Fury as bombshell figures reveal thousands of migrants a week granted leave to remain
The Government is facing fresh pressure over immigration after figures cited in a new report suggested that thousands of migrants are gaining the right to settle permanently in Britain every week, despite ministers having promised tougher rules on indefinite leave to remain.
More than 200,000 people are reported to have been granted indefinite leave to remain (ILR) since the Government proposed restrictions last year. The figures have reignited a heated debate over the pace of legal migration, the future of Britain’s settlement system and whether ministers are prepared to deliver the reforms they have said are necessary.
According to the figures cited in the report, at least 5,000 people a week who have lived in the UK for five years after arriving legally on visas are gaining settlement. The number could rise further in the coming months as more people who arrived during the Covid pandemic become eligible to apply under the rules that currently govern their immigration routes.
The developments have prompted criticism from opposition politicians, who accuse Labour of allowing the existing system to continue while delaying promised changes. They argue that the Government’s public commitment to tighter immigration controls risks losing credibility if people continue to qualify for permanent residence before the proposed reforms are introduced.
However, the figures require careful interpretation. Eligibility for indefinite leave to remain is not the same as automatic approval, and the right to settle depends on the immigration route, the applicant’s circumstances and the applicable rules. Nor does receiving ILR mean that every person automatically receives every form of public assistance.
Nevertheless, the scale of settlement being reported has placed the Government under renewed scrutiny, particularly as immigration remains a politically sensitive issue and pressure grows for ministers to explain precisely when their proposed changes will take effect.
Chris Philp demands answers from the Home Office
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp has strongly criticised the Government’s handling of the reforms, arguing that ministers are allowing large numbers of migrants to obtain permanent status while delaying changes they previously presented as necessary.
He said: “Every single day, hundreds of mainly low-wage or no-wage immigrants get the right to stay here permanently and claim benefits.”
Mr Philp also questioned why Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood had not implemented the proposed changes, claiming that the Government itself had acknowledged the need for reform.
In comments reported by the Daily Mail, he suggested that Labour’s internal divisions were preventing the Home Secretary from proceeding. He pointed to concerns raised by Angela Rayner, who has reportedly expressed reservations about proposals that would make it harder for foreign workers to secure permanent residency.
Thousands of migrants are being granted leave to remain each week (Image: Getty)
Mr Philp added: “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.”
He further warned that the Government was at risk of allowing hundreds of thousands of people to remain permanently under the existing arrangements.
These are political allegations from the Opposition rather than an independently established explanation for the delay. The Government has said it is considering responses to its consultation, but has not provided a full response to the consultation in the material cited in the report.
The disagreement nevertheless exposes a difficult challenge for Labour. Ministers have to decide how to balance their stated ambition to reduce migration and tighten settlement rules against concerns about fairness, the treatment of people already living and working legally in Britain, and the economic consequences of changing established immigration routes.
For the Opposition, the delay provides an opportunity to question whether Labour’s commitments on immigration are translating into action. For the Government, the challenge is to show that its proposals are being developed into workable rules rather than remaining an announcement without a clear timetable.
What indefinite leave to remain means
Indefinite leave to remain is a form of immigration status that allows eligible people to live in the UK without the time limit attached to a temporary visa. It is often referred to as settlement and can be an important step towards applying for British citizenship, provided the relevant additional requirements are met.
People may qualify through different immigration routes, and the conditions are not identical for everyone. Depending on the route, applicants may need to satisfy residence requirements and demonstrate compliance with immigration rules, as well as meet other applicable criteria.
For many people who arrive legally to work, the possibility of settlement is an important part of their long-term plans. They may have accepted employment, rented or purchased accommodation, established families and built their lives around the expectation that they could eventually qualify for permanent status.
That is one reason why proposed changes to settlement rules can become contentious. A change affecting future applicants may be viewed differently from one that affects people who have already spent years in the country under existing arrangements.
The Government must therefore consider not only how strict the rules should be, but also how any reforms should apply to people already on a route to settlement. Questions about transitional arrangements, implementation dates and the treatment of existing visa holders can have significant practical consequences.
Critics of the current system argue that the rules allow too many people to gain permanent residence after a relatively short period. Supporters of more predictable settlement pathways, however, may argue that people who have followed the rules need clarity about the conditions under which they can remain.
The political dispute is therefore about more than the number of people granted ILR. It concerns the criteria for settlement, the pace at which the system should change and the extent to which the Government should honour expectations created under existing arrangements.
Why the settlement figures are causing concern
The reported rate of approximately 5,000 grants a week has prompted questions about how much permanent migration the UK should expect over the next several years.
The report suggests that without the proposed reforms, around 1.6 million people could become entitled to settle in Britain between 2026 and 2030. That figure describes a projected number of people who could become eligible under the existing arrangements; it should not be interpreted as confirmation that every one of them will apply successfully or receive ILR.
Even so, the projection has become a focal point for critics who believe the settlement system needs to be tightened.
They argue that permanent residence has long-term implications because it removes the time limit attached to a person’s immigration permission and can provide a route towards citizenship. In their view, ministers should establish clear rules and explain how the system will operate before further large numbers of people reach the qualifying stage.
The Government also faces questions about the relationship between settlement policy and its broader immigration objectives. Reducing net migration, controlling the number of temporary visas and changing the requirements for permanent residence are related but distinct policy questions. A change to one does not automatically deliver the same result in the others.
A person gaining ILR may already have lived in the country for several years. The decision therefore concerns the transition from temporary immigration permission to permanent status, rather than necessarily representing a new arrival at the border.
That distinction is important when assessing claims about the scale of immigration. Settlement figures can reveal the number of people obtaining permanent status, but they cannot on their own explain the overall effect on net migration, public spending or the labour market.
Nevertheless, the figures are politically significant because they highlight the consequences of maintaining existing rules while a government considers changing them.
Shabana Mahmood faces pressure over proposed reforms
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is now at the centre of the dispute, having previously backed tougher restrictions on the route to permanent settlement.
The proposed changes are intended to make it harder for some legal migrants to obtain indefinite leave to remain. However, the plans have reportedly encountered resistance within Labour, including concerns from Angela Rayner about the potential effects of changing visa rules for foreign workers.
That disagreement presents ministers with a political dilemma. Moving ahead with stricter requirements could demonstrate that the Government is prepared to act on its immigration promises. But the details of any changes could affect people who have been working, paying taxes and building lives in Britain under the existing system.
Delaying the reforms creates a different problem. Every week that the current rules remain in place, further applicants may reach the point at which they qualify for settlement, assuming they meet the relevant requirements. If the Government intends to reduce the number of people who can qualify under future rules, the timing and transitional arrangements could determine how many people are affected.
Reform UK home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf accused Ms Mahmood of having “capitulated to Labour’s open-borders zealots”.
He also blamed internal Labour disagreements for the delay, claiming that thousands more people would receive ILR as a result.
Those comments reflect Reform UK’s political position on immigration. They do not establish that the Home Secretary has abandoned the proposals or that disagreements within Labour are the sole reason for the lack of a published decision.
The Home Office’s stated position is that it is considering the responses received during the consultation on elements of the reforms. Until ministers publish a fuller response and explain their next steps, it remains unclear exactly how the final arrangements will differ from the proposals initially presented.
Welfare concerns and the public finances
A central part of the political argument concerns whether migrants granted settlement can access public services and benefits.
Indefinite leave to remain removes the time limit on a person’s immigration permission and can provide access to certain rights that depend on immigration status. However, it does not mean that every recipient automatically qualifies for every benefit or receives social housing.
Eligibility for individual benefits depends on the rules governing that payment, including any residence, income, contribution or other requirements. Access to social housing is also subject to eligibility rules and local allocation policies. NHS access is governed by separate arrangements, and the precise position can depend on a person’s circumstances and the service involved.
These distinctions matter because the debate can easily become simplified into competing claims about who is entitled to public support.
