Labour MP Tony Vaughan has backed Angela Rayner’s criticism of proposals that could make many migrant care workers wait 15 years to qualify for permanent settlement. He warns that changing the rules for people already caring for families in Britain would be unfair and could harm social care.
Vaughan, the MP for Folkestone and Hythe, said workers who came to the UK to look after vulnerable people should not face a 15-year wait. “It is economically and morally wrong and will damage our health and social care system,” he wrote in a social media post supporting Rayner. Those are Vaughan’s warnings about a proposal, not an assessment of rules already in force.
He also drew on his family’s experience. His mother came from the Philippines in the 1970s and worked in care, he said. Vaughan wrote that his family’s experience today had reinforced his understanding of “the critical role that carers play and how much we need them”.
A dispute over changing the rules
Under the Home Office’s earned settlement proposals, the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain would rise from five to ten years. The consultation also proposed a 15-year period for people in Skilled Worker roles below degree-equivalent level, a category that includes many care workers. It would be inaccurate to say that every person on a Health and Care visa would automatically face the same 15-year route.
A central point of contention is what happens to people already in Britain. The Home Office consultation acknowledges that, without transitional arrangements, new rules would affect people who had begun a route to settlement but had not yet secured it. It sought views on whether protections should be introduced for them. No final decision on those protections has been published.
Rayner has maintained her objection to changing the terms for care workers who moved to Britain under the existing system. In comments reported ahead of Labour conference, she said asking people to relocate to care for vulnerable residents and then “changing the goalposts years down the line” was disruptive.
Pressure from the labour movement
The argument extends beyond individual Labour figures. A motion brought to TUC Congress by Unison called for no retrospective application of settlement changes and for the five-year route to be retained for workers. The union argues that a prolonged dependence on work sponsorship could leave migrant care staff more vulnerable to exploitation.
The government’s stated aim is to make settlement depend more closely on a person’s contribution and to reduce future settlement numbers. Vaughan and Rayner’s challenge is narrower and immediate: whether it is fair to impose a substantially longer wait on carers who came here expecting to qualify under the existing rules.
That question remains open while ministers decide the final policy. For the workers affected, the answer on transitional protection will matter as much as the headline qualifying period.
