Shabana Mahmood’s immigration plans have been badly handled from the start

Answering to a different prime minister, and dealing with a different set of cabinet colleagues, Shabana Mahmood set out her plans for immigration reform at the start of the year. The home secretary said that many migrants (including care workers) would need to wait a minimum of 10 (often 15) years to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). She also proposed that migrants who have arrived in the UK since 2021 – but have not yet received ILR – would be subject to retrospective changes in settlement policy. This would mean their wait for ILR status would be extended, even though the rules when they arrived in the UK set out a five-year timeline.¹ Sangha S, Shabana Mahmood’s retrospective action on immigration could undermine trust in government, Institute for Government, 21 May 2026, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/shabana-mahmoods-retrospective-immigration-trust-government

The announcement faced fierce opposition both from the sector and within the Labour Party.² Elgot J and Osuh C, Home secretary to make some migrants wait 10 years or more for right to settle in UK, The Guardian, 1 November 2026, www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/nov/01/home-secretary-shabana-mahmood-immigration-leave-to-remain-windrush  Retrospective action is procedurally normal in certain types of policy making (for example, tax), but changes in the same category as those Mahmood proposed are far rarer and more controversial, creating heightened legal risk for government because they affect family life, employment and legal security  – as we wrote at the time.

Whether she agreed with her critics or not, Mahmood has rewritten her plans – but still ended up in a position which will still anger many, while also failing to remove the potential for legal jeopardy.

Mahmood’s new immigration policy could create big problems for the Home Office

Mahmood’s first announcement was at least built on a clear ambition. She wanted fewer people to settle in the UK (or at least take longer to do so), particularly those care workers and their dependants who had arrived post-pandemic under the Health and Care Worker visa route and who the Home Office worried would quickly become a net fiscal cost to the state. The Home Office also probably anticipated that some care workers would choose to leave the UK, therefore helping the government demonstrate progress on its ambition to reduce net migration.³ The rationalisation for this policy has changed over time, though. Facing backlash, the Home Office’s argument became that delaying settlement for care workers, in particular, will help to keep them in the sector – if they received settled status they would be able to leave their current jobs. It is a difficult tightrope to walk given that the prime minister and other cabinet ministers have expressed concern about the impact of the proposals on care workers, specifically.Mason R and Weaver M, ‘Shabana Mahmood urged to “read the room” on Labour opposition to immigration policy’, The Guardian, 21 October 2026, www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/oct/21/cabinet-split-shabana-mahmood-immigration-plans-labour-miatta-fahnbulleh McKelvie G, ‘Angela Rayner stands by attack on care worker visa reforms ahead of Labour conference’, The Guardian, 26 September 2026, www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/sep/26/angela-rayner-care-worker-visa-reforms-labour-conferenceStavrou A, ‘Fahnbulleh turns down chance to back home secretary’s migration reforms’, The Independent, 21 October 2026, www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/miatta-fahnbulleh-mahmood-immigration-plans-b3070584.html

Mahmood still intends to move away from a five-year pathway to settlement (“indefinite leave to remain”, ILR) for the majority of migrants who arrive to the UK. Instead, the right to settle will be “earned”,⁴ Home Office and The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, Home Secretary unveils new rules for migrants settling in the UK, GOV.UK, 2 November 2026, www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-unveils-new-rules-for-migrants-settling-in-the-uk  with those on salaries over £50k or in healthcare and education roles still able to apply for ILR after five years.

For all others, the default will become a 10-year wait, with new ways to shorten or extend this timeline. The adapted rules for care workers now provide a five-year route to settlement for those already in the UK so long as they have earned over £25,000 per year. Those who fall beneath this threshold will be able to apply for another five-year visa and get another shot at meeting the criteria for ILR, while those in other occupations who are ‘skilled’, like engineers and chefs, but who are earning less than £50,000, will also see their timeline for settlement extended.

