Arrivals may need better English as part of migration crackdown, suggests No 10
The Government will crack down on record high levels of migration in a forthcoming document, No 10 has suggested, amid reports migrants will need a higher standard of English to work in the UK.
The immigration White Paper is expected to be published next week and is likely to include measures aimed at reducing net migration into the UK, which stood at 728,000 in 2024.
Sir Keir Starmer is aiming to counter the rise of Reform UK with a tougher approach to migration in the wake of his party's local election losses.
Migrants may have to learn a higher standard of English to work in the UK and wait for longer before they can settle permanently as part of the White Paper's reforms, newspaper reports have suggested.
Downing Street would not directly comment on the reports, but insisted ministers were 'focused on bringing down the last government's record high levels of migration and tackling the causes behind it'.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman added: 'Our upcoming immigration White Paper will set out a package of measures to do exactly that.
'I am not to speculate on the details of the White Paper in this stage, obviously, but proficiency and language and being able to communicate are of course essential parts of integration.'
Elsewhere, Antonia Romeo, the chief civil servant at the Home Office, would not speculate on what was in the White Paper as she appeared before a committee of MPs.
Speaking at the Public Accounts Committee, the Home Office permanent secretary said: 'I would like to say that the immigration White Paper, which aims to join up skills, immigration and the labour market requirements – so a very important way of thinking about immigration in the context of what is needed in the labour market – is going to be published shortly.
'So at that point, it might be better to have to give more detail on what you have just mentioned, should it be in the paper.'
Among the strict new measures under consideration is raising English language proficiency required by migrants applying for a UK work visa, according to The Times.
They would in future be required to have the equivalent of a foreign language A-level standard of English, rather than the GCSE standard currently required, the newspaper said.
Elsewhere, the Financial Times (FT) reported that migrants will be required to wait as long as 10 years before they can apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
Most migrants who come to Britain on time-limited work visas can currently make an application for indefinite leave to remain after five years.
This paves the way for them to apply for benefits and the path towards UK citizenship.
The wait could be extended to 10 years if migrants have spent too much time outside the UK since arriving or if there are questions about their financial status, the FT said.
Similar plans to extend the waiting period for indefinite leave to remain were set out by the Conservatives on Tuesday.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp claimed the Government had 'resorted to trying to rip off parts of Conservative migration policy'.
The Government has 'realised the Conservatives were right all along – but apparently haven't had the courage to bring forward our plans in full', he claimed.
Mr Philp added: 'We will always work to put the national interest first. If Labour were serious about doing the same, they would back our other proposals such as dis-applying the Human Rights Act and deporting all foreign criminals.'
The Tories' 'Deportation Bill' and Labour's plans to toughen its migration response come as both parties aim to win back voters from Nigel Farage's Reform UK.
The party, which has positioned itself as tough on migration, won hundreds of local council seats and wrested control of the Runcorn and Helsby parliamentary constituency from Labour on May 1.
Official figures show net migration has soared since the UK left the EU in January 2020, reaching a record high of 903,000 in the year to June 2023 before falling back slightly to 728,000 in the following year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
John Lewis slashes perks for credit card holders
John Lewis is slashing perks for its credit card holders – meaning shoppers will need to spend more to reap their rewards. Points earned on purchases using the credit card convert into gift vouchers to spend in John Lewis and Waitrose. Each point equates to 1p, but from the beginning of August customers will only earn a point for every £10 they spend – instead of £4. The less generous perks will mean customers will need to spend more to receive their vouchers in the post. The rewards for spending in the group's own stores will remain unchanged at five points for every £4 spent. That means if you spend £100 in John Lewis or Waitrose you will get £1.25 in points. The company also announced that although there will be cuts to points collected elsewhere customers will get triple points in John Lewis department stores and online in August over the next three years. A John Lewis Money spokesperson said: 'Our rewards are being updated to help maintain our market-leading reward for spending at John Lewis and Waitrose, where customers earn 1.25 per cent back on every pound spent. "Spending on purchases made elsewhere will earn 0.1 per cent from 1st August. 'These changes enable us to invest in the rewards that are most valued by our customers - alongside a new bonus to help customers earn additional points throughout August.' The retailer said there were 'many other advantages' to its card and it was 'adding more for you all the time'. These included double-points promotions, competitions and special offers from its partners. The reduced point system for spending in other stores is in line with other popular cards offered by supermarkets such as Sainsbury's and Tesco. It's also not the first time John Lewis has cut reduced the offers on its cards. In 2020, the retailer halved the number of points shoppers could gain from elsewhere from one point per £2 spent to one every £4.