Mr Philp has argued that the proposed reforms are necessary to prevent additional pressure on the welfare system. He has also referred to a potential £10billion saving associated with the changes, a figure that would require the Government to explain its assumptions, the period covered and the specific policies included in the calculation.
Without a detailed published assessment, it is not possible to conclude from the settlement figures alone how much the reforms would save or how much current arrangements cost the taxpayer.
The fiscal impact of immigration depends on a range of factors, including employment, earnings, taxes paid, family circumstances, service use and the wider economic contribution of migrants. Settlement status by itself does not provide a complete picture of an individual’s financial contribution or eligibility for assistance.
For ministers, the task is to explain the evidence behind the proposed changes and show how they would affect public spending without relying on assumptions that treat all migrants as having identical circumstances.
The debate also raises broader questions about public confidence. Voters who believe the immigration system is not being managed effectively may demand firmer rules and faster decisions. At the same time, people already living legally in Britain need clarity about the requirements they must meet and the consequences of any changes.
A credible reform programme would need to address both concerns.
Consultation delay fuels uncertainty
The Government’s consultation on the proposed migration reforms received approximately 200,000 responses and closed in February, according to the report. Yet the Home Office has not issued the full response described in the original material.
The delay has intensified questions about when the Government intends to proceed and whether the final policy will differ significantly from its original proposals.
A consultation allows ministers to gather views from affected individuals, employers, organisations and other interested parties before finalising policy. A large number of responses can create a substantial body of evidence to consider, but it does not itself determine what the Government must decide.
The challenge is to demonstrate that the responses have been assessed properly and that the eventual policy has a clear rationale.
The report also states that immigration rules were updated recently without any mention of ILR reform. That omission has added to uncertainty, although it does not prove that the plans have been abandoned. Changes to immigration rules can be made in stages, and the absence of a specific announcement does not establish the Government’s final position.
What remains missing is a clear public timetable. Without one, applicants may struggle to understand whether they will be assessed under the current rules or under a future system, while employers and advisers may find it difficult to plan around possible changes.
For the Government, publishing a response would offer an opportunity to explain the objectives of the reforms, address concerns raised during consultation and clarify how people already in Britain would be treated.
It would also allow Parliament and the public to scrutinise the proposals rather than relying on competing political accusations.
Immigration policy becomes another test for Labour
The dispute over indefinite leave to remain comes at a time when immigration policy is a major test of Labour’s credibility.
The Government has to reconcile its promise to exercise greater control over migration with the practical requirements of an economy that employs foreign workers across a range of industries. It must also determine how to treat people who entered Britain legally and have spent years complying with the conditions of their visas.
For opponents, the reported settlement figures reinforce the argument that ministers need to act quickly. They contend that promises of tighter controls mean little if the existing rules continue to produce large numbers of permanent residents while the reforms remain under consideration.
For Labour, the risk is that an extended delay will be interpreted as evidence that the party cannot agree on its own immigration strategy. Differences between senior figures could make it harder for the Government to present a consistent message and persuade voters that its proposals will be implemented.
However, rushing through complex changes without clear rules could create uncertainty for applicants, employers and the organisations responsible for administering the system. Ministers will need to establish not only what the new requirements should be, but also when they begin and how existing cases are handled.
The reported 1.6 million potential settlement cases between 2026 and 2030 will continue to attract attention, but the eventual number granted ILR will depend on the applicable rules, eligibility and individual applications.
The immediate question is whether Mahmood will publish a response to the consultation and confirm a timetable for reform. Until then, the Government remains exposed to criticism from opponents who say its immigration commitments have not been matched by decisive action.
The controversy is unlikely to disappear simply because ministers announce new rules. The effectiveness of any reforms will ultimately depend on their design, implementation and measurable results.
For now, the latest figures have placed the spotlight firmly on the Home Office. The Government must explain why the changes have taken so long, what the final policy will achieve and how it intends to balance tighter settlement requirements with predictable rules for people who have lived in Britain legally.
Whether Labour can resolve the disagreement and deliver a clear policy may become an important test of its ability to manage one of the most contentious issues in British politics.