Govt's proposal to reform settlement policy (incl requiring care workers to wait 15yrs before they can settle) will not save £10bn, as they previously suggested
@jdportes.bsky.social new analysis of govt's own (prev unreleased) data suggests actual saving would be £600m - a substantial difference 👇
For people receiving social care, it remains confusing. In the same care home, residents might have more or less rights due to differences in how care was arranged of funded. It’s time for this gap to be closed as well.
Read Care Rights UK’s explainer for more: www.carerightsuk.org/news/protect...
Both personally & having worked in health/care policy, I’ve seen the importance of human rights protections in this sector - it protects people in cases of abuse & neglect, upholds people's autonomy, to stay connected with family & more
This is such an important development, but gaps still remain
Under the law, ‘public authorities’ have human rights duties - but who are 'authorities' when some public services are delivered by the state & others by private providers
This change plugs the gap - at least for people receiving mental health aftercare services or treatment funded/arranged by NHS
Until this month, people receiving NHS-funded mental health treatment from a private provider were not protected under the Human Rights Act
If this care was delivered directly by the NHS, they would have been. But because the NHS-funded care was delivered by a private provider, they were excluded
The good news is that this govt has changed the law via the the Mental Health Act 2025 and closed the loophole that had left some patients receiving state-funded mental health care unprotected
Too often now the debate about human rights protections has been dominated by accusations of overreach or abuse of these safeguards & protections
But what about when these rights are absent?
This week, there’s been an important step forward as the govt closes a gap in human rights protection 👏
🧵
QUNO in Geneva is #NowHiring Programme Assistants for the 2026-2027 term! This opportunity introduces emerging professionals to work within the UN system and the guidance of Quaker values. Apply by 8 May: quno.org/newsroom/applications-ar...
Important point of clarification 👇
There was already a proposed carve out for many public sector workers in the original proposal, so to offer this group an accelerated route would not be a concession.
Care workers & others would still face 15yr route, refugees 20yrs etc
With the Home Sec announcing a new community sponsorship scheme, Hannah shares what's 'new' in what the Home Sec has promised and what the opportunity is - from govt devolving power & working in partnership with communities to building public consent
Read more 👇
💥 Today @futuregovforum.bsky.social launches our new three-year strategy 💥
Our work on asylum & migration will continue - exploring how we can deliver a more effective approach to asylum & migration that sustains greater public confidence and remains consistent with int. law & progressive values
👇
*Job opportunity*
We're looking for someone to lead our strategic legal work, using legal cases to benefit families and children in poverty.
Please share with anyone who might be interested: cpag.org.uk/jobs/current...
A few thoughts on earned settlement after a busy week.
(1) Govt is going through consultation after over 200,000 people responded, far higher than other consultations of this type.
This means there is still a lot up for grabs to shape the policy, including transitional measures.
The latest Parliament Matters podcast includes a look at how changes to immigration are, or rather, aren’t, scrutinised by parliament.
It’s probably not a surprise that I really enjoyed being able to join the conversation.
2. Exemptions for public sector workers
Some suggestions in press that govt might exclude public sector workers from the changes
Govt has already proposed that some public sector workers would get accelerated access to settlement in 5 years. This was part of the original proposal.
Flowchart of government's earned settlement proposal
Govt has also proposed penalties which would extend the qualifying period - when these are factored in, some migrants will qualify only after 35 years
Headline change is "5 to 10 years", but in reality many will wait much longer under these plans
1. Longer route to settlement - but how long?
Govt has proposed extending qualifying period from 5 to 10yrs as standard, but 15y for "lower skilled" migrants (eg care workers) and 20y for refugees
On earned settlement reforms, some suggestion in press reports that govt could be looking to 'ease impact' of policy changes
But there seems to be some confusion in the current debate about what exactly has been proposed
Quick check 🧵
And good point from @josephinewy.bsky.social that these estimates are likely conservative as analysis looked only at children with parents on work visas - true impact could be higher
bsky.app/profile/jose...
Govt's plans to double (or more) the length of time it takes for migrants to qualify for settlement in the UK risks exacerbating child poverty, according to new analysis by @ippr.org
Poverty will be prolonged for 60,000-90,000 children of foreign workers by 2029
www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/...
Fantastic news 👏👏👏
I don't have exact numbers but 71% of the workforce are British www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-...
Other estimates are similar - suggesting migrant workers make up around a third of the workforce
Yes, good point about wider economic cost/benefit. Skills for Care's analysis of the sector & workforce is interesting here, eg finding that social care contributed £77.8 billion to the economy in 2024/25
www.skillsforcare.org.uk/news-and-eve....
Terrific piece here by my @futuregovforum.bsky.social colleague @emilyagraham.bsky.social as the Home Secretary announces a(nother) tough line on asylum.
Emily points out why this is a gamble; and that there are progressive alternatives available...
futuregovforum.substack.com/p/the-home-s...
The statement of changes to the immigration rules www.gov.uk/government/p... and the written statement (which goes wider than the rules changes) are now out questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-stat...
Mahmood is right that without change asylum is 'in jeopardy' - public trust is eroded & our system is seen as chaotic & unfair
So what's the answer? Uphold the 1951 Refugee Convention. But deliver on rights in a new way: allow someone fleeing persecution to apply for asylum before they reach the UK
The US is a cautionary tale here: Trump has effectively ended asylum in the US, choosing instead to offer protection only to white Afrikaners via a discretionary scheme.
Safe & legal routes are important - sanctuary is pre-arranged & journeys safe - but not as an alternative to asylum
The difference might seem academic but this would return us to the 1930s, when sanctuary was a privilege, not a right, & governments could pick & choose who to help (& who not)
In the Home Sec's speech at @ippr.org today, she reiterated her aim of shifting away from asylum, and to safe & legal routes.
This is a paradigm shift. So what's at stake?
substack.com/home/post/p-...
You’re right in that this is a point of principle for the Home Sec which is that assessment of protection need should happen before arrival - but I don’t think it’s decided if that will be UNHCR or done in another way (or at least not public confirmed that’s the case)