A political row erupted in June 2026 after Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood demanded the sacking of her own immigration minister, Mike Tapp, for writing an unauthorised newspaper column. The dispute is about a proposed change to visa rules for migrant care workers that would double the time they must work before being allowed to settle in the UK. The row has pitted the Home Secretary against the minister and campaigners, and forced the prime minister to step in.
The basics are straightforward. The government is planning to change the 'leave to remain' timeframe for migrant care workers from five years to ten years. This means that instead of being able to apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years of work, care workers would have to wait ten years. Mike Tapp, the immigration minister, wrote an article in The Times arguing that existing care workers who arrived on care worker visas and have played by the rules should be exempt from this change. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood saw this as "freelancing on policy" and a breach of the Ministerial Code, and asked Prime Minister Keir Starmer to sack Tapp. Starmer declined, saying it is not for a secretary of state to determine breaches of the code, but Tapp was reminded of his obligations.
“Explains the June 2026 political row over UK care worker visa rule changes and their impact.”
The background to this policy lies in wider efforts to control immigration numbers. The government has been tightening visa rules across several sectors, and care workers have been a particular focus because of concerns about exploitation and the number of dependants they bring. However, the proposed change to the settlement period has been widely criticised. Campaign groups such as the Work Rights Centre and Unison have described it as "cruel and unconscionable", pointing out that many care workers came to the UK legally in response to government calls to fill staffing shortages. The visa sponsorship system ties workers to a single employer until they gain indefinite leave to remain, which campaigners say makes them vulnerable to abuse. One care worker from Zimbabwe told the Guardian she was forced to live in a wooden shed and use a bucket as a toilet. The row is therefore not just about ministerial conduct, but about the substance of immigration policy and its impact on vulnerable workers.
For UK readers, this matters because the care sector depends heavily on migrant workers. According to Unison, care workers have "propped up a vital public service". Changing the settlement rules could make it harder to recruit and retain staff, at a time when the health and social care system is already under pressure. It also raises questions about fairness: if the rules change halfway through a worker's five-year journey to settlement, that could be seen as a breach of trust. The political fallout also matters because it reveals divisions within the Labour government over immigration policy, and how the prime minister balances loyalty to his ministers with the need for discipline.
Q: Why did the Home Secretary want to sack Mike Tapp? She believed his unauthorised newspaper article breached the Ministerial Code on collective responsibility and amounted to "freelancing on policy". A Home Office source said he had taken ideas the department was working on and presented them as his own.
Q: What is the current visa rule for care workers that the government wants to change? Currently, migrant care workers can apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years of work. The government plans to double that to ten years, with no grandfathering for those already in the system.
Q: Do campaigners support the change? No—groups like the Work Rights Centre and Unison say it is cruel, will increase exploitation, and is a slap in the face to workers who came legally to prop up the care system.
What happens next is uncertain. Prime Minister Starmer has declined to sack Tapp, but he has been warned about his conduct. The Home Secretary has restricted Tapp's access to sensitive documents and meetings. Meanwhile, the government has not yet announced whether it will proceed with the ten-year rule or make exemptions. Campaigners are calling for the proposal to be dropped entirely, while all eyes are on whether Starmer will take further action to restore unity in his cabinet.