labour Backlash

Andy Burnham may well save the five-year ILR route for migrants already in the UK, according to the reports. The Home Office is considering a significant retreat from one of the most controversial parts of Shabana Mahmood’s immigration reform package, as pressure grows inside Labour over plans to double the standard route to settlement from five years to ten years for migrants already living in the UK.

At the centre of the dispute is a politically sensitive question: should people who came to Britain under existing immigration rules be forced to wait longer for Indefinite Leave to Remain, or should tougher settlement rules apply only to future arrivals?

According to reporting by The Times, officials are examining a compromise under which up to 1.6 million migrants who arrived in the UK since 2021 — often described in political debate as the “Boriswave” — could still qualify for ILR after five years rather than ten. However, the same group may face a longer wait before gaining access to benefits such as Universal Credit, housing support and other public funds.

The move would mark a notable softening of Mahmood’s original “earned settlement” model. The Home Office’s formal policy direction, published in November 2025, proposed moving the starting point for settlement from five years to ten years, while introducing tougher conditions including English language ability, sustained National Insurance contributions, no criminal record and no debt in the UK.

The official consultation described settlement, also known as Indefinite Leave to Remain, as the right to live permanently in the UK without immigration restrictions. It stated that settlement would no longer be granted automatically after a fixed period, but would instead have to be earned through “good conduct, contribution and integration.”

But the political problem for Labour is not the principle of reform. It is retrospectivity.

Furthermore, the government had proposed applying the new rules to people already in the UK who had not yet secured ILR. That would mean many workers, families, and dependents who entered Britain expecting a five-year settlement route could suddenly be placed on a much longer path. A House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee report, published on 23 June 2026, strongly criticised that approach, saying retrospective changes would be “manifestly unfair” and could damage the UK’s reputation among skilled migrants.

The committee went further. It argued that the ten-year baseline would make the UK more restrictive than comparable high-income countries and warned that longer settlement routes could undermine integration, increase poverty among low-income migrant families and push some people into irregular status if they could not afford repeated visa renewals.

This is where the emerging compromise becomes important. The Lords committee itself suggested an alternative: retain the five-year ILR baseline, but separate settlement from access to public funds. In other words, migrants could become settled after five years, while still facing restrictions on benefits until they had spent longer in the UK or obtained British citizenship.

That idea now appears close to the option reportedly being examined by the Home Office. It would allow ministers to claim that they are still reducing pressure on the welfare system, while avoiding the legal and moral difficulty of changing the settlement expectations of people who are already in Britain.

The i Paper had earlier reported on 23 June that Andy Burnham could water down tougher settlement rules for migrants already in the UK if he took over the Labour leadership. That report framed the issue as a test of whether Labour could maintain a tougher immigration position while avoiding a breach of trust with migrants who had followed the rules in place when they arrived.

The political stakes are high. Nearly 80 Labour MPs have reportedly urged Burnham to scrap retrospective application of the reforms, warning that such a move would clash with Labour’s values and punish people who made life-changing decisions in reliance on the existing system.

For Shabana Mahmood, the argument has been fiscal and political. The Home Office has pointed to the scale of post-Brexit migration and forecasts that 1.6 million people could settle between 2026 and 2030, with a peak of 450,000 in 2028. Ministers argue that permanent settlement should be treated as a privilege, not an automatic right.

For critics, however, the plan risks creating exactly the instability it claims to solve. The Institute for Government warned in May that applying settlement changes retrospectively could undermine trust in government and expose ministers to legal risk. It noted that migrants who arrived since 2021, expecting ILR after five years, could face an additional five to ten years before securing permanent status.

The care sector is likely to be one of the most sensitive areas. The Times reported that more than 600,000 foreign care workers could be exempted from the ten-year settlement wait. That would reflect the reality that Britain’s care system has relied heavily on overseas workers, even as ministers attempt to show voters that the era of high legal migration is being brought under control.

For existing migrants, the most important point is that no final legal change has yet been confirmed. The earned settlement consultation has closed, and the government is still analysing responses. The final Home Office decision is expected in the autumn. Until the new Immigration Rules are formally published, the current five-year route remains the legal position for those who qualify under existing rules.

The policy battle is therefore moving from a simple question of “five years or ten years” to a more complicated bargain: settlement may remain possible after five years for existing migrants, but access to benefits could be delayed. That would be a partial victory for Labour MPs and migrant rights groups, but not a full reversal of Mahmood’s approach.

The wider lesson is clear. Britain wants a tougher immigration system, but it also wants one that can survive scrutiny, protect public confidence, and avoid punishing people retrospectively. The coming autumn decision will show whether Labour can draw that line — or whether settlement reform becomes the next major fracture in British immigration politics.

Explanation of Earned Settlement?

Following are the key reforms which are part of the new planned earned settlement:

Below is an overview of the requirements one must meet to be eligible for the planned “Earned Settlement Model”:

The following are the planned adjustments to the baseline of the PR qualifying periods in the UK: