PM set to announce new visa rules to 'tighten up' migration system
Migrants will be told they need to spend up to a decade in the UK before they can apply for citizenship and English language requirements will be increased as part of the Government's immigration crackdown.
Sir Keir Starmer will promise to 'tighten up' all elements of the system as ministers look to bring down net figures, but are facing pushback against plans to stop foreign recruitment of care workers.
The Prime Minister is expected to say that 'enforcement will be tougher than ever and migration numbers will fall' as a result of the policies in the Immigration White Paper, set to be unveiled on Monday.
Meanwhile, the Home Secretary has been warned that plans to stop overseas recruitment for care worker visas are 'cruel', and the head of a nursing union is expected to accuse the Government of 'pandering and scapegoating' with the policy.
Yvette Cooper said on Sunday that the overseas recruitment for care worker visas will be stopped, as part of plans to reduce 'lower-skilled' visas by 'up to 50,000' in the next year.
Sir Keir has also hinted at a tightening up of the rules around the right to a family life for foreign offenders looking to evade deportation, telling The Sun newspaper 'if you break British law, you give up your right to be here'.
Under the white paper proposals, migrants will have to spend 10 years in the UK before being able to apply for citizenship, but so-called 'high-contributing' individuals such as doctors and nurses could be fast-tracked through the system.
Language requirements will be increased for all immigration routes to ensure a higher level of English.
Rules will also be laid out for adult dependants, meaning that they will have to demonstrate a basic understanding of the language.
Meanwhile skilled worker visas will require a university degree, and there will be tighter restrictions on recruitment for jobs with skills shortages.
Ministers are looking to bring down net migration figures, which stood at 728,000 in the year to mid-2024.
'Every area of the immigration system, including work, family and study, will be tightened up so we have more control,' the Prime Minister is expected to say on Monday.
'Enforcement will be tougher than ever and migration numbers will fall.'
He will say that the system under the reforms will be 'controlled, selective and fair', and will recognise 'those who genuinely contribute to Britain's growth and society, while restoring common sense and control to our borders'. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper speaks during the Organised Immigration Crime Summit in London in March. / Credit: AP
Ms Cooper told Sky News On Sunday that 'we will be closing the care worker visa for overseas recruitment'.
Under current rules, to qualify for a care worker visa a person must have a certificate of sponsorship from their employer with information about the role they have been offered in the UK.
The Home Secretary told the BBC the rules around the system will change to 'prevent' it being used 'to recruit from abroad' but 'we will allow them to continue to extend visas and also to recruit from more than 10,000 people who came on a care worker visa, where the sponsorship visa was cancelled'.
The head of a nursing union is expected to criticise the decision in a keynote speech on Monday.
Prof Nicola Ranger, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing will tell its annual congress that the Government's plans are about 'pandering and scapegoating'.
'The UK is so reliant on overseas colleagues, especially in social care.
'The Government has no plan to grow a domestic workforce.
'This is about politics – pandering and scapegoating.
'It should be about people,' she will say.
'We need an immigration system that works for care staff, nurses and the people who rely on them.'
Care England's chief executive Martin Green earlier labelled the Government's plans as 'cruel'.
The plans come less than a fortnight after Reform UK surged to victory in local council elections across England, a result that deputy leader Richard Tice has said was 'because people are raging, furious, about the levels of both legal and illegal immigration'.
The Conservatives have said that the Prime Minister is 'trying to take steal credit for recent substantial reductions in visa numbers that resulted from Conservative reforms in April 2024'.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp added: 'Starmer is the same man who wrote letters protesting against deporting dangerous foreign criminals and has overseen the worst ever start to a year for illegal immigrants crossing the channel.
'The idea that Starmer is tough on immigration is a joke.'