Mahmood argues that these revised plans will reduce met migration, but they will still pile risk onto her department, leave the hundreds of thousands affected in limbo, and look unlikely to generate the fiscal savings promised.⁵ Mahmood concedes immigration overhaul savings will fall short of £10bn estimate, ITV News, 3 November 2026, www.itv.com/news/2026-11-03/mahmood-concedes-immigration-overhaul-savings-will-fall-short-of-10bn-estimate , ⁶ Ross A, Shabana Mahmood's savings through new immigration rules branded 'nonsense', The Independent, 2 November 2026, www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/shabana-mahmood-new-immigration-rules-nonsense-b3077685.html , ⁷ BBC News, Mahmood refuses to put cost on care worker settlement climbdown, 3 November 2026, www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm75pgqdyzldo , ⁸ IPPR, Skilled migrants set to boost UK public finances by £115 billion, new IPPR analysis reveals, 2 November 2026, www.ippr.org/media-office/skilled-migrants-set-to-boost-uk-public-finances-by-115-billion-new-ippr-analysis-reveals  This policy concession will penalise skilled workers, the CBI argues, “without addressing the problem the policy was originally designed to solve”.⁹ The CBI said the exemption for some care workers meant the policy risked “being higher costs for the relatively small number of businesses using skilled worker visas, without addressing the problem the policy was originally designed to solve”. www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/articles/cbi-responds-to-government-changes-to-indefinite-leave-to-remain-rules/; www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/nov/02/shabana-mahmood-softens-immigration-plans-cabinet-backlash-leave-to-remain

Unclear policy intention and poor policy process made Mahmood’s rethink inevitable

Reviewing policy, following challenges and considering evidence, is the right thing for ministers to do. But bold announcements, big headlines, and reversals of the kind overseen by Mahmood risk undermining trust in the system and making the UK a less desirable destination for the most valuable migrants.

As the Institute set out in Better Policy Making (2022), policy design often falls down as a result of short-termism, poor cross-government working, and Whitehall parochialism – and, unfortunately, all appear to have featured in this case.

It would have been clear to the home secretary a year ago, as it was to onlookers, that net migration was already plummeting and that creating a policy with the purpose of delaying settlement for care workers would create opposition in the sector and among the public. But Mahmood’s ambition to drive down net migration led her to pursue sweeping changes to the settlement system, with little precedent and without buy-in from the cabinet or Labour backbenches.

This relates, too, to poor cross-government working and Whitehall parochialism. The Home Office did not appear to have consulted with other departments (whose workforce strategies are highly contingent on immigration policy), much less the vast array of stakeholders that would be affected by these changes.¹ Home Office, A Fairer Pathway to Settlement: Government Response to the Consultation, November 2026, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6ae90b0e5b14ba0182a272a4/A_Fairer_Pathway_to_Settlement_-_Government_response_to_the_consultation.pdf

If Mahmood does pursue these reforms, effective implementation is essential

Mahmood appears to have internalised some criticism from colleagues and from the sector, but Better Policy Making also identifies poor implementation as the final pitfall in the road to policy success. If the government is committed to this course of action, it must ensure that implementation is excellent or otherwise risk serious policy failure.² Evening Standard, 'Another Windrush': Labour MP sounds alarm over Mahmood's new immigration rules, 2 November 2026, www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/shabana-mahmood-immigration-windrush-dianne-abbott-b1303310.html , ³ Elgot J and Osuh C, Home secretary to make some migrants wait 10 years or more for right to settle in UK, The Guardian, 1 November 2026, www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/nov/01/home-secretary-shabana-mahmood-immigration-leave-to-remain-windrush

The home secretary’s proposals will further complicate an already opaque immigration and asylum system, which is full of financial, legal and procedural hurdles for migrants, and which is highly vulnerable to human error. Implementation is her next challenge, and she must make sure that the Home Office consults properly with those in delivery, inside the Home Office, within Border Force and at UKVI, to ensure that plans are deliverable and that training and guidance is high quality. Otherwise, an approach, and a process, which has been flawed from the outset risks unravelling all together.