Italy to issue half million non-EU work visas over next three years
ROME, June 30 (Reuters) - Italy will issue nearly 500,000 new work visas for non-EU nationals from 2026 to 2028, a cabinet statement said on Monday, as part of a strategy to expand legal immigration channels in response to labour shortages.
A total 164,850 people will be allowed in next year, aiming to reach a cumulative total of 497,550 new entries by 2028.
It is the second such move Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has made since she took office nearly three years ago as the head of a right-wing coalition. The government had already decided to issue over 450,000 permits to migrants between 2023 and 2025.
Alongside rules to allow in new workers, Meloni has taken a tough stance against illegal arrivals, moving to speed up repatriations and curbing the activities of charities rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean.
"The quotas were determined taking into account the needs expressed by the social partners and the actual applications for work permits submitted in previous years, with the aim of a programme that responds to the needs of businesses and is also realistic," the statement said.
An ageing population and a sagging birthrate highlight the need to attract foreign workers in the euro zone's third largest economy. There were some 281,000 more deaths than births in 2024 and the population fell by 37,000 to 58.93 million, continuing a decade-long trend.
Agricultural lobby Coldiretti welcomed the government's plan, saying it represented an important step to guarantee the availability of workers in the fields and the country's food production.
"The government will continue with determination to allow legal migration channels, benefiting important sectors of our economy," Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi told daily La Stampa on Sunday.
To counter the ongoing depopulation and maintain current levels of inhabitants, Italy would need to take in at least 10 million immigrants by 2050, according to research by the Osservatorio Conti Pubblici think tank.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Respite for Brits as energy price cap drops 7% from TODAY with the typical duel fuel bill dipping £129 to £1,720
Struggling Brits are being boosted today as the energy price cap falls by 7 per cent. The typical household bill for those who have still not signed up to a fixed tariff will drop by £129 to £1,720 per year. That is £660 - or 28 per cent - lower than at the height of the energy crisis at the start of 2023, when the government implemented the energy price guarantee. However, the level is still £152 higher than the same period last year. Ofgem 's cap sets the limit on how much firms can charge customers per unit of energy. It is reviewed every three months. But it does not constrain total bills because the costs for households still depends on the amount they consume. While around 35 per cent of domestic customers are now signed up to a fixed deal that they have actively sought out – and which is not governed by the price cap – approximately 22million households in England, Wales, and Scotland are still on the energy price cap. Those households were being urged to read their meter by the end of the month to avoid being charged the higher pre-July 1 rate on estimated bills. Ofgem has also reminded households that they do not have to pay the price cap, saying 'there are better deals out there'. The fall in energy costs will come as a relief for households, who suffered through an 'awful April' of bill rises, including Ofgem's last 6.4% price cap increase. Under-pressure households have also been hit with the biggest increase to water bills since at least February 1988, alongside steep rises across bills for council tax, mobile and broadband tariffs, as well as road tax.
