War refugees fear being forced back to Ukraine
Some Ukrainian refugees in Britain fear being forced to return to Ukraine due to the lack of a permanent residency path, despite rebuilding their lives in the UK.
Approximately 218,000 Ukrainians sought refuge in Britain under special visas since 2022. Nearly 70 per cent wish to remain, but the current visa schemes offer no option for permanent settlement.
The British government's stance is that their temporary sanctuary aligns with Ukraine's desire for its citizens to return.
The European Commission has proposed extending temporary protection for Ukrainian refugees in the EU until March 2027 and transitioning them to other legal statuses, prompting calls for the UK to follow suit.
Uncertainty over long-term status is pushing some Ukrainians to seek asylum in the UK, with claims rising.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump to force NHS to pay for wonder drugs
NHS patients have been given new hope of accessing wonder drugs previously blocked in Britain as Donald Trump pressures the health service to spend more with US suppliers. Ministers are understood to be reviewing the value-for-money rules that govern which drugs the NHS can buy, amid demands from the Trump administration for the UK to be more welcoming to US pharmaceutical companies. Under the trade agreement signed between the two nations earlier this year, the Government agreed to 'endeavour to improve the overall environment for pharmaceutical companies operating in the UK'. Earlier this week, The Telegraph revealed that this could result in the NHS paying more for US drugs to see off criticism of the differences in medicine prices between the two nations. However, it is understood that discussions include not only paying more for treatments already supplied on the NHS but also making it easier for US drug giants to sell their most cutting-edge treatments to the health service. It follows a wave of high-profile rejections of so-called 'wonder' drugs in recent years. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (Nice), which approves new NHS drugs for purchase, has blocked treatments including one which stopped the progression of Alzheimer's disease and another that doubled the life expectancy for terminal breast cancer patients. Nice has rejected them based on assessments of how long they would extend a patient's lifespan and improve quality of life. To qualify under Nice rules a new treatment must deliver one extra year of perfect health, or longer for less perfect health, for no more than £30,000. This figure has not increased in line with inflation since 1999. If it had, it would be just over £53,000. Nice has maintained that, to get approval for use on the NHS, medicines 'must not only provide benefits to patients but also represent a good use of NHS resources and taxpayers' money'. However, critics say a failure to raise the threshold in-line with inflation meant life-changing drugs were being blocked. Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: 'There is growing evidence that it is becoming harder to bring new medicines to NHS patients. Increasingly, some new medicines may not be launched in the UK at all.' Companies including US giant Eli Lilly have said the regulator must rethink how 'value-for-money' is assessed. On Monday, a spokesman for the company said: 'The UK has historically focused on medicines as a cost to the NHS rather than evaluating their social and economic value.' Ministers are understood to be listening to demands from the industry for Nice to shake up its formula, with medicines such as AstraZeneca's breast cancer treatment Enhertu likely to be resubmitted for approval for NHS use if the formula is updated. Nice and AstraZeneca previously failed to reach an agreement over a price for the drug, which costs an estimated £118,000 per course of treatment. The NHS typically gets discounts, although the level is commercially sensitive. The Nice formula is being discussed after President Trump took a personal interest in the NHS issue. In trade documents between the US and UK, it said the NHS would review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president'. US officials are particularly concerned by an arrangement that sees companies pay revenue back to the NHS if costs rise faster than expected. Drug companies paid £3bn back to the NHS last year. In April, Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, said he was proud that the UK had kept prices of medicines low. However, he admitted that the UK had become too focused on cost rather than the benefits in some cases. Mr Streeting said: 'We've moved from quite rightly trying to drive a good bargain on the price of drugs and treatment to a position where sometimes people view medicine spend as a dead weight cost'.
Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK failed to identify disproportionate number of Asian men in 'grooming gangs', report says
LONDON, June 15 (Reuters) - British police will be ordered to record the ethnicity of gangs involved in organised child sexual abuse after a report on Monday detailed state failures to tackle the issue and a reluctance to recognise an "over-representation" of Asian men. For about 15 years, Britain has been shocked by revelations of so-called child "grooming gangs" exploiting thousands of children for sex, becoming one of the most contentious political issues amid findings that fears of being accused of racism had played a part in the failure of the authorities to intervene. Those on the political left have argued that far-right groups have used the issue to stigmatise entire Asian communities, while others say the ethnicity question has been ignored, often at the expense of the victims. The scandal returned to the spotlight this year after U.S. billionaire Elon Musk criticised Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government over its stance, forcing him to commission a review by Louise Casey, a member of the House of Lords, into the scale and nature of the problem and who was responsible. The report found data from three areas showed "clear evidence of over-representation among suspects of Asian and Pakistani heritage men", but that ethnicity was not recorded in two-thirds of cases. "Despite reviews, reports and inquiries raising questions about men from Asian or Pakistani backgrounds grooming and sexually exploiting young white girls, the system has consistently failed to fully acknowledge this or collect accurate data so it can be examined effectively," the report said. The report found the questions about the ethnicity of those behind the abuse had "been dodged for years" and partly because of "fear of appearing racist, raising community tensions or causing community cohesion problems". Interior minister Yvette Cooper apologised to victims in parliament saying there had been "too much reliance on flawed data, too much denial, too little justice, too many criminals getting off, too many victims being let down". The government accepted all the recommendations of the report, including setting up a national inquiry into the grooming gangs after months of resistance. Opposition parties, including Nigel Farage's Reform UK and the Conservative Party, have accused the government of delaying its decision and failing the victims. To counter those accusations, the government announced that the policing agency that investigates serious crime would help track down the perpetrators of abuse. The police have already identified more than 800 cases for review, with the figure expected to rise to over 1,000 in the coming weeks, Cooper said. Cooper said survivors of the abuse had been ignored for too long and "blindness, ignorance, prejudice, defensiveness and even good but misdirected intentions all played a part in this collective failure".
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
GCSEs are outdated. It's time to ditch them
Sally Weale cogently questions why we need to continue with the outdated GCSE examination, being the only country in Europe to have such an assessment ('They are making young people ill': is it time to scrap GCSEs?, 11 June). There are two additional reasons that support the case for abolition. First, the cost. GCSEs are a billion-pound-plus industry. Few people realise that, per student, we spend more on the exam entry than on providing resources to study the subject. Second, most importantly, GCSE results are standardised as a bell curve of results. A third or more of young people receive below-average results because the statistical model so determines. The government wants to improve technical and vocational education, but this will not happen while hundreds of thousands of young people are told that they 'didn't do very well at school'.Bob MoonEmeritus professor of education, Open University Re Sally Weale's article on the effect of GCSEs on young people, I attended a traditional grammar school in Colchester in the 1970s. We had a forward-thinking headteacher who believed that seven GCE O-levels were enough. One of these, English language, was taken in year 10, which left only six at the end of year 11. No formal English literature exam was taken, but pupils spent year 11 writing an extended essay on a literary subject of their choosing. This was marked by the school, and a grade, though not recognised externally, was given. It made for a more leisurely year 11. Ironically, my brother, who was in the top stream at his secondary modern school, had far more exams, with a mixture of both GCE O-levels and CSEs. At the time, most students left school at 16, whereas now they are in full-time education or training until 18. So it would seem that the GCSE is an outmoded exam that needs to be KilvertHull GCSEs were intended to recognise what pupils know, understand and can do – they do not. They were supposed to be assessed fairly – they are not, as grades are based on norm referencing. They were designed as a rite of passage at 16 for pupils at the end of their statutory education – but 90% of pupils stay in education until they are 18. We need school-based diagnostic and formative assessment systems from 11 to 18, which can guide young people on to their next best stage of learning, not expensive and stressful GCSEs. Age 18 is the time for the summation of a young person's schooling, not 16. And at 18 we need proper recognition of where young people really are as they continue their learning journey into and through adult NewhoferOxford The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, which argues for the scrapping of GCSEs, is named after the man who rejected a golden opportunity to do so and replace them with a diploma-based system when he was prime minister, based on the 2004 Tomlinson report. If it is 'a decade's work' to come up with a new qualification framework, we might now have been a decade into one if New Labour had made the change when it had the CameronStoke-on-Trent In the current round of exams, my grandson had to sit three in one day. How is that fair? How can it be justified? Where's the sense in it? Yes, it's time to scrap Colin RichardsFormer HM inspector of schools Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
