Shabana Mahmood’s migrant visa plan is flawed, says Angela Rayner
Angela Rayner has criticised Shabana Mahmood’s proposal to make it harder for foreign workers to obtain permanent residence in the UK, describing it as unfair to overseas care workers who were invited to support vulnerable people. The policy is facing opposition from Andy Burnham, at least 100 Labour MPs and trade unions, creating potential tensions within the party.
Around 185,000 overseas care workers were recruited between 2022 and 2024, before recruitment from abroad was halted last year as part of efforts to reduce net migration. Burnham has also blamed Brexit for weakened cooperation with European neighbours over Channel crossings, contradicting Mahmood’s earlier view that Brexit was not responsible; Conservative Chris Philp dismissed Burnham’s argument as an attempt to deflect blame.
- Rayner says the proposed visa changes unfairly alter expectations for care workers.
- Labour MPs, unions and reportedly Burnham oppose parts of the plan.
- The dispute adds to wider disagreements over migration and Brexit.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The United Kingdom faces sustained pressure on public services, housing, and integration capacity, requiring careful management of migration levels. Supporters of stricter permanent residence requirements argue this represents fair and transparent policy: the state should be explicit upfront about settlement prospects, allowing overseas workers to make informed decisions about accepting positions. Setting clear limits on permanent settlement whilst welcoming temporary workers to address specific labour gaps reflects the public mandate to reduce net migration and allows the country to prioritise training domestic talent.
The case against
Care workers were actively recruited by the UK government and healthcare providers specifically to address a critical staffing crisis—they came at Britain's invitation, not of their own initiative seeking to settle. Critics argue it is fundamentally unfair to retroactively change the terms of settlement for workers already serving in essential roles, particularly given that alternative domestic recruitment has proved insufficient. These workers have made significant life decisions and become integral to the care sector; denying them a reasonable path to permanence after years of service breaks an implicit social contract and risks deterring future recruitment when the NHS and social care continue facing acute shortages.