Scotland's care sector ‘will suffer' from Labour's immigration plans
Scotland's care system will suffer from UK Government plans to tighten immigration rules, SNP ministers have warned.
Sir Keir Starmer said the new proposals would 'take back control' of UK borders but Kate Forbes, the Deputy First Minister, said she was in 'no doubt' that they would have a negative impact on the care sector.
Care home bosses in Scotland claimed the immigration plans could lead to closures and longer NHS waiting lists.
The Prime Minister announced changes to the system on Monday in a Downing Street address, including making migrants wait 10 years rather than five to apply for settlement or citizenship, increasing required standards of English for those entering the UK and tightening tests on colleges and universities offering places to foreign students. He said the UK risked becoming an 'island of strangers'.
Responding to his comments and the associated publication of a White Paper, Ms Forbes told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland programme: 'I am in no doubt whatsoever that our care system is going to suffer from the changes that reportedly are going to be made.'
John Swinney, the First Minister, accused the Prime Minister of being 'terrified' of Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader and a frequent critic of immigration policy.
'I think Keir Starmer walked right into the arms of Nigel Farage,' Mr Swinney said.
'Nigel Farage could have delivered that speech this morning. I can't believe that Keir Starmer found himself able to deliver that speech which just totally contradicts everything he's ever said in the past. He's obviously terrified of Nigel Farage.'
The SNP has put the perceived threat of Reform UK in Scotland – where the party is forecast to return up to a dozen MSPs in next year's Holyrood elections – front and centre of its campaign.
Mr Swinney said he would 'confront' Mr Farage, not 'cosy up' to him.
Sir Keir said the new system would be 'controlled, selective and fair' but Mr Swinney claimed it would be 'deeply damaging' for the Scottish economy.
He added: 'There will be a huge impact on employment in the National Health Service and on social care.'
Scotland's working age population has been declining in recent years as people get older and it is projected to fall further, with the SNP pushing for looser immigration rules north of the border.
Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, has also suggested a need for at least partially different rules, similar to the Fresh Talent scheme put in place by the last Labour administration in Scotland.
Robert Kilgour, chairman of Scottish care home group Renaissance Care, said limiting overseas visas would be a 'killer blow' for the industry.
Mr Kilgour, who said he had previously donated to the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Labour, said a third of the 1,500 workers his company employs across 19 care homes come from overseas.
He told Good Morning Scotland: 'We couldn't run our homes without these amazing staff.
'More care homes are going to close because of this. It'll lead to more bed-blocking, more cancellations of operations and longer waiting lists, so they are shooting themselves in both feet.'
Campbell Mair, managing director of Highland Home Carers, said 'retention and recruitment' of UK workers was already difficult, and called on both the UK and Scottish governments to invest more in the sector.
He said: 'A workforce capacity reduction, which inevitably will arise and will occur as a result of this, will directly impact on vulnerable adults lives, those of their families and loved ones and the health economic impact will be very significant.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves in stand-off over policing and council budgets days before spending review
Rachel Reeves has been locked in a standoff over the policing and council budgets just days before this week's spending review, which is set to give billions to the NHS, defence and technology. Yvette Cooper's Home Office and Angela Rayner's housing and local government ministry were the two departments still at the negotiating table on Sunday fighting for more cash, after weeks of trying to reach a settlement. Whitehall sources said the policing budget would not face a real terms cut, but there was still disagreement over the level of investment needed for the Home Office to meet its commitments. Rayner's department is understood to have reached an agreement with the Treasury late on Sunday night after last-minute wrangling over housing, local councils and growth funds. However, any failure to strike a deal would raise the prospect of a budget being imposed on an unwilling department. The spending review, taking place on Wednesday, is a chance for Reeves to hold up billions of pounds of capital spending as a sign she is working to repair public services after years of Tory austerity. After tweaking her fiscal rules last autumn, she has an additional £113bn funded by borrowing for capital spending. Her plans will include £86bn for science and technology across four years and an extra £4.5bn for schools – taking funding per pupil to its highest level ever. However, day-to-day spending is more constrained in some areas, while the NHS and defence swallow up higher allocations. As well as policing, the Home Office budget