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
28 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Fury as BA calls Falkland Islands capital by its ARGENTINIAN name in ‘ludicrous and insulting' blunder
Falklands war veterans slammed the error, which BA promised to investigate FALKLANDS FURY Fury as BA calls Falkland Islands capital by its ARGENTINIAN name in 'ludicrous and insulting' blunder BRITISH Airways has been branded disgraceful for using the Argentinian name for the capital of the Falklands Islands on in-flight entertainment screens. The UK's flag carrier airline refers to Port Stanley as Puerto Argentino. Advertisement 3 Port Stanley is the Falkland Islands' only city Credit: Rex 3 255 British military personnel died in the 74-day conflict in 1982 Credit: Getty The British title is relegated to a set of brackets underneath. Ed West, of The Spectator magazine, spotted the blunder and said: 'Curious wording for a British Airways in-flight map.' Last night, BA promised to investigate as the error was described as 'ludicrous' and 'insulting' by Falklands war veterans. Argentina still claims sovereignty but its invading forces lost the 74-day conflict in 1982. Advertisement British forces scrambled halfway around the world to put down General Leopoldo Galtieri's troops after they took Port Stanley in a surprise raid. This Saturday is the 43rd anniversary of Britain's victory. Former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during the war, said the name error was 'disrespectful' to islanders. He told The Sun: 'It's disgraceful. Advertisement 'The Falklands are a British overseas territory and 99.9 per cent of islanders want to stay British. 'We have said very clearly there will be no discussions about sovereignty. The New British Airways First Class Seat 'For the flag carrier airline to give Port Stanley another name is unforgivable.' Lord West, whose HMS Ardent was sunk by Argentine forces, added: 'I don't know why they would do it. Advertisement 'Everyone on the Falkland Islands calls it Port Stanley. 'They should change it back as soon as possible. 'This is insulting to the population of Port Stanley.' In all, 255 British personnel lost their lives defending the islands. Advertisement In 2017 Argentina's senate voted to rename Port Stanley as Puerto Argentino and celebrate Sovereignty Day there if it is ever recaptured. The in-flight map shows only the names of world capitals and not countries' names. It means BA does not reference the Falklands by its Argentinian name Islas Malvinas. British Airways' parent company, International Airlines Group, is based in Spain. Advertisement A BA spokeswoman said: 'We are grateful this has been brought to our attention. 'We'll be reviewing it with the third party supplier that provides the in-flight map service.'
The Sun
44 minutes ago
- The Sun
Tinkering with smartphone rules won't save our kids – the damage they do means we must BAN them now
Sophie Winkleman, Actress and campaigner Published: Invalid Date, ARE we finally witnessing the tide turning against kids' use of smartphones? Head teachers are now calling for a limit on children's screen time and the government is considering an 'app curfew.' 2 2 The government's Technology Secretary Peter Kyle has said he wants to 'break some of the addictive behaviour' of the online world. Okay B+ for effort Peter but could try harder. 'Some' was your downfall. There's no such thing as temperance when it comes to smartphones. They're unputdownable. A two-hour cap on each app is better than nothing but with Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok being just three of children's favourite brain-melters this is already six hours of social media before they've even got out their homework. The idea of a curfew with a 10pm cut-off point is also a good one but come on, go tougher on the app limits - make it a two-hour total - or, grow a pair and illegalise social media for the Under 16s. None of them would miss it and they might actually meet up with a friend, kick a football around or read a book. The 'nanny state' has a bad rap as a concept, and quite rightly when it comes to adults - let us do what we want please. But when children are malfunctioning this seriously a nanny state is exactly what we need. We parents are doing our best, but we just can't do it alone. Peer pressure is immense. What parent hasn't felt cruel denying their child a phone to 'keep up with friends' and ended up surrendering? 'It was so loud,' ex teacher says banning phones transformed school overnight But smartphones are turning fun-loving and inquisitive children into hollow addicts the minute they get hold of them. The premise that smartphones are 'connecting' our children in a positive fashion is false. Because rather than playing with their friends or family they are alone in the rooms with their phones. The Sun's revelation last week that a Year 6 primary school student received 9,000 messages on Whatsapp over a 15 hour period reveals exactly what we are up against. The stats are truly horrific. More than a million British children per year are referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services Services, the vast majority suffering from severe depression, anxiety, self-harm, eating disorders and suicidal behaviour. Conspiracy theories It is not surprising when they are subject to graphic images of real murders, massacres and terrifyingly violent porn, algorithms feeding on their insecurities and sending them more and more damaging content. Children are encouraged to take part in potentially lethal games and challenges, resulting in many accidental deaths. Girls are told that anorexia is empowering then sent starvation