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why the BBC thinks it can get Labour to give it more funding
Tim Davie struck a gloomy tone when discussing the BBC's finances on Tuesday, as he renewed calls for extra funding. 'I want proper investment and not begrudging, grinding cuts to the BBC, which you've had in the last 10 years, which have just not helped,' the director general said. The timing of his comments was key. Davie is currently locked in talks with ministers ahead of the BBC's Charter renewal in 2027, as he fights for the future of the licence fee. Bosses in W1A acknowledge that the funding model requires reform in the modern media age. But how this will affect the BBC's stretched finances is a critical question as it continues to lose viewers at an alarming rate. Identity crisis The licence fee has existed in some guise since the BBC's launch in 1922, when the government decided the new broadcaster should be publicly funded. This, the corporation says, allows its UK output to remain 'free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest'. While the BBC was initially limited to radio services, the first combined radio and TV licence was issued in 1946 for £2. Fast-forward to the 21st century and the BBC has transformed from a fledgling broadcaster into a public service behemoth. Income from the licence fee stood at £3.7bn last year, a significant chunk of the UK's entertainment and media market, which is valued at around £100bn by PwC. However, this scale does not tell the full story. With the emergence of streaming rivals such as Netflix and Disney, as well as social media platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, the BBC is facing an identity crisis. While the public service broadcaster continues to dominate the UK media space – around 86pc of adults consume its services each week, according to the latest Ofcom figures – it is losing ground. This is particularly acute among 16 to 24-year-olds, who spend just 5pc of their in-home video time with the BBC, compared to the 23pc for over-35s. Waning interest has meant lower income as viewers vote with their feet. The number of households paying the licence fee dropped to 23.9m last year – a 500,000 fall that sucked £80m from the BBC's budget. The figure is 2.3m lower than the peak of 26.2m between 2017 and 2019. Cost is likely to be a factor. At £174.50 per year, the licence fee comes in at around £14.50 a month. That compares to £5.99 a month for Netflix's ad tier, or £12.99 for its standard ad-free service. Disney charges £4.99 with ads and £8.99 without. While the BBC argues it offers good value for money given the breadth of its service, this is unlikely to win over apathetic youngsters who consider Auntie irrelevant. The fall in licence fee payers is not the only driving force behind the BBC's squeezed finances, however. Over the last 15 years, repeated government interventions have taken their toll. In 2010, George Osborne announced the licence fee would be frozen for seven years at £145.50. Nadine Dorries, former culture secretary, then froze the levy again in 2022, even as inflation surged. The fee will now increase in line with inflation until the end of the Charter in 2027, but only after another Tory culture secretary, Lucy Frazer, stepped in to prevent a 9pc – or £15 – rise amid concerns it would fuel the cost of living crisis. Adding further strain to the budget, the government in 2015 forced the BBC to take over the cost of providing free licence fees to the over-75s, while it also handed over the main burden of funding the World Service. Analysis shows that Government interference, coupled with a decline in licence fee payers, amounts to a real-terms decrease of around 30pc – or £1.4bn – in the broadcaster's domestic funding over the last 15 years. The question, then, is how to plug the gap. Davie has been wielding the axe on both staff and programming as he seeks to strip £700m from the BBC's annual budget. Yet this whittling down of resources has fuelled anger and concern about the impact on the quality of the broadcaster's output, with spending on new shows poised to fall by £150m this year. The BBC has also ramped up enforcement of the licence fee, with 41m warnings sent out in the 2024 financial year – an increase of almost 13pc year on year. Another method championed by Davie, the former BBC Studios boss, is to boost the broadcaster's commercial income to help balance the books. Measures so far have included taking full control of BritBox International, the BBC's joint streaming venture with ITV, after buying out its rival for £225m. The BBC has also struck a co-production deal with Disney to air Doctor Who overseas, worth an estimated $100m (£73m). But other schemes, such as its plan to run adverts around radio and podcast output, have been scrapped in the face of fierce opposition from commercial rivals. Despite its bold aims, the BBC's commercial income fell to £1.7bn last year from just under £2bn the year before. Overall, the BBC is forecasting a £33m deficit for the coming year. While this is down from the eye-watering £500m shortfall the previous year, it highlights the ongoing strain on the corporation's finances. It is against this precarious backdrop that the BBC has entered discussions with the Government. Ministers have made it clear, however, that reform, or even scrapping, of the licence fee is top of the agenda. While the licence fee is now lower as a proportion of average household income – 0.46pc last year compared to 0.64pc in 2012 – the levy is facing scrutiny in a world where viewers have a plethora of entertainment options. What's more, the licence fee is regressive, with poorer households paying more relative to their income and women disproportionately prosecuted for not paying. So if the licence fee were to be scrapped, what could take its place? One option is replacing it with a subscription model, similar to those of streaming services. However, critics have warned that such a move risks undermining the BBC's ability to serve its audiences and would limit the scope of its output. 