Sir Keir Starmer's migration package is significant - but will it be enough?
There's little doubt Sir Keir Starmer's proposals to curb legal migration are substantial and are likely to result in a meaningful reduction.
That the ban on new care workers from overseas is causing angst in the sector is proof that it will make a difference, regardless of the arguments for and against the plan.
Increasing the educational qualifications and English language requirements simply squeezes the eligibility of potential migrants. The decision to double from five to 10 years the wait to become a permanent resident means a much tougher qualifying period than the US. This is a significant package.
But will it be enough, given we've had other substantial packages under previous administrations? Perhaps - but we will not know for years.
But as well as moving the policy debate, he's also changing the political terms of discussion.
Although he has previously made this argument, the latest announcement was the most emphatic rejection of a cornerstone of cross-party thinking that lasted up to and through the Brexit referendum.
The prime minister now says he knows better but what has he done about that?
An unspoken feature of our government since Brexit has been that successive chancellors have ended up as advocates for higher migration, knowing that any drop in numbers would also hit their growth projections.
There are those in Downing Street who believe that the interaction of fiscal rules and OBR forecasts do not capture the true net economic cost-benefit of migration.
But when I asked Sir Keir about this, and whether he could change the way of measuring the economic impact of migration, he dodged the question.
But does anyone have the answer?
Farage's approach
Most presume the toughest solutions come from Nigel Farage 's Reform UK, and he attacks the prime minister for fiddling around the edges. But how would he do it?
Last year's Reform manifesto promised a "freeze on non-essential immigration", claiming it has "pushed Britain to breaking point".
However, this still provides scope for migrants with "essential skills, mainly around healthcare, (which) must be the only exception".
But is this not exactly the sort of wiggle room that Mr Farage would criticise if another party exercised it?
I pressed Mr Farage on how big this exemption would be, and after dodging the question several times - saying that I was missing the point because most migrants do not work - he replied: "I can't tell you the numbers right now, I don't have all the figures.
"What I can tell you is anyone that comes in will not be allowed to stay long-term. That's the difference."
He added: "You ask me in four years' time, all right? Ask me in four years' time."
This is the first time Mr Farage has offered a numerical cap before the next election.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
6 hours ago
- Times
Keir Starmer's citizenship plans ‘will increase illegal migrants'
Sir Keir Starmer's plans to double the time foreigners must wait to qualify for permanent settlement have plunged 1.7 million people in limbo and will increase Britain's illegal migrant population, experts have said. Immigration reforms announced last month will double the time foreign citizens must wait before they can settle in the UK and apply for British citizenship to ten years. The Times revealed that Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, wanted to apply these changes to all migrants who arrived in the UK in the past five years because of concerns that the record levels of immigration since the post-Brexit immigration system came into effect in 2020 would lead to hundreds of thousands of extra people being granted permanent settlement in the UK. Grants of British citizenship hit a record high of 269,621 last year, while 172,798 were given permanent settlement, the highest level in 13 years. Analysis by the IPPR think tank has found that plans to apply the ten-year wait on settlement rights will apply to 1.2 million migrant workers, 183,000 Hongkongers and 160,000 refugees who were on a route to settlement at the end of last year. They will now be forced to wait another five years — ten in total — to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Once an individual has been granted indefinite leave to remain, they can apply for British citizenship. • The IPPR warned that this would be detrimental to efforts to integrate migrants into society and would also risk increasing the number of illegal migrants in the UK. Gaining indefinite leave to remain grants foreign citizens the right to live, work and study in the UK without restriction and ends the need to pay visa fees and annual payments of more than £1,000 to access the NHS. It also removes the bar on accessing mainstream benefits. This 'gives people a secure foundation to put down roots, integrate into their communities and pursue long-term career goals — for instance by allowing them to move into new jobs without needing to reapply for a visa,' according to the paper by the IPPR's Marley Morris and Lucy Mort. They warned: 'Lengthening the route to settlement therefore risks holding up migrant integration and significantly expanding the group of people in the UK with insecure status.' There are no official figures on the size of Britain's illegal migrant population but unofficial estimates have ranged from 700,000 to 1.2 million. • They said extending the wait to secure permanent settlement would place pressures on household budgets, making it harder to find stable work and prevent people from feeling 'properly settled'. The need for additional visa extensions and the significant costs associated with applying increase the risk that people miss the window for extending and end up without status altogether, making them susceptible to exploitation and destitution, the pair warned. The IPPR said the changes were unfair given migrants originally came to the UK on the basis they would be eligible for settlement after five years not ten. The paper also argued that the reforms went against public opinion. The annual British social attitudes survey last year found 84 per cent of the public believed that migrants who were working and paying taxes in the UK should be able to access the same welfare benefits as UK citizens after five years or fewer. Seventy-eight per cent said migrants should be able to gain the same rights to political participation as UK citizens after no more than five years. The immigration white paper said migrants would be able to fast-track their route to settlement in the UK through 'contributions to the UK economy and society'. The Home Office has not set out how migrants can qualify for this fast-tracked process. Morris and Mort said there were various ways this policy could be implemented in practice. One of them is basing contributions on income, meaning higher-paid migrants can qualify for earlier settlement if they are contributing more to tax revenues. However, they warned that this approach risked entrenching child poverty because it would be harder for people with children to qualify for settlement. Another model could be basing it on social contribution, which would encourage migrants to integrate. For instance, people who are able to demonstrate 'exceptional integration' through volunteering or playing an active role in their community could obtain settlement more quickly. This would follow a similar approach introduced by the last German government when reforming its citizenship laws. Morris and Mort urged the government to provide urgent clarity on who would be affected by the changes and how the fast-track process would work. They said: 'The government has said that it will consult on its plans later this year. This will be a vital opportunity for shaping a pro-integration agenda on settlement and citizenship. But in the meantime, the government should try to clarify its position on how the policy will apply to people already here. Providing certainty would help to establish trust and confidence in the immigration system for the many hundreds of thousands who want to make the UK their home.'
Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Telegraph
Time to face the harsh realities of spending orthodoxy
Labour came to power fatuously parroting the word 'change' and yet has shown itself to be the same old tax and spending party it has always been. What it meant was a change of party in office not a change of direction. Not only have taxes gone up but so-called protected spending is set to rise despite record debt levels. Yet if ever a public policy has been tested to destruction surely it is the notion that the NHS will improve if only more money is thrown at it. Even Sir Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, are on record as saying that higher health spending is not the answer to the endemic flaws in the health service and yet another £30 billion is to be announced for the next three years on top of the £22 billion handed over after last year's general election, much of which went on pay and showed nothing in the way of productivity improvement. No mainstream politician is prepared to acknowledge that the problem with the NHS is the fact it is a nationalised industry with all the inherent inefficiencies associated with such. Most other advanced economies in Europe and elsewhere have social insurance systems which work better. But the insistence in Britain of cleaving to the 1948 'founding principle' that treatment should be free at the point of delivery has become a quasi-religious doctrine that few dare challenge. Only Nigel Farage has questioned the wisdom of continuing with a system that patently fails to achieve what others manage to do but has been noticeably quiet on the subject recently because Labour will exploit it mercilessly to see off the Reform threat. Telling people that they will have to pay for something they have always had for free is even more difficult when political parties are prepared to see the health system get worse rather than reform it. The same is true of welfare. Taking benefits from people, even when they are payments introduced just a few years ago like the winter fuel allowance, is hard if the reasons are not explained and the issue is 'weaponised' by opponents. Yet unless the welfare budget is brought under control it will bankrupt the country. If change is to mean anything then we need politicians finally to understand the extent of the country's difficulties and make decisions accordingly. Will we see that from the Chancellor on Wednesday?
South Wales Guardian
8 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Swinney – Reform voters in Hamilton by-election ‘angry', not racist
The First Minister was asked on the BBC Scotland's Sunday Show if those who backed Reform were 'gullible' or 'racist' – a term the SNP leader has previously used to describe the party. Mr Swinney said the 7,088 people who backed Reform – more than a quarter of the vote – in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse ballot were 'neither', but were instead 'angry at the cost-of-living crisis'. He added: 'I think that's what motivates the Reform vote. People have got poorer because of one central thing – Brexit, and the author of that is (Reform UK leader Nigel) Farage. 'I'm standing up to Farage. I'm going to make no apology for it.' He said the SNP is 'in the process of recovery' and he had come into office as First Minister a year ago 'inheriting some significant difficulties' within the party, and that it needs to get stronger before the Holyrood election in 2026. He said voters are 'having to work hard for less' and are concerned about public services, particularly the NHS. Mr Swinney was asked about comments he made prior to the vote saying 'Labour were not at the races' and claiming it was a 'two-horse race' between the SNP and Reform. Labour's Davy Russell gained the seat from the SNP with 8,559 votes, while SNP candidate Katy Loudon came second on 7,957, ahead of Reform's Ross Lambie. The First Minister said that since the general election campaign last year, people he has met have pledged never to vote Labour due to the winter fuel allowance being cut, while Reform's support increased. Mr Swinney said: 'People were telling us on the doorsteps, they were giving us reasons why they weren't supporting Labour. We could also see that Farage's support was rising dramatically and that's happening across the United Kingdom, it's not unique to Hamilton. 'I positioned the SNP to be strong enough to stop Farage, and that's what we were determined to do.' Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has branded the SNP's campaign 'dishonest and disgraceful' and said it had put the spotlight on Reform. Those comments were put to the First Minister, who said he had previously been allies with Mr Sarwar in a campaign to 'stand up to far-right thinking'. Mr Swinney said: 'That was months ago and then we found ourselves in the aftermath of the UK local authority elections, the English local authority elections where Farage surged to a leading position and won a by-election south of the border. 'So the dynamic of our politics change in front of us. 'I've been standing up to Farage for months, I've been warning about the dangers of Farage for months, and they crystallised in the rise of Farage during the Hamilton, Stonehouse and Larkhall by-election.'