tips and 'how to make mum think you've eaten your dinner' pointers. Children are fed conspiracy theories, radicalising their eager young minds, they're connected to gang members in their area, they're groomed, sextorted, preyed on and they're even told how to kill themselves. While government action is welcome, none of the restrictions suggested go nearly far enough. Why can't we get tough like Australia and New Zealand and ban social media for the Under 16s? Why can't we get tough like Australia and New Zealand and ban social media for the Under 16s? Or the 16 US states which have done the same thing? Or France - where all pornography users now have to verify their age using government ID or a credit card. Britain was meant to lead the way in child safety with the Online Safety Act. But Ofcom, responsible for implementing the legislation, is just not as tough as many international regulators. Or why can't we ban smartphones for the Under 16s and come up with a brand new product - a child-appropriate, safe phone with limited app functionality for things like banking and travel, simple calls and texts? Also UK, just STOP IT with the EdTech (educational technology)!!! We don't want our kids drowning in screen time during class and for their homework!! Sure, teach them how to use AI judiciously in senior school but no more of these silly apps masquerading as educational PLEASE. Doctors advise that children up to 17 should not be spending more than 1-2 hours a day on any form of screen. Schools have a responsibility to heed this advice. Not only is too much screen time bad for children's eyesight but it damages their sleep rhythms, their hormones, their spinal health and their attention spans. Bill Gates himself has admitted that 'devices have a lousy record in the classroom'. Steve Jobs didn't let his own kids have iPads. UNESCO found that children who used computers frequently in the classroom did a 'lot worse' academically than their book-based peers. A massive study by educational researcher John Jerrim showed that students who revised for academic tests by reading books and handwriting outperformed their computer-based counterparts twenty times over - the equivalent of six months of extra school!! Sweden has kicked screens out of the classroom, reverting to books, pen and paper. They called EdTech a 'failed experiment' Sweden has kicked screens out of the classroom, reverting to books, pen and paper. They called EdTech a 'failed experiment'. Many Big Tech employees in the US send their children to low or no-tech schools such as the Waldorf School of the Peninsula in California. So why does our government continue to listen to social media and EdTech firms when they argue that their products are good for our children? Where is the clinical evidence? Because few children or parents believe it. I have spoken to countless teens around the country and they all say that they're only on social media 'because everyone else is'. Most would love to be liberated from it all and free to learn, relax, have fun and sleep well. A survey last year found that 77 percent of parents wanted a smartphone ban for under 16s. Saving our youngest, most vulnerable minds from these corrosive devices is a vote-winner. Come on, Peter Kyle. Must do better. Teachers want it, parents want it and children want it. It's time the government wanted it too.
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Spending review is ‘settled', says Downing Street
Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence along with a number of infrastructure projects on Wednesday, as she shares out some £113 billion freed up by looser borrowing rules. But other areas could face cuts as she seeks to balance manifesto commitments with more recent pledges, such as a hike in defence spending, while meeting her fiscal rules that promise to match day-to-day spending with revenues. On Monday morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last minister still to reach a deal with the Treasury, with reports suggesting greater police spending would mean a squeeze on other areas of her department's budget. Speaking to reporters on Monday afternoon, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said: 'The spending review is settled, we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off. 'The first job of the Government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change.' The Government has committed to spend 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament – a timetable which could stretch to 2034. Ms Reeves' plans will also include an £86 billion package for science and technology research and development. Last week the Chancellor admitted that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back, amid the Whitehall spending wrangling. Mayor of London Sir Sadiq Khan's office is concerned that Wednesday's announcement will include no new funding or projects for London. The mayor had been looking to secure extensions to the Docklands Light Railway and Bakerloo line on the Underground, along with the power to introduce a tourist levy and a substantial increase in funding for the Metropolitan Police. A source close to the mayor said on Monday that ministers 'must not return to the damaging, anti-London approach of the last government', adding this would harm both London's public services and 'jobs and growth across the country'. They said: 'Sadiq will always stand up for London and has been clear it would be unacceptable if there are no major infrastructure projects for London announced in the spending review and the Met doesn't get the funding it needs. 'We need backing for London as a global city that's pro-business, safe and well-connected.'
