Arrivals may need better English as part of migration crackdown, suggests No 10
The immigration White Paper is expected to be published next week and is likely to include measures aimed at reducing net migration into the UK, which stood at 728,000 in 2024.
Sir Keir Starmer is aiming to counter the rise of Reform UK with a tougher approach to migration in the wake of his party's local election losses.
Migrants may have to learn a higher standard of English to work in the UK and wait for longer before they can settle permanently as part of the White Paper's reforms, newspaper reports have suggested.
Downing Street would not directly comment on the reports, but insisted ministers were 'focused on bringing down the last government's record high levels of migration and tackling the causes behind it'.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman added: 'Our upcoming immigration White Paper will set out a package of measures to do exactly that.
'I am not to speculate on the details of the White Paper in this stage, obviously, but proficiency and language and being able to communicate are of course essential parts of integration.'
Elsewhere, Antonia Romeo, the chief civil servant at the Home Office, would not speculate on what was in the White Paper as she appeared before a committee of MPs.
Speaking at the Public Accounts Committee, the Home Office permanent secretary said: 'I would like to say that the immigration White Paper, which aims to join up skills, immigration and the labour market requirements – so a very important way of thinking about immigration in the context of what is needed in the labour market – is going to be published shortly.
'So at that point, it might be better to have to give more detail on what you have just mentioned, should it be in the paper.'
Among the strict new measures under consideration is raising English language proficiency required by migrants applying for a UK work visa, according to The Times.
They would in future be required to have the equivalent of a foreign language A-level standard of English, rather than the GCSE standard currently required, the newspaper said.
Elsewhere, the Financial Times (FT) reported that migrants will be required to wait as long as 10 years before they can apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
Most migrants who come to Britain on time-limited work visas can currently make an application for indefinite leave to remain after five years.
This paves the way for them to apply for benefits and the path towards UK citizenship.
The wait could be extended to 10 years if migrants have spent too much time outside the UK since arriving or if there are questions about their financial status, the FT said.
Similar plans to extend the waiting period for indefinite leave to remain were set out by the Conservatives on Tuesday.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp claimed the Government had 'resorted to trying to rip off parts of Conservative migration policy'.
The Government has 'realised the Conservatives were right all along – but apparently haven't had the courage to bring forward our plans in full', he claimed.
Mr Philp added: 'We will always work to put the national interest first. If Labour were serious about doing the same, they would back our other proposals such as dis-applying the Human Rights Act and deporting all foreign criminals.'
The Tories' 'Deportation Bill' and Labour's plans to toughen its migration response come as both parties aim to win back voters from Nigel Farage's Reform UK.
The party, which has positioned itself as tough on migration, won hundreds of local council seats and wrested control of the Runcorn and Helsby parliamentary constituency from Labour on May 1.
Official figures show net migration has soared since the UK left the EU in January 2020, reaching a record high of 903,000 in the year to June 2023 before falling back slightly to 728,000 in the following year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
39 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Letter: Would the UK Government cheered a Welsh Euro's win?
One must congratulate the English Lionesses on their victory in the Euros Cup last weekend and understand all the hype in the English media. However we are a United Kingdom and I strongly object to the fact that the seat of UK Government No.10 Downing Street was decked out in English flags to celebrate their victory. I just wonder if the same honour would have been granted to any of the other Home Nations if they had won the trophy, or do the English feel they have a monopoly on No. 10 Downing Street?
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Starmer needs to listen to us, says Labour MP who quit government over welfare cuts
Sir Keir Starmer needs to listen to his own MPs, an ex-Labour frontbencher who quit her role over plans to slash benefits has said. Vicky Foxcroft, who dramatically quit as a government whip in June, said ministers need to 'properly engage' with Labour backbenchers after a massive rebellion forced the government to abandon key aspects of its benefits reforms. Ms Foxcroft said she was 'really concerned' about the negative impact the proposals – which were later abandoned – would have on disabled people. 'There was some quite bad cuts to disabled people's benefits suggested, particularly around Personal Independence Payment (PIP), and having to have four points before you would be able to access the benefit. 'And I was just really concerned about that. And, you know, at that point, I didn't feel that I could support it and didn't feel that I could go out and whip for it and get other MPs to do the same', Ms Foxcroft told GB News ' Gloria De Piero. She said she had 'sleepless nights' in the lead-up to her decision to resign, saying it was 'really difficult and I really would rather not have had to do that'. 'I was actually having a hard personal time at that time as well, with my dad passing away quite suddenly. And so, you know, I had the stress of all of that, but also I was really worried about these proposals, and I really spoke to lots of people about what my concerns were around it. 'I had some sleepless nights, it plays on your mind the whole time', the MP for Lewisham North added. Asked what the government could do differently next time, she said: 'I think it's really important to listen to MPs. MPs are out in their constituencies. They're meeting with people. You know, when they're raising concerns it is coming from what people are worried about. 'It's really important that that engagement takes place in the future. And properly takes place.' But Ms Foxcroft also insisted that the government can turn around its fortunes, despite a poor performance in the polls, with Reform UK surging ahead. 'We've got quite a few years until a general election, and we are doing a lot of good things in Parliament, the Renters' Rights Bill, the Employment Rights Bill, the Football Governance Bill, but at the moment, some of this stuff is just bills in parliament. 'What we need is people to really feel the difference actually, genuinely in their lives.' It comes amid growing concern over the direction of Sir Keir's government from voters on both the left and the right, with the prime minister's approval rating hitting an all time low earlier this month. His support among the public reached new depths of minus 43 after the £5bn welfare U-turn, according to polling published last month. The survey, first reported by The Sunday Times, also found that just a year after coming to power, seven in 10 voters think Sir Keir's government is at least as chaotic as the Tories' previous term.
