Immigration plans a 'devastating blow'
A care home owner has said the government's proposed changes to immigration rules were a "devastating blow" for the sector.
The Prime Minister's proposals to cut immigration include scrapping a visa scheme, set up by Boris Johnson's Conservative government, that allowed firms to hire health and social care workers from overseas.
Mike Padgham, managing director at Saint Cecilia's Care Group in Scarborough, said by 2040 the sector would need 500,000 more workers and asked where they would be coming from.
Sir Keir Starmer said the plans, which tackle legal migration to the UK, would ensure a "selective" and "fair" system, where "we decide who comes to this country".
"It is another devastating blow that this government has put upon us," Mr Padgham said.
As part of the new system, firms will be required to hire British nationals or extend the visas of overseas workers already in the country.
Home Office figures estimate this change will cut the number of workers coming to the UK by between 7,000 and 8,000 a year.
Mr Padgham has previously said without overseas staff his firm could not continue and he does not believe the change in rules will help recruit British nationals.
"The key thing is we want to recruit people from England, we are doing everything we can to recruit local people," he said.
"But sadly the pay is not great, we want people to come in but they don't want the work and we want people in social care who want to work in it, not forced to work in it."
Dan Archer, who runs the Sheffield home care company Visiting Angels, said he had taken a different route, though he said he understood the issues facing many providers.
"There's been a dependency for the last few years on overseas workers," he said.
"I took the decision that if we started from a position of paying better, using proper contracts, then we would find it easier to find UK workers."
He said the firm now had 1,600 staff.
"The solution works," he said, but added that the challenge was how it was funded.
PM promises migration drop as he unveils plans for 'tightened' visa rules
Labour's immigration plans at a glance
Cimma Menone is from Nigeria and has been sponsored as a care worker for the past three years in Scarborough.
She said the announcement from the government made her feel unwelcome.
"When you feel unsafe, when you begin to feel not supported by the government, when you are here to contribute to the healthcare sector, then I don't think it's a welcoming policy," she said.
The proposed changes come after the government tightened the rules restricting the ability of workers to bring their loved ones to the UK.
The time immigrants will have to live in the UK before they can apply for the right to stay indefinitely will be doubled - to 10 years - under the proposals.
Isabel Santos, deputy manager at St Cecilia's, said these changes meant homes would become dependent on agency staff, which she said was bad because it impacted on "continuity of care" for residents.
"Overseas staff want to learn and progress their careers," she said.
"With these rules maybe people will go to other countries where they feel more supported."
Jordan Stapleton, from the union Unison, said the entire care system was "in trouble" as providers were dependent on contracts with councils that had been dealing with years of cuts.
"If care providers can't get the guaranteed level of funding from the council then they can't pass on that wage and security to the worker," he said.
The government said its plans for fair pay in social care would boost recruitment in the sector.
The Prime Minister said the government immigration proposals would create "a system that is controlled, selective and fair and a clean break from the past" that would "ensure settlement in this country is a privilege that must be earned, not a right".
