The most significant survivor of Andy Burnham’s brutal cabinet reshuffle on his first day at Number 10 was our Home Secretary. For those working in administrative law, especially those working in immigration, this gives us a strong indication that while our new Prime Minister boasts of ushering in the most significant change in four decades, he may not be deviating significantly from his predecessor’s path. At least not when it comes to that constant political football, immigration.
After speculation of a move to the Treasury, Shabana Mahmood’s continued residence in Marsham Street is a signal that a change of PM is unlikely to spell a major U-turn in immigration policy. Mahmood is reportedly keen to stay put for now to ensure that the overhaul of immigration rights such as asylum and settlement that she set in motion will not be derailed by those expressing concerns in her party.
The new PM appears keen for Mahmood to see her controversial immigration reforms through. However, he also told the BBC in his first major broadcast interview since becoming PM on Panorama this week that people would expect him to “bring a new pair of eyes to these issues and find where the fairness is.”
So, what changes can practitioners realistically expect under Burnham?
Taking on Reform
Andy Burnham’s first major challenge was seeing off the Reform UK candidate in the Makerfield by-election, thereby returning to Parliament and clearing his path to Number 10. Predictably and sadly, taking on Reform involved soundbites about net migration needing to “fall further” and supporting the broad thrust of Shabana Mahmood’s draconian measures to ensure they do, rather than pointing out they are already plummeting, or challenging Reform’s major shtick that immigration is a problem to be reckoned with.
Burnham, who as Greater Manchester Mayor declared the city was “proud to welcome people seeking asylum and refugees" and condemned "divisive rhetoric," told BBC Radio Manchester during the Makerfield campaign that Britain needs "greater use of detention" and that he agreed with Nigel Farage that the country needs to "get back to a sense of order," complaining of the lack of consent from local authorities over hosting asylum seekers.
While some commentators will now expect him to pursue policies to see off the anti-immigrant opposition party, as our new PM, Burnham is now in a very strong position to pursue the change he has trumpeted. Labour is enjoying a turnaround in recent polling, and his party certainly wouldn’t want to depose another party leader before the next election. He certainly has room to manoeuvre when it comes to immigration policies which clash with some of his biggest stated aims, such as ending rough sleeping and sorting out social care. As Mayor, Burnham often called for an end to the no recourse to public funds regime, which has since 1999 prevented people moving to the UK from accessing benefits or public housing before they are granted settled status. He also recognised the impact on homelessness of moving people out of asylum accommodation without enough notice. Burnham has now been reported to recognise the devastating effect on social care if care workers are not exempt from “earned settlement” proposals that would mean many more visa applications before they are allowed to settle.
Earned settlement: the main compromise to watch
The consultation on Shabana Mahmood’s controversial “earned settlement” proposals closed on 12 February with more than 200,000 responses and criticism from charities, faith groups, public bodies and many fellow Labour MPs. The Home Secretary proposed doubling the standard qualifying period for settlement from five to ten years for those in the UK on a route that leads to settlement, with up to 15 years for those in roles below RQF6 (sub‑degree level skillsets) and 20 years for refugees.
The “earned settlement” proposals involve “earning” a shorter route through specified contributions. It is suggested that higher‑rate taxpayers (earning £50,270 or more) and highly skilled public servants could reduce the proposed 10-year period by five years. The Home Secretary also proposes that those on Innovator Founder or Global Talent visas, or earning above £125,140, settle in three years. Community volunteering and higher English language attainment also shorten the route. Lower‑skilled workers, those who break immigration rules or claim public funds face many more years – even decades – of repeat visa applications before they can settle. A six-month period of overstaying, which can happen easily if people misunderstand rules, could add 20 years on top of a 10‑year route.
Some groups – such as those on the EU Settled Status route, certain family members of British citizens and people on the Hong Kong BN(O) scheme – are exempt from the proposed changes. We may now see more exceptions added to these draconian changes. Burnham has promised to “get the balance right” and criticised changes that leave immigrants “in a sense of limbo” eroding social cohesion.
Many expect approximately 1.6 million people already on a route to settlement in the UK to be saved from having the rug pulled out from under their feet. As Housing Secretary Angela Rayner pointed out last month, controlling borders is "completely different" to taking "retrospective action on people who have made a life here". Whether the new PM agrees with her, if only for those who have come to work as care workers, remains to be seen. The whole logic behind the settlement overhaul was to prevent hundreds of thousands of lower paid workers such as care workers from settling and thereby gaining the right to access public funds.
Another meaningful compromise could see most immigrants settle on something closer to the current five-year timeline, with access to public funds deferred for several years afterwards. Attaching a de facto no recourse to public funds condition to indefinite leave to remain (ILR) would require primary legislation, but this could be added as a government amendment to the current Immigration and Asylum Bill.
It’s early days for the Burnham administration, but with changes to settlement expected as soon as this autumn, practitioners should be helping every client who is, or will shortly become, eligible for ILR under current rules to get applications in. Whether or not any transitional arrangements emerge, or a planned overhaul of citizenship follows the settlement changes, an application lodged under today's rules is the safest position available.
The Immigration and Asylum Bill
The Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026 had its First Reading on 30 June and passed Second Reading on 13 July, with Burnham himself voting in favour days before taking office. Despite the rebellion of dozens of Labour MPs, the parliamentary arithmetic held and there is no indication our new PM intends to protect refugee rights from a major overhaul and a new more temporary status. Yet we could expect amendments to the most controversial proposals in the legislation at Committee stage. The House of Commons Public Bill Committee kicks off with oral sessions on 10 September and is due to report back by 3 November. Any practitioners who want to submit written views to the open call for evidence are invited to do so as soon as possible.
We anticipate many will wish to submit suggestions about legislation which is set to merge refugee status and humanitarian protection into more precarious “Core Protection”; restrict Article 8 human rights applications; redefine Modern Slavery Act protections and replace the First-tier Tribunal with an Immigration Appeals Authority with adjudicators who will not require any legal experience. Many will no doubt point out how the Bill’s radical proposals requiring people to pay the state back for the cost of their asylum support are fundamentally at odds with the PM’s aim to tackle destitution.
In the meantime, immigration lawyers are busy helping asylum clients adjust to changes which make their status temporary, contingent on 30-month reviews, with new evidential challenges, route-switching options and long-term planning becoming increasingly relevant to practitioners’ advice.
Work and immigration
There are no signs of the government deviating from Keir Starmer’s flagship Immigration White Paper with its skills-first emphasis on developing the domestic workforce, linking training to work immigration, with a little sympathy for sectors facing genuine shortages. The Migration Advisory Committee’s recent recommendations to drastically cut many desk jobs such as Logistics Managers, Business Development and Marketing occupations from the Temporary Shortage List of middle-skilled jobs that employers can still sponsor are unlikely to be ignored.
However, one of Andy Burnham’s first moves in his new job has been to cancel his predecessor’s Digital ID scheme – a scheme immigration practitioners found particularly pointless, having spent many months advising companies on how to incorporate the new digital eVisa into their right to work checks. Nonetheless, we will still have our hands full advising employers, as the expansion of right to work checks to include checks on self-employed workers and contractors who are not their employees is still due to commence in October.
Copyright & permissions
_takeoff_from_Schiphol_runway_36C.jpeg&w=3840&q=60)
