Highlights
- Home Office plans to double settlement waiting time from five to 10 years for most migrant workers.
- Care workers and below-graduate level job holders face 15-year wait under proposed changes.
- 40 Labour MPs describe retrospective approach as "un-British" and "moving the goalposts".
MPs oppose changes
About 40 Labour MPs have raised concerns about the proposals' impact on migrants already residing in Britain, criticising the retrospective approach as "un-British" and "moving the goalposts."
Settlement, also known as indefinite leave, to remain, grants rights to live, work, study in the UK and apply for eligible benefits.
If applied retrospectively, changes could penalise people who arrived under different rules and made life-changing decisions based on existing expectations.
Tony Vaughan, MP for Folkestone and Hythe, told The Guardian "You cannot talk about earning settlement if you keep moving the goalposts after the game has started.
In my view, retrospectivity is un-British and undermines our sense of fair play. It should be abandoned."
Rachael Maskell, York Central MP, warned the reforms risked worsening Britain's skills shortage, stating "The only place where this policy belongs is in the bin."
Family impact
IPPR claims proposals would extend insecurity for families with damaging consequences for integration, educational opportunities and child poverty.
Hundreds of thousands of children could grow up without secure status, limiting future planning abilities. Delayed settlement could restrict higher education access, student finance and stable employment opportunities.
Marley Morris, IPPR associate director for migration, trade and communities, noted "Families who were welcomed to the UK under one set of rules should not have the goalposts moved part way through their journey.
For the 300,000 children affected, this is not an abstract policy change. They face growing up with prolonged insecurity, with many facing new barriers to going to university once they turn 18."
Mahmood told MPs settlement was a "privilege not a right," defending the extension as appropriate for attracting the "brightest and best" people.