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
29 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Strong leader' or ‘out of touch'? Welfare revolt splits readers' opinions on Starmer
Sir Keir Starmer's handling of Labour's welfare reform plans has prompted strong reactions from Independent readers, many of whom see the episode as a key test of his leadership. When we asked for views, 60 per cent said the situation shows he's lost control of his party. Just under a quarter (24 per cent) said he was showing strength under pressure, while 16 per cent felt it was too early to judge. The government's original proposals – including tighter eligibility rules for Personal Independence Payments and cuts to the health-related element of universal credit – faced resistance from more than 100 Labour MPs. In response, the leadership announced several concessions: the most controversial changes will now only apply to new claims from late 2026, and some cuts have been rolled back entirely. These adjustments are expected to cost around £2.5bn by 2030. Some readers welcomed the revisions, viewing them as a sign that the leadership is listening. Others said the process had exposed divisions within Labour, and expressed concern about the tone of the response to dissenting MPs. Whether Tuesday's vote will ease internal tensions remains to be seen. For some, the events have already raised broader questions about direction, decision-making, and how Labour would govern if elected. Here's what you told us: Fix issues first I volunteer at an advice charity. It's depressing to see so many young people resigned to needing to claim benefits, so I agree that there needs to be greater opportunity for them to get into work. But in our area, there's so little on offer and transport is hit and miss. Access to support, such as community mental health services, also needs to be easier and quicker. It takes forever for people to be diagnosed and prescribed appropriate medication. Fix these issues before simply removing the only financial support they have. Starmer has been a total disaster. I wasn't impressed by him in opposition, but his first speech gave some hope. Turns out it was only words, and words are cheap. He has poor judgment and doesn't listen – the perfect recipe for making terrible decisions. rose177 The lack of parity is the real problem. Wages are just too low. Someone could work all the hours under the sun and still struggle to make enough to pay the bills. Work is healthy, but we need fairer pay. I would suggest that those who are sorting this out see if they could live on the money that someone on the lower end of the pay scale earns. I doubt it very much. Maggie20 Why wasn't there any consultation? Another self-induced catastrophic error that could have been minimised by up-front consultation with those most affected. It seems that only now is any consultation taking place – not sure whether we're looking at arrogance or incompetence here. I don't know enough about the actual workings of PIP, but I'm content to rely upon the various charities that provide help and advice for those who need PIP. So, why wasn't there any consultation or two-way communication before the discussions became so toxic? For the Government to now seriously offer a "compromise" that then creates a two-tier system is totally unsupportable to me, and the cringe factor of watching ministers and MPs telling us that it's a good deal is agonising. Although I find it heartening that so many Labour MPs still consider the revised offer unacceptable. Scrap it, start again, and involve those who actually live that life, rather than the armchair "experts" who don't need PIP. Nobrandloyalty Clearly unfair and cruel Whilst I welcome the U-turn, I struggle to trust Sir Stephen Timms and all the MPs and ministers who introduced these proposals and have supported them, despite them being clearly unfair and cruel. Surely it's obvious that disabled people should always have been consulted about the plans, but they didn't deem it necessary. Just decided to take a machete to the current system with no forethought. I'd rather new, fairer people were brought in to suggest the changes. sip Overreach He should have realised all along that there are limits to the power his majority gave him. After all, he saw Johnson toppled despite a huge majority. Putting forward such a massive change to PIP led to this rebellion. A smaller change, to be followed later by further change, might well have got through because his government have got their message across on why this section of the welfare budget is increasing. So a lesson learnt is about overreach. Coming on the heels of WFA, he has surely got to look askance at the political nous of his chief of staff. McSweeney was crucial in the lead-up to the GE, but his tactics are not what is needed now that Labour are in government. With a new chief of staff who grasps the lessons of WFA and PIP, Starmer could recover from the damage inflicted by the rebels. avidmidlandsreader Fear the alternative The other thing to consider is the amount of unforeseen damage to the global economy that's been and is going to be wrought by Trump. Please don't misconstrue, I'm no fan of Starmer or Labour, but still fear the alternative. Starmer came to power in the aftermath of Johnson's abortion of Brexit and Truss' destruction of the economy. Both of which, on top of 14 years of the Tories doing all they could to make the rich richer – and they did – whilst making us peasants considerably poorer, well, those that survived Johnson's bungled Covid response. TomSnout Stop playing politics with people's lives It's all very well and good for the Tories to criticise, but they were in power for over a decade and they didn't do a thing. Stop playing politics with people's lives and do what is best for the vulnerable in society. These past weeks we have seen a bill passed for assisted dying, voting to legalise abortion, now an attack on the weak and vulnerable in society. What next? A bill for only the fit and healthy to live, and an age limit to die, say sixty, to avoid paying pensions? We should be careful what we wish for. Sunlight Best PM we've had for decades Starmer isn't weak because he listens to his MPs' concerns. He is taking ideas forward and tweaking them to best suit the majority. He is strong, the best PM we've had for decades. SalonaFan No plan on how to govern For me, this is just another example of how Labour had a plan to win the election but no plan on how to govern. The lack of a sound political radar at the heart is worrying, and a possible arrogance because of such a large majority hasn't helped. The current strategist has a definite knack for picking policies that can alienate a large chunk of the population. Things aren't helped by the PM's public persona. Does anyone actually know what he stands for and is willing to fight for? ZZiggurat Designed to save money All of this was totally avoidable, as there is no doubt that the changes were designed to save money; nothing else mattered. If Labour had consulted businesses as to the best way to help them employ disabled people, if they had consulted the disabled as to the best way to help them get into work, and had pumped money into training and support to stop people having to go onto benefits in the first place, then there would have been true reform. ListenVeryCarefully Listening to the people should not be seen as weakness It shouldn't damage his standing, because listening to the people on compassionate concerns should not be seen as weakness. Unfortunately, in a world that appears to value autocrats and would-be dictators, it will inevitably be seen to undermine his position. StJust He will be a better PM for it No, it's given him the opportunity to listen to the electorate and his MPs. If he does that and relaxes his attitude both towards not taxing the very rich and the mistaken focus on 'the economy' as the only important thing, he will be a better and more popular prime minister for it. Holly He's not the right person for the job He needs to step aside. He is out of touch with the party and with the country. He's not a leader – he's an autocrat who has no time for anyone else's opinion and will sack you if you dare to go against him. At this rate, there will be no Labour MPs left. He's not the right person for the job. Personally (although she was kicked out), I'd like to see Zarah as leader. deadduck Indistinguishable from the Tories Could anyone pick a Labour prime minister who has had a worse start — alienating significant proportions of the electorate, including many whom the Labour Party is supposed to protect? I know the economy took a massive nosedive from 14 years of Conservative failure, but to then pursue economic policy so far to the right that it becomes indistinguishable from the Tories is unforgivable. To see the Tories actually supporting Starmer in the House of Commons against Labour rebels is proof that he and his PLP supporters have lost the plot — and will likely make a successive Labour government at the next election near impossible. NigelFromage The wealthy must contribute more There are people in this country whose income far exceeds even the most profligate spending. These people need to make a much greater contribution through higher taxes to benefit the poorest, either by increasing benefits or by funding measures that enable the poorest who can work to do so. Alrum Starmer is Cameron in a red tie I've always regarded Starmer as Cameron in a red tie, and he's done nothing to change my opinion. If the previous left-leaning Labour membership of half a million hadn't been lied to, neither he nor "4 per cent Liz" would have seen the light of day. People had had enough of Blairism by 2010, and the vote share in every election since proves that. But the Labour right still haven't got the message. Blacko Leadership through threats is no leadership at all A leader needs to lead – and be seen to be doing so. Sadly, the PM, despite his huge majority, has been doing the opposite: following, rather than leading. What makes this even worse is his use of threats – whip withdrawal, deselection – which disrespects MPs' rights (and duties) to represent their constituents. Krispad This is democracy If he had refused to listen, he would have been called "out of touch." But because he did listen and made amendments, he's now seen as weak. In other words, he can't win. Personally, I think a leader who does listen is far stronger than one who arrogantly pushes ahead. This is exactly how democracy is supposed to work – MPs representing the views of their constituents. flyingscot Sound idea, terrible execution In most cases, benefits should be a temporary measure – a bridge to finding a permanent solution. Permanently subsidising those who aren't completely incapacitated is unaffordable, and over time, deprives people of the ability to live independently. The core idea behind the