covers the border force and spending on asylum costs, while the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been battling for funds for the affordable homes programme, councils, homelessness and regional growth. Labour has manifesto pledges to build 1.5m homes and deliver 13,000 new police officers. Pressed on the policing budget, the technology secretary, Peter Kyle, said Home Office and others would have to 'do their bit'. Funding for the police has the potential to become a politically difficult issue for Keir Starmer. Tory former shadow cabinet minister Robert Jenrick has been campaigning against transport fare dodging and Nigel Farage's Reform are also highlighting the issue. Asked about which public services will be prioritised, Kyle said 'every part of our society is struggling' and numerous sectors had asked Reeves for more money. 'On the fact that the police have been writing to the chancellor, they have,' he told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg programme. 'We also have letters from the universities, we have letters from doctors about the health service, we have letters from campaigners for child poverty writing to us, and other aspects of challenges in Britain at the moment. 'Every part of our society is struggling because of the inheritance that we had as a country and as a government.' He pointed to the £1.1bn extra funding already earmarked for police this year, as he defended Reeves's handling of the spending review process. 'We expect the police to start embracing the change they need to do, to do their bit for change as well. We are doing our bit,' Kyle said. 'You see a chancellor that is striving to get investment to the key parts of our country that needs it the most … You will see the priorities of this government reflected in the spending review, which sets the departmental spending into the long term. 'But this is a partnership. Yes, the Treasury needs to find more money for those key priorities, but the people delivering them need to do their bit as well.' While some areas of spending may be cut or receive only low increases, the NHS is set to receive a boost of up to £30bn by 2028, while defence spending is expected to rise to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. Kyle defended the chancellor's approach to public spending, saying she was like Apple founder Steve Jobs who turned the company around when it was 90 days from insolvency. He told Sky News's Trevor Phllips: 'Now Steve Jobs turned it around by inventing the iMac, moving to a series of products like the iPod. 'Now we're starting to invest in the vaccine processes of the future. Some of the hi-tech solutions that are going to be high growth. We're investing in our space sector. All these really high, highly innovative sectors. 'We are investing into those key innovations of the future. We know that we cannot break this vicious cycle of high tax and low growth by doing the same as we always have done. We have to innovate our way out of this and we are doing so by investing in those high-growth sectors.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system
This, according to senior criminologists and ex-police officers, is not just a failure of admin, it's the result of austerity-era cuts that stripped police forces of capacity, dismantled the state-run Forensic Science Service in 2012, and left fragmented, underfunded systems to cope with ballooning evidence demands. Austerity didn't just weaken institutions; it disassembled infrastructure. READ MORE: Nigel Farage could cut the Barnett Formula. Here's what devolution experts think of that While these failings may seem like an English and Welsh concern, they tell a broader UK-wide story. Because when public services are cut in England, the Barnett formula translates those cuts into reduced budget allocations for Holyrood, too. Scotland has long borne the dual burden of being denied full fiscal autonomy while also seeing its devolved budget squeezed by decisions made for entirely different priorities south of the Border. Cuts to police, criminal courts, housing, public health, and local government in England have systematically eroded the spending floor on which Scottish services rest. So when justice collapses in England, it affects Scotland financially – even if the governance is separate. And now, against this backdrop of UK-wide budgetary degradation, Nigel Farage has called for the scrapping of the Barnett formula entirely. It's a move that's politically convenient, historically illiterate, and economically reckless. But more than anything, it's a distillation of what's already happening by stealth. Successive UK governments have undermined the foundations of the Barnett system – and devolution itself – for more than a decade. READ MORE: Furious Anas Sarwar clashes with BBC journalist over Labour policies It's obvious to every Scot that Farage's view relies on a mischaracterisation of Barnett as a subsidy, when in fact it simply ensures Scotland receives a proportional share of changes to spending in England for devolved services. It doesn't calculate entitlement or need, it mirrors policy shifts at Westminster. If England increases education or health spending, Scotland sees a relative uplift. If England cuts deeply, Scotland's budget falls, even if demand remains or rises. This has led to an absurd and punitive dynamic where Scotland loses funding not by its own decisions, but because England spends less. And when Scotland chooses to maintain higher standards in public services, it must do so from a proportionately smaller pot. Perversely, it doesn't stop there, though. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, Westminster has begun bypassing devolved governments directly. Funds like the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund are allocated by UK ministers to local authorities, often bypassing Holyrood entirely. Promises made in The Vow on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum to deliver near-federal powers and respect Scottish decision-making have unravelled. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action' The Internal Market Act has overridden devolved laws under the banner of market 'consistency'. Powers that returned from Brussels in areas like food standards, procurement, and agriculture were supposed to go to Holyrood, but in many cases they were retained by Westminster. The Sewel Convention, once a safeguard of devolved consent, has been treated as optional. Farage's proposal to scrap Barnett isn't an outlier, it's the natural conclusion of a decade-long pattern: cut services in England, shrink the Barnett allocation, bypass devolved institutions, and then blame the devolved nations for 'taking more than their share'. There's no consideration of fairness, or implementation of a needs-based analysis, it's a strategy of erosion; one that gouges out the Union from the centre while draping itself in the flag. The failures of justice in England, catastrophic as they are, expose a deeper injustice: the systematic unravelling of the constitutional promises made to Scotland. Ron Lumiere via email
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
'Sleekit' Swinney slips out £1.7m bill for army of spin doctors during by-election
The First Minister has been dubbed 'sleekit' after the average £100,000 bill for each of his 17 spin-doctors was slipped out under cover of the Hamilton by-election. The 'shameful' details were quietly released as Scotland woke up to Labour shock win over the SNP on Friday. An obscure parliamentary written answer showed taxpayers were charged more than £1.7million for 17 special advisers, known as SpAds, in the last financial year. Appointed by the First Minister, SpAds are temporary civil servants who are not bound by neutrality rules and offer explicit political advice and brief the media. Scottish Tory finance spokesman Craig Hoy said: 'The SNP have wasted a shameful amount of taxpayers' money on their army of spin-doctors. 'You'd be forgiven for thinking sleekit Swinney snuck out these bombshell figures on a day when people's minds were elsewhere.' Labour narrowly won the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse byelection in the early hours of Friday morning by 602 votes, defying expectations that the SNP would hold the seat. The SpAd costs were released via a 'Government inspired question', a device that lets ministers make information public with minimal fanfare. On June 5, the day of the byelection, a question tabled in the name of SNP loyalist Rona Mackay asked the total cost of employing special advisers in 2024/25. The next day, as politicians pored over the result, minister for parliamentary business Jamie Hepburn, who was SNP campaign coordinator in the byelection, replied. He revealed the total cost was £1,745,042, which included salary costs, employer national insurance, and employer pension contributions. Nine SpAds were paid between £71,393 and £78,719, seven between £84,983 and £97,644, and one - most likely chief of staff Colin McAllister - between £108,781 and £116,435. Ministers are currently paid £109,584. When Ms Mackay, the MSP for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, asked the same question last year it was not until September that she received a reply. Scottish Labour deputy Dame Jackie Baillie said: 'Scots are sick of footing the bill for an SNP government that is still failing to deliver. 'And this sleekit attempt to sneak these figures out during a by-election won't hide the fact that the SNP cannot be trusted with taxpayers' money.' Lib Dem MSP Willie Rennie added: 'The SNP are investing more effort in making excuses for their failures in government.' The SpAd bill has more than trebled since the SNP came to power in 2007, when Alex Salmond had seven full-time special advisers costing £566,000. However the cost last year was lower than 2023/24, when Humza Yousaf employed a record 19 SpAds costing £1,906,963. SpAds are exempt from political neutrality rules and can advise ministers on everything from political strategy to speech-writing and policy. Critics believe they have been central to creating a 'secret Scotland' culture within the SNP Government. In 2022, the Scottish Information Commissioner found 'significant and systemic failures' in the way the SNP Government responds to freedom of information (FoI) requests. This included evidence that many FoI responses were sent to SpAds for comment before they were issued. A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'Due to the appointment of a new First Minister in May 2024, there were several changes to the Special Adviser team. 'The number and total cost of special advisers reduced in comparison to the previous year.'
