Rayner urges Labour to drop retrospective visa crackdown as conference looms

Housing Secretary Angela Rayner has broken ranks with her own government over planned changes to the UK's visa system, warning that making it harder for foreign workers to gain permanent residency would be unfair and deeply disruptive for people already living and working in Britain. Her intervention comes just days before Labour's annual conference, with ministers braced for internal divisions on immigration policy that was inherited from the previous administration.

Speaking to The Times in an interview published ahead of the conference, Rayner questioned the proposals being developed by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. She said the plans were problematic because they would alter the rules for people who had already made their arrangements on the basis of what was promised when they arrived. Rayner said she "has not changed" her position since returning to the cabinet, and claimed Mahmood was aware of that stance.

The scale of the proposed overhaul is significant. Under the rules being considered, most migrants would need to wait 10 years before qualifying for settlement in the UK, rather than the current five-year minimum. Those holders of health and social care visas would face an even longer wait of 15 years. Mahmood has said a decision on the immigration package will be announced by the end of the year.

Rayner's concerns centre on the retrospective nature of the change. She said she was worried about shifting the goalposts for people who arrived in the UK at the beginning of the decade, having expected to qualify for permanent residence under the rules in force at the time. She described the potential switch as "very disruptive", and singled out foreign care workers who had relocated to Britain to look after relatives and loved ones — a group she argued had already committed themselves to the country.

The criticism carries extra weight because of where it comes from. Rayner previously served as deputy prime minister under Sir Keir Starmer, and was brought back into the cabinet by Prime Minister Andy Burnham in July, meaning she is now a serving Labour minister publicly challenging a policy the government has been actively developing. Observers noted that it is unusual for a member of the cabinet to question an existing government proposal on the eve of the party's flagship conference, even one carried over from a previous administration.

Before he became prime minister, Burnham said he understood where Rayner was coming from, telling reporters in June that Labour "would do well to listen" to her. The housing secretary had already objected in the same month, saying that changing the rules retrospectively for migrants already working in Britain would be "wrong". Her position therefore appears settled rather than opportunistic.

The pressure on Mahmood extends beyond Rayner. York Central Labour MP Rachael Maskell has also called for a rethink, telling the BBC's Today programme that the proposal was the "wrong set of values" both technically and morally. She said it would penalise people who had come to Britain to serve faithfully only to be told they must wait another decade for citizenship. In recent weeks, trade unions have pressed ministers to soften the plans, and a letter to Mahmood jointly signed by dozens of Labour MPs at the start of the year described them as "un-British".

Not everyone in the party accepts that framing. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, appearing on Today, rejected the accusation. She said there has never been an automatic right to citizenship for most people arriving from overseas, and argued the home secretary was attempting to balance respect for people "regardless of who they are or where they stand" with the need for an immigration system the public has confidence in. Asked whether Labour could change its mind, Nandy said the party always reserves the right to do so, but would equally "reserve the right to stick to our plans" if ministers believe they are right.

Significantly, Nandy stopped short of a full-throated defence of applying the new rules retroactively to those already in the UK. Instead, she focused on fairness to people who have contributed to the country and on not changing the rules of the game in a way that unfairly disadvantages migrants. Analysts suggested the culture secretary's framing — talking about treating people "fairly and decently as human beings" while maintaining a system people can trust — amounted to a hint that the government might be reconsidering, even if it stopped short of an explicit retreat.

That retreat would have a concrete effect. If the government did rule out applying the longer timelines to those who arrived from 2021, the large cohort who entered the UK after that date would retain a quicker and easier route to settlement. That is precisely the dividing line the Conservatives and Reform UK are expected to exploit, framing any softening as a break with a commitment to reduce net migration.

Mahmood has already faced questioning about the issue during an appearance before the Home Affairs Committee earlier this month. She said she was "very aware" that, absent a change, a large group of people who arrived in 2022 would qualify for permanent settlement in February 2027. She added that the new settlement policy — including any transitional arrangements — would be set out later this year, indicating the final design is still being worked on.

The dispute therefore remains live with roughly a month until the government sets out its decision, and a conference to negotiate at in the meantime. Rayner's intervention places a question squarely in front of the party: whether fairness to individuals who have already built lives in Britain outweighs the political pressure to deliver a visibly tougher immigration stance. Both sides of that argument are now being made openly within Labour ranks, and the outcome is likely to be settled before the policy is formally published at the end of the year.