Trade unions are mounting pressure on the government to reconsider proposed changes to immigration rules that would significantly extend the time foreign workers must wait to obtain permanent residency in the United Kingdom.
Under the plans, the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain would rise from five years to ten years for most migrants. Foreign workers employed in health and social care would face an even longer 15-year wait, while those who have relied on benefits for more than 12 months would be required to wait 20 years. Indefinite leave to remain grants individuals the right to live, work and study in the UK indefinitely and to access benefits if eligible.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced the proposals last year and retained her position under new Prime Minister Andy Burnham. On 5 March 2026, Mahmood outlined the settlement changes as part of a wider immigration speech, stating the qualifying period should move "as a norm" from five years to ten, with higher English-language standards also applying. Rule changes from this package took effect from 26 March 2026.
At the Trades Union Congress (TUC), delegates unanimously passed a motion calling for any changes affecting workers already in the UK to be withdrawn. The government has received 200,000 responses to the consultation on the proposals, which closed on 12 February 2026, and ministers said they were carefully considering the feedback.
Why are unions concerned about the changes?
Unions argue the proposals would create a two-tier system that undervalues public service workers while potentially fast-tracking higher earners. Debbie Rowden, senior vice president of Unison, the UK's largest union, highlighted the disparity in settlement timelines:
"The government wants to give bankers a three-year route to settlement, but social care workers will be kept waiting for 15 years. The same for nursing auxiliaries, theatre nurses, health care assistants, children's residential care workers, probation service workers and more."
Rowden questioned what the policy communicated about how the country values public service workers, asking:
"What does this say about the soul of the country, when health and social care is seen as being a low contributor, but bankers as the highest?"
According to Unison, the proposals would be retrospective, meaning they would apply to migrants already living in the UK, including those who had been expecting to obtain permanent residence in the coming months. Some Labour MPs, including housing secretary Angela Rayner, have also criticised the application of the changes to people already in the country.
How would this affect NHS and care sector staffing?
The Society of Radiographers warned that extending settlement timelines would worsen existing workforce shortages in critical sectors. The union noted that international technician numbers had previously filled significant gaps in NHS workforces, but numbers fell by more than 1,500—a 12% decline—between January and March this year because "the goalposts had moved" on settlement.
Unison argued the policy would drive away international staff despite acute shortages in roles such as care work, where the qualification period would treble from five to 15 years. The union contended that the extended wait would make the UK a less attractive destination for healthcare and social care professionals seeking to build permanent lives in the country.
What has the government said?
Mahmood has previously defended the proposals, stating that the "unprecedented" number of people arriving in the UK demands a government response. A government spokesperson confirmed that ministers had received 200,000 consultation responses and were carefully considering them before making final decisions.
When Burnham was Greater Manchester mayor, before becoming Prime Minister, he indicated openness to concerns raised by Rayner, who was then a backbench MP. Rayner, herself a former care worker, had labelled the proposals "un-British" and warned that "moving the goalposts undermines our sense of fair play." Burnham said at the time that Labour "would do well to listen to what Angela has to say."
Who would be affected?
The changes would not apply to people who have already obtained settlement but would cover people currently living in the UK. This includes those who had been expecting to qualify for permanent residence in the coming months under the existing five-year rule.
The policy represents part of a broader immigration crackdown that also tightened routes for asylum and visa policy. Ministers had previously been considering transitional arrangements for people already on a route to settlement, though the consultation also examined whether the new rules should apply to migrants already in the country.
What happens next?
The government indicated in February that it was still considering the consultation responses on the settlement changes following the 200,000 submissions received. No timeline has been announced for when final decisions on the proposals will be made public.
Key Facts
- The standard wait for indefinite leave to remain would increase from 5 years to 10 years under the government's proposals
- Health and social care workers would face a 15-year wait, while those relying on benefits for over 12 months would wait 20 years
- The TUC unanimously backed a motion calling for changes affecting workers already in the UK to be withdrawn
- The government received 200,000 consultation responses, which closed on 12 February 2026, and is considering the feedback
- Some Labour MPs, including housing secretary Angela Rayner, have criticised applying the changes retrospectively to migrants already in the country