'A subscription funding model would be antithetical to the BBC's public service mission, necessarily ending universality of access and undermining its breadth of content,' said analysts at Enders Analysis. Similarly, funding the BBC through advertising has been viewed as a non-starter as it would draw too much money away from the commercial TV and radio sector. Both Davie and Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, have pushed to retain the licence fee with reforms, acknowledging the shortcomings of a regressive flat tax. But what would this look like? Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has pushed back against the idea of funding the BBC through general taxation, saying it would leave the broadcaster exposed to political interference. Another option is a household tax similar to the one used in Germany. This would boost the BBC's income by widening the payment of the licence fee to all households, rather than just those who use its services. It could also be linked to council tax bands, creating a more progressive system where wealthier households pay more. Other options under consideration include linking the levy to broadband bills – a measure that would take on particular relevance as Britain prepares to switch off terrestrial TV and move to a streaming-only model. It is thought that any of these reforms would reduce the rate of evasion, though ministers will no doubt be reluctant to introduce new taxes, especially in light of the upcoming spending review. In a speech last month, Davie said: 'When it comes to funding, we are not asking for the status quo. We want modernisation and reform. But in doing so, we must safeguard universality.' Alternatively, as the BBC's Charter comes up for renewal, ministers could opt for a bolder rethink. The corporation retains its Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain. But in the modern age, does the BBC still need to be all things to all people? Some industry watchers note that the BBC could drop some of its more peripheral services, such as its education unit Bitesize. BBC bosses are themselves alive to this possibility, and the broadcaster in March launched its largest ever public survey to ask audiences what they want from the broadcaster in the future. A more radical view espoused by a number of industry bigwigs is a merger between the UK's public service broadcasters. Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former chairman of ITV, says: 'There's no doubt in my mind that there ought to be mergers between domestic broadcasters, not just in England, but right across Europe, in order for those broadcasters to survive and have big enough businesses in their streaming services.' Speaking at a conference in London this week, Sony Pictures international boss Wayne Garvie said: 'We've got five public service broadcasters in Britain. The rest of the world might have one. 'It is unsustainable and the future has got to be, surely, Channel 4 and the BBC coming together.' The idea of slimming down the BBC or combining it with its rivals will no doubt rankle supporters who view the universality of access as a key tenet of its purpose. But as competition grows and audiences continue to defect, it is clear the status quo cannot continue.
Sky News
29 minutes ago
- Sky News
Ashley's Frasers explores bid for ailing Revolution Beauty
Mike Ashley, the high street billionaire, is exploring a cut-price takeover bid for struggling Revolution Beauty – a move that would stoke animosity between him and rival London-listed retailer Debenhams. Sky News has learnt that Frasers Group, which owns retailers ranging from House of Fraser to Evans Cycles, has approached Revolution Beauty about a potential offer for the company. Retail industry sources said this weekend that Frasers was considering whether to bid but was not certain to do so. Revolution Beauty, which sells branded cosmetics, put itself up for sale last month as it warned investors that it was evaluating options to establish "a more robust capital structure with additional capital to invest into the company". It said it had received a takeover approach from a third party - thought to be a reference to a bidder other than Frasers Group - and invited other suitors to contact its advisers at Panmure Liberum, the investment bank. To facilitate the sale process, Revolution Beauty has parachuted in Iain McDonald, an experienced City figure whose directorships include a seat on the board of Debenhams Group, as chairman. Debenhams holds a large minority stake in Revolution Beauty, while Frasers is a big shareholder in Debenhams and blocked the change of its legal name from Boohoo earlier this year by voting against the plan. Revolution Beauty has had a torrid run on the London stock market, and now has a market capitalisation of barely £20m. Its stock has collapsed by over 70% in the last 12 months alone. The company has at various points been embroiled in probes relating to its accounting and a multimillion pound settlement with its founder, Adam Minto. In January, it reached a settlement with Chrysalis Investments, its former shareholder, after it made a series of allegations against the company. Revolution, which positions itself as a mass market beauty range, is sold through thousands of outlets including Superdrug stores in the UK. It built a strong following among younger consumers by forging collaborations with media properties including the ITV dating show Love Island. Frasers' interest in acquiring Revolution Beauty would reflect its growing interest in expanding beyond pure retailing in recent years. Under chief executive Michael Murray, it has also built stakes in companies such as THG, the owner of beauty brands such as LookFantastic. Because the auction of Revolution Beauty is taking place through a formal sale process, the identity of prospective bidders does not have to be disclosed in the usual way. It was unclear on Saturday whether Frasers intends to make a statement confirming its interest to the London stock market next week. On Friday, shares in Frasers closed at 728.5p, giving it a market value of £3.3bn. Any offer for Revolution Beauty is thought to be unlikely to ascribe a significant premium to its current valuation.