Listen to highlights from North Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
PM promises migration drop as he unveils plans for 'tightened' visa rules
The carers crossing the globe to fill UK shortage
Labour's immigration plans at a glance
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dawn, there is nothing funny about October 7
Dawn French has become the latest 'national treasure' to betray a complete lack of understanding of the conflict in the Middle East. Following hot off the heels of that other self-styled Professor of Palestine, Gary Lineker, the comedian insisted there was nothing 'complicated' or 'nuanced' about the ongoing war in Gaza. In a video posted on X, she put on a whiny childish voice to mock Israelis over invoking the October 7 attacks, in which 1,195 people were murdered. Credit: X/@Dawn_French 'Bottom line is no,' she insisted. Then, in a childish voice: 'Yeah but you know they did a bad thing to us. [Serious voice] Yeah but no. [Childish voice] But we want that land and there's a lot of history and urgh… [Serious voice] No. [Childish voice] Those people are not even people are they really? [Serious voice] No.' Like so much of French's output, she appeared under the illusion that she was being funny. In fact, it amounted to an obnoxious and offensive piece of useful idiocy, dressed up as performance art. Imagine being so warped that you would dismiss the rape and murder of Israeli women – the slaying of children and babies – as 'a bad thing'. The implication is that Israel does not have a right to defend itself. That it has acted disproportionately. But there is nothing remotely proportionate about recording a video about Gaza without even mentioning Hamas. Almost everyone and everything you can think of is funnier than Dawn French. What's truly hilarious is that these luvvies think they have enough expertise to emote on such issues. Like your average 'Free Palestine' ranting student marcher, her infantile outburst appeared to have largely been informed by things she's seen on social media. Anyone with any actual knowledge of the region understands that it is, in fact, an extremely complex issue with a very chequered history. Oh, and that it involves terrorists. Stunts like this do nothing to advance the debate. They simply debase it with ignorance and intolerance. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth says Nato allies ‘very close' to raising defence spending target to 5%
The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, said Nato allies were 'very close, almost near consensus' to an agreement to significantly raise targets for defence spending to 5% of GDP in the next decade. The Trump administration official indicated he expected the increased target to be agreed at a summit in The Hague later this month – and confirmed that the headline figure was to be split into two parts. 'This alliance, in a matter of weeks, will be committing to 5%: 3.5% in hard military and 1.5% in infrastructure and defence-related activities. That combination constitutes a real commitment,' he said. Hegseth was speaking at a press conference at Nato headquarters in Brussels after the morning session of an all-day meeting of defence ministers from the 32-country transatlantic military alliance. 'I'm very encouraged by what we heard in there,' Hegseth told reporters. 'Countries in there are well exceeding 2% and we think very close, almost near consensus, on a 5% commitment to Nato.' Nato's current target level for military spending, agreed at a summit in Cardiff in 2014, is 2% of GDP, but Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that European allies and Canada do not spend enough compared with the US. In an attempt to avoid Trump wrecking the first Nato summit of his second term, the alliance's new secretary general, Mark Rutte, proposed a 3.5% plus 1.5% target, though there is some ambiguity about the target date. Initial reports suggested that Rutte wanted allies to hit the target from 2032, though earlier this week British sources suggested the date could be 2035. Sweden's defence minister said he would like to see the target hit by 2030. Only Poland currently exceeds the 3.5% target for hard military spending at 4.32%, according to Nato figures, while the US defence budget, the largest in the alliance, amounts to 3.4% of GDP, at $967bn (£711bn). The UK spends 2.33% of GDP on its military, but has pledged to increase that to 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% some time in the next parliament. Earlier this week the prime minister, Keir Starmer, declined to set a firm date for the UK achieving 3% as he unveiled a strategic defence review. Related: Why is defence such a hard sell? The same reason Starmer is struggling in the polls | Martin Kettle Rutte will visit London on Monday to meet Starmer before the summit. Downing Street said the prime minister and the secretary general would 'talk about how we ensure all allies step up their defence spending now in order to respond to the threats that we face now'. Germany's defence minister, Boris Pistorius, said Berlin would need up to 60,000 additional troops to meet new Nato targets for weapons and personnel. 'We are stepping up to our responsibility as Europe's largest economy,' the minister said on Thursday. Germany, which currently spends 2.12% of GDP on defence, had been singled out by Trump as a laggard in spending, though until Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Berlin had been reluctant to be a leader in European military spending, partly due to the memories of the militarism of the second world war.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