legislation is sound, but the execution has been farcical and amateurish. Pomerol95 Weakness in governance When taxes rise to compensate, public sympathy for those on benefits may start to fade. A carpenter measures twice before cutting – surely any serious policymaker should adopt the same principle. But this Government, despite its huge majority, lacks the will to impose and stick to a policy. That is true weakness and lack of resolve. Martyn The government resents the people What is really broken about the welfare system? Yes, people wait ages for money, suffer humiliating assessments, and get some of the lowest benefits in Europe. But apparently those aren't the problems the government wants to fix. The real issue is this: the government resents spending on the people. The benefits bill exposes the deep wounds caused by economic mismanagement, and rather than take responsibility, they blame the people, portraying millions as too feckless to be allowed decent lives. nakaserokid Barriers to work Proposing cuts without proper consultation or tackling the real barriers to work is what weakened Starmer's position. For example, the Access to Work scheme for disabled people currently has a nine-month wait just to provide workplace adjustments. How can Labour say it's serious about getting disabled people into work with that in place? Aryhian1 No conviction, no consistency I don't often agree with John Rentoul, but he's right about Keir Starmer. He has no conviction, blows with the wind, and is making U-turn after U-turn. He must go – but who's even capable of filling his shoes? Cyclone8 Not all disabled people can work Disabled people should absolutely be protected, including those who can work. But what about those who can't? For some, work would further damage their health. Being disabled is not nearly as easy as some people seem to think. Markcarlisle A chaotic, damaging proposal The proposed reforms are misguided. They won't save money – on the contrary, they'll cost more thanks to added red tape and endless record-keeping. It's short on detail and long on bureaucracy. Starmer has mishandled this completely – another bad idea, sloppily presented, chaotically executed. Since taking office, it's been mistake after mistake. He and his team act like a chaotic classroom with a teacher who has no control, no clarity, and no ability to lead. He doesn't come across as smart or astute. He should go before doing more damage. FarsMars The conversation isn't over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking 'log in' on the top right-hand corner of the screen.
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Chefs and plasterers to be banned from recruiting from abroad
Butchers, chefs and plasterers are to be stripped of their ability to recruit from abroad under government plans. Veterinary nurses, teaching assistants, office managers and air travel assistants will also be among 111 occupations that will no longer be deemed to have a shortage of workers. Migrants can only obtain a job if it is graduate-level or above in an attempt to end low-paid migration, making the 111 occupations ineligible. These measures are the first to be introduced from the Government's Immigration White Paper to tighten controls and cut migration to the UK. A new time-limited temporary shortage list will be introduced until the end of 2026 for below degree level, where ministers say recruiting foreign workers is key to building critical infrastructure or industrial strategy. These will be determined on advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. But those workers will no longer be able to bring their families and will not be entitled to salary and visa fee discounts. The Home Office also confirmed that the recruitment of foreign workers into the care sector will end. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, said: 'We are delivering a complete reset of our immigration system to restore proper control and order, after the previous government allowed net migration to quadruple in four years. 'These new rules mean stronger controls to bring migration down, to restore order to the immigration system and to ensure we focus on investing in skills and training here in the UK.' The changes, if approved by MPs and peers, will come into force from July 22. Further measures from the White Paper, such as increasing English language requirements and raising the immigration skills charge, are also expected to be in place by the end of the year. The White Paper is aimed at cutting net migration from record levels, clamping down on abuses of the system and ending a reliance on cheap foreign labour. Home Office estimates indicate that the number of people coming to the UK could be reduced by up to 100,000 per year, when looking at eight of its proposals, including on study and work routes and a higher level of English language requirement. But the move to scrap care worker visas has sparked concerns from the sector. Will Dalton, the GMB union national officer, described the decision as 'potentially catastrophic' because the care sector is 'utterly reliant on migrant workers' and still has more than 130,000 vacancies across the country. The Home Office believes there are 40,000 potential members of staff originally brought over by 'rogue' providers who could work in the sector while UK staff are trained up. Transitional arrangements for overseas care workers already in the UK have also been set out, according to the department.
