Shabana Mahmood signals possible shift on UK care worker settlement plans

Shabana Mahmood has signalled that the UK government could reconsider proposed settlement rules affecting migrant care workers after acknowledging concerns about their fairness. Speaking at Labour conference on 28 September, the home secretary promised a position that balances fairness to people who came to Britain legally with fairness to British citizens. She did not announce a change to the proposal, which could make some workers wait 15 years for permanent residence.

Mahmood said some people had argued that elements of the reforms were unfair. According to The Guardian, sources close to her said no decision had been made on the indefinite leave to remain proposals and that her speech described the principles behind decisions still to come. For workers weighing what the plan could mean for their future in the UK, the length of the eventual qualifying period and any protection for those already here remain unresolved.

What the government proposed

The Home Office’s earned settlement consultation proposed raising the standard qualifying period for settlement from five to 10 years. It also considered a 15-year period for workers in roles below RQF level 6, the equivalent of degree level, including jobs on Skilled Worker and Health and Care routes. The consultation described adjustments that could shorten or lengthen a person’s qualifying period according to specified criteria. Those proposals are distinct from rules already in force.

Settlement, also called indefinite leave to remain, allows a person to live permanently in the UK without a time limit on their stay, according to the Home Office. The consultation proposed applying new requirements to people already in the country who had not yet received that status once immigration rules changed. It said people who had already been granted settled status would keep it. That distinction makes the treatment of existing visa holders central to the dispute.

Pressure over existing workers

Housing Secretary Angela Rayner has criticised the proposed changes. In an interview reported by The Guardian on 26 September, she called them ‘disruptive’ and pointed to workers who had relocated to care for vulnerable people. The newspaper reported that Rayner wanted those already in the UK protected from retrospective application. Her objection focuses on a practical question the government has yet to settle: whether a new qualifying period would apply to workers already building lives here.

UNISON has also called for the longer wait to be dropped. In a statement issued on 14 September, the union’s senior vice-president, Debbie Rowden, urged ministers to rethink a proposal that it said would extend care workers’ wait for settlement from five to 15 years. The union separately wants sponsorship rules changed so migrant care workers are not tied to one employer, arguing that the current arrangement can leave them vulnerable to exploitation.

The Guardian reported ahead of the conference that more than 100 Labour MPs opposed the reforms. It also reported that officials were considering consultation responses and that policy had not been finalised. The scale of that opposition helps explain the attention paid to Mahmood’s wording, but her acknowledgement of criticism does not specify which part of the proposal, if any, ministers will alter.

Why the decision matters

The Home Office linked its settlement plans to an expected rise in applications following recent migration, including arrivals on Health and Care visas. Its consultation projected a central estimate of 1.6 million settlement grants between 2026 and 2030. That number is a forecast, not an outcome, and covers settlement more broadly than care workers alone. The department presented a longer standard wait and different qualifying periods as options for its revised system.

The Home Office also estimated that 616,000 people received Health and Care entry clearance visas between 2022 and 2024. The figure covers visa recipients, including dependants, rather than care workers alone. It helps show why a decision about existing visa holders could reach beyond a small group, while leaving the precise number affected by any eventual rule dependent on its final wording and exemptions.