UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has revised her hardline immigration proposals following a backlash from cabinet ministers and health unions, granting a special exemption that allows care workers to apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years.
Revised Settlement Rules and Exceptions
Under the updated policy announced in the House of Commons on Monday, care workers earning more than £25,000 will be able to apply for settlement after five years, a significant reduction from the previously proposed 15-year wait. This exception is estimated to benefit about 280,000 care workers and their dependents. Home Office officials calculate that approximately 500,000 migrants will still face extended waits beyond the current five-year standard.
Meanwhile, highest earners making more than £125,000 will be able to settle within three years. Individuals earning over £50,271 alongside certain public service workers—including doctors, nurses, and teachers—will retain a five-year path to settlement. However, the wait for those earning under £50,000 will double to 10 years, drawing criticism from Labour MPs who noted that vital personnel like research scientists and chefs would be impacted.
Refugees will also face a 10-year wait, alongside an additional 10-year penalty for those who enter the country unlawfully. Individuals who fail to secure employment may face a wait of up to three years, and most refugees will be barred from settlement if they access public funds, with limited exceptions for designated safe and legal routes.
Political and Public Reaction
The revised policies drew swift criticism from the opposition, with Conservative politicians and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage condemning the package. The shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, claimed the carve-out for care workers would cost the country up to £10 billion, while other Conservatives argued that the previous administration was partly responsible for the rise in numbers.
Several Labour backbenchers also voiced concerns over the retrospective nature of the rule changes. Sheffield Central MP Abtisam Mohamed and Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy both criticized the uncertainty created for migrants already living in the UK. Former shadow home secretary Diane Abbott warned that turning residency rights upside down risks repeating a Windrush-style scandal.
Defending the changes in parliament, Mahmood stated that residency rights must be earned rather than granted automatically. Unison general secretary Andrea Egan welcomed the avoidance of original plans she called “morally bankrupt,” though she noted that employment disruptions caused by rogue employers could still present hurdles for workers.
Business groups likewise warned that retroactively changing the rules would damage the UK’s ability to retain international talent. The CBI and Make UK suggested that the reforms could impose higher costs on businesses and drive skilled workers toward competing nations.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer endorsed the broader agenda, emphasizing an immigration framework built on control and contribution. The reforms do not require a parliamentary vote, leaving lawmakers with limited options to block them.