Russia is at war with Britain, the US is no longer a reliable ally and the UK has to respond by becoming more cohesive and more resilient, according to one of the three authors of the strategic defence review. Fiona Hill, from County Durham, became the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term and contributed to the British government's strategy. She made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian. 'We're in pretty big trouble,' Hill said, describing the UK's geopolitical situation as caught between 'the rock' of Vladimir Putin's Russia and 'the hard place' of Donald Trump's increasingly unpredictable US. Hill, 59, is perhaps the best known of the reviewers appointed by Labour, alongside Lord Robertson, a former Nato secretary general, and the retired general Sir Richard Barrons. She said she was happy to take on the role because it was 'such a major pivot point in global affairs'. She remains a dual national after living in the US for more than 30 years. 'Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't fully anticipated,' Hill said, arguing that Putin saw the Ukraine war as a starting point to Moscow becoming 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. As part of that long-term effort, Russia was already 'menacing the UK in various different ways,' she said, citing 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber-attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they're putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.' The conclusion, Hill said, was that 'Russia is at war with us'. The foreign policy expert, a longtime Russia watcher, said she had first made a similar warning in 2015, in a revised version of a book she wrote about the Russian president with Clifford Gaddy, reflecting on the invasion and annexation of Crimea. 'We said Putin had declared war on the west,' she said. At the time, other experts disagreed, but Hill said events since had demonstrated 'he obviously had, and we haven't been paying attention to it'. The Russian leader, she argues, sees the fight in Ukraine as 'part of a proxy war with the United States; that's how he has persuaded China, North Korea and Iran to join in'. Putin believed that Ukraine had already been decoupled from the US relationship, Hill said, because 'Trump really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment'. When it came to defence, however, she said the UK could not rely on the military umbrella of the US as during the cold war and in the generation that followed, at least 'not in the way that we did before'. In her description, the UK 'is having to manage its number one ally', though the challenge is not to overreact because 'you don't want to have a rupture'. This way of thinking appears in the defence review published earlier this week, which says 'the UK's longstanding assumptions about global power balances and structures are no longer certain' – a rare acknowledgment in a British government document of how far and how fast Trumpism is affecting foreign policy certainties. The review team reported to Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and the defence secretary, John Healey. Most of Hill's interaction were with Healey, however, and she said she had met the prime minister only once – describing him as 'pretty charming … in a proper and correct way' and as 'having read all the papers'. Hill was not drawn on whether she had advised Starmer or Healey on how to deal with Donald Trump, saying instead: 'The advice I would give is the same I would give in a public setting.' She said simply that the Trump White House 'is not an administration, it is a court' in which a transactional president is driven by his 'own desires and interests, and who listens often to the last person he talks to'. She added that unlike his close circle, Trump had 'a special affinity for the UK' based partly on his own family ties (his mother came from the Hebridean island of Lewis, emigrating to New York aged 18) and an admiration for the royal family, particularly the late queen. 'He talked endlessly about that,' she said. On the other hand, Hill is no fan of the populist right administration in the White House and worries it could come to Britain if 'the same culture wars' are allowed to develop with the encouragement of Republicans from the US. She noted that Reform UK had won a string of council elections last month, including in her native Durham, and that the party's leader, Nigel Farage, wanted to emulate some of the aggressive efforts to restructure government led by Elon Musk's 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) before his falling-out with Trump. 'When Nigel Farage says he wants to do a Doge against the local county council, he should come over here [to the US] and see what kind of impact that has,' she said. 'This is going to be the largest layoffs in US history happening all at once, much bigger than hits to steelworks and coalmines.' Hill's argument is that in a time of profound uncertainty, Britain needs greater internal cohesion if it is to protect itself. 'We can't rely exclusively on anyone any more,' she said, arguing that Britain needed to have 'a different mindset' based as much on traditional defence as on social resilience. Some of that, Hill said, was about a greater recognition of the level of external threat and initiatives for greater integration, by teaching first aid in schools or encouraging more teenagers to join school cadet forces, a recommendation of the defence review. 'What you need to do is get people engaged in all kinds of different ways in support of their communities,' she said. Hill said she saw that deindustrialisation and a rise of inequality in Russia and the US had contributed to the rise in national populism in both countries. Politicians in Britain, or elsewhere, 'have to be much more creative and engage people where they are at' as part of a 'national effort', she said. If this seems far away from a conventional view of defence, that's because it is, though Hill also argues that traditional conceptions of war are changing as technology evolves and with it what makes a potent force. 'People keep saying the British army has the smallest number of troops since the Napoleonic era. Why is the Napoleonic era relevant? Or that we have fewer ships than the time of Charles II. The metrics are all off here,' she said. 'The Ukrainians are fighting with drones. Even though they have no navy, they sank a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet.' Her aim, therefore, is not just to be critical but to propose solutions. Hill recalled that a close family friend, on hearing that she had taken on the defence review, had told her: ''Don't tell us how shite we are, tell us what we can do, how we can fix things.' People understand that we have a problem and that the world has changed.'
