The UK government has relaxed part of its planned overhaul of the settlement system, easing the path to permanent residency for some social care workers while keeping other contested elements in place. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced the changes in the House of Commons, according to the BBC, and most Labour MPs responded with restrained criticism rather than open revolt.
Under the revised rules, care workers who arrived before May 2025 and earn at least £25,000 a year will be able to apply for settlement after five years. The original proposals, first set out last year, would have made many in this group wait 15 years.
Why it matters
The settlement system determines when migrants can stay in the UK permanently, and the changes affect hundreds of thousands of people. According to the BBC, around 500,000 people will now see their route to settlement delayed under the new plans — down from roughly 800,000 under the original version.
The climbdown also matters politically. The reforms had been viewed inside government as a potential trap, and the decision to soften them tests the authority of both the Home Secretary and the government led by Andy Burnham, who replaced Sir Keir Starmer as prime minister over the summer.
A long-running argument inside Labour
Concerns about the original plans surfaced quickly. When Mahmood first announced her version of the changes last year, a number of Labour MPs — including Angela Rayner, now housing secretary — raised objections, the BBC reports. Despite that, there was a sense that Starmer's government intended to press ahead, and Mahmood repeatedly stressed how important she considered the reforms.
The change of prime minister gave critics renewed hope that two specific elements could be altered. The first was the treatment of social care workers, many of whom faced the 15-year wait. The second was the retrospective application of the rules — the idea that someone who came to the UK expecting to qualify for settlement after five years could later find the threshold moved.
Rayner called that retrospective approach "un-British" and said the government should not be shifting "the goalposts". She returned to the cabinet under Burnham and repeated the criticism in an interview at the Labour Party conference in September, which the BBC describes as evidence that debate at the top of government was still live.
Not all Labour MPs wanted a change. Some, particularly those representing areas that backed Brexit, urged the Home Secretary to hold firm, and some in government worried about handing ammunition to Reform and the Conservatives.
What changed — and what did not
Ministers ultimately watered down the care worker provisions. But the retrospective element that Rayner criticised remains in place, the BBC reports.
In the Commons, the strongest criticism came from Rachael Maskell, who objects to the retrospective rules. Others on the left of the party, including John McDonnell and Diane Abbott, were critical without being harsh. Outside the chamber, the mood among Labour figures was similar. One potential critic said that although they still had concerns, Mahmood had taken the political heat out of the situation for now, and described the campaign by MPs and unions as a "big win" on care worker settlement. They added that they expected to keep hearing from constituents affected by the new rules.
A Number 10 source praised Mahmood's forceful performance in the chamber, said she had "found the right balance", and described the reaction among Labour colleagues as about as good as could be expected.
The Home Secretary still faces opposition from other parties. Her Conservative counterpart, Chris Philp, accused her of a significant U-turn and pointed to her earlier claim that letting care workers reach settlement sooner could cost the UK £10bn. In an interview with the BBC, Mahmood declined to say what financial burden the softened plans would create, and would not confirm whether Burnham had directly asked her to scale them back.
The general view inside government, according to the BBC, is that this particular political hurdle has been cleared.
What to watch: whether the retrospective rules face further pressure from Labour MPs and unions, and how the cost question raised by Philp develops as the details are scrutinised.
