Angela Rayner has insisted that Labour is united over immigration, despite publicly raising concerns about plans that could make some migrants wait much longer before they can settle permanently in the UK.
The Housing Secretary faced questions about the issue after she again criticised parts of Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s proposed immigration reforms. Her comments came as Labour gathered for its party conference, putting fresh attention on whether senior figures in the Government agree on how tough the immigration system should be.
Rayner has been particularly concerned about how changes could affect people who came to Britain to work in the care sector. She argued that many of these workers were encouraged to come to the UK at a time when the country needed people to look after elderly and vulnerable patients.
Speaking about the issue, Rayner said she was especially concerned about carers who had moved their lives to Britain and spent years working in the care system, only to potentially face different settlement conditions from those they expected when they arrived.
She said changing the rules years after people had arrived could be very disruptive for workers who had already built their lives in Britain.
Her intervention attracted attention because she had previously described aspects of the proposed changes as “un-British”. However, when questioned about whether her criticism showed a disagreement inside Labour, Rayner rejected the suggestion.
She said Mahmood had opened a consultation on transitional arrangements and argued that the Home Secretary was trying to create a system that treated fairly both people already contributing to Britain and those arriving in the future.
Rayner said she had contributed her own views to that consultation and stressed that she supported Mahmood in her role.
She also rejected claims that Labour ministers were having a public fight over immigration. According to Rayner, what was happening was a wider conversation about how Britain’s immigration system should operate rather than a serious split within the Government.
The argument is particularly important for foreign health and care workers because permanent settlement can determine whether someone is able to build a long-term future in Britain.
Under the current published Health and Care Worker visa guidance, eligible workers may be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years if they meet the requirements. Indefinite leave to remain allows a person to live and work in Britain without the normal time limit attached to a temporary visa.
The proposed reforms being debated would significantly change that journey for some workers. Reports say the plans would increase the standard settlement period for foreign social care workers from five years to 15 years, although different groups could face different requirements.
One of the most controversial questions is what should happen to people who are already in Britain. Rayner’s concern is that workers who arrived under an earlier system may have made major decisions about their jobs, homes and families based on the immigration rules that existed at the time.
She argued that carers deserve particular consideration because Britain actively relied on overseas workers to fill important vacancies in the social care system.
The immigration rules affecting care workers have already changed considerably. Since 22 July 2025, new overseas applications for care worker and senior care worker jobs have been closed, although transitional arrangements allow some people already in Britain to continue using the route under certain conditions.
That wider background has made the settlement debate even more important for workers who arrived before the rules changed.
Despite her concerns, Rayner made clear that she did not see herself as fighting against the Home Secretary. Instead, she presented her comments as an attempt to influence how the final policy treats people who are already living and working in Britain.
Mahmood, meanwhile, has been pursuing broader changes to the immigration system, including tougher settlement requirements and measures the Government says are intended to ensure that migrants contribute and integrate before receiving permanent status.
The disagreement over how existing migrants should be treated is therefore likely to remain an important part of the immigration debate.
For thousands of workers who have already spent years building lives in Britain, the details of any transitional rules could make a major difference. The key question will be whether people already on a route towards permanent residence remain under arrangements similar to those they originally expected, or whether some of the tougher requirements will also apply to them.
Rayner’s comments show that this question is being debated even among senior Labour figures. But she continues to insist that those discussions do not amount to a split in the Government and says she remains supportive of Mahmood as the Home Secretary develops the reforms.
