UK will look into more ‘transactional' approach to granting visas, says Starmer
The UK will look into penalising countries that refuse to take back people who are refused asylum by making visa applications for their nationals harder, Keir Starmer has said at the G7 summit in Canada.
Asked during a media Q&A about ways to reduce the number of people arriving irregularly, the prime minister said it would have a more 'transactional' approach to granting visas for countries depending on their cooperation with returns.
This would also be the case, he said, for countries that did not cooperate on efforts to prevent their nationals heading towards Europe and potentially the UK to claim asylum.
Describing a G7 session on migration at the summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, on Monday, Starmer said: 'I made clear that we are looking at issues like a smarter use of our visas, looking at whether we should tie our visas to the work that the countries we're dealing with are doing on preventive measures and on return agreements.'
The UK currently has returns deals with 11 nations including Albania, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Nigeria and Bangladesh, meaning people refused asylum can be swiftly sent back. This process is seen as a notable disincentive, with the number of Albanian nationals seeking asylum in the UK having dropped sharply.
'We've done a number of bilateral returns agreements,' Starmer said. 'So the question is, again, whether it's possible to go a bit beyond that. We are including looking at whether we can't be a bit smarter with the use of our visas in return in relation to countries that don't have a returns agreement with us.'
This would be, he added, more 'transactional' in approach.
More widely, Starmer said he had spoken with France's President Emmanuel Macron, the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, and Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, about asylum and small boats.
He said: 'I think we need to strengthen our existing tools, but then go further and see what else we can do. And that is a piece of work we're looking at with the French in particular.'
At the joint session on migration, Starmer said, he also put out proposals on 'counter-terrorism, powers and sanctions'.
He added: 'I obviously raised it specifically, and indeed in detail, with President Macron, and in terms of the specific actions that I want us to take together, as I did with Giorgia Meloni, slightly more upstream with her, which is where she's shown some success in reducing her own numbers, and with Friedrich Merz as well, because some of the boats are transiting through Germany.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
34 minutes ago
- BBC News
Nigel Farage's Reform UK's rise in London 'a threat to main parties'
Is Reform UK on the rise in London?The party, led by Nigel Farage, says it has quadrupled its membership in the year since the general election, where they won five seats, including one for Farage in UK had the third-highest vote share in the country at the 2024 election - just over 14% - with half a million more votes than the Liberal Democrats. According to polling, London has a smaller share of Reform voters, but it has a higher share of people who say they would consider voting Reform in the future. Not far from the capital, Reform has control of Kent County Council, which had long been UK also has its first London Assembly member, Alex Wilson, who was elected in May 2024. London politics expert Prof Tony Travers told the Politics London programme that the party "could do very well indeed in some of the outer London boroughs, particularly I would say those that voted Leave in the Brexit referendum, so Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Bexley, Hillingdon, even Sutton".He added: "Those are the places I think they could well do a lot of damage to the incumbent parties."Laila Cunningham, a Westminster city councillor who last week defected from the Conservatives to Reform UK, told Politics London that her residents "would always point to how they were let down by the previous Conservative administration and how they wouldn't vote for them".She added: "Honesty, I think, is really lacking in politics now and I just couldn't defend their record." Cunningham said Reform UK were "serious about getting this country back on track, they're serious about cutting immigration, cutting crime, cutting waste, cutting tax and people say that's right wing but that used to be mainstream a few years ago".Deirdre Costigan, Labour MP for Ealing Southall, told Politics London that Reform UK's "key policy seems to be a massive tax cut for the rich".She added: "How are they going to pay for that tax cut? The only way of paying for that is to cut public services. So, we'll have less police on the streets of London and we won't have an NHS."Conservative London Assembly member Alessandro Georgiou told the programme that Farage "is a tax-and-spend socialist, if you take what he says". Watch the full Politics London programme on BBC iPlayer.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Support for Bilston Market traders rejected
A motion to financially support displaced market traders in Wolverhampton has been defeated. Traders said they had suffered financial loss as well as ill health since Bilston Outdoor Market relocated last year to make way for a £5.2m upgrade of the site.A plea for financial support, asking City of Wolverhampton Council to "step in immediately" was defeated at a full council meeting this week. A statement from the council said major projects were rarely completed without "some level of disruption". Anita Stanley said two traders had suffered ill health and another had quit. The Reform UK ward member for Bilston North said traders had also been informed improvements would not be completed until 2026, rather than before Christmas, as originally motion called on the council to put together a financial package to offset trader's losses, freeze rents, and issue an apology letter - but it was defeated at a full council meeting. Cabinet Member for Resident Services, councillor Bhupinder Gakhal, said the Bilston market scheme had "been shaped" by the people who use it - and the council had positive feedback from traders and residents throughout the said: "I want to be absolutely clear we will not cut back on our ambition for Bilston. I see the new market as a key development, the catalyst for even further investment in and around it."Major, multimillion-pound projects are rarely completed without some level of disruption. "We know from talking to market traders and local businesses that the current situation has created some positives and some negatives. "We will continue to listen to and work with them to make this is as pain-free as we can, whilst preparing them for the bigger prize and opportunities the scheme will create."After listening to traders' ideas in March, the council said phase two of the project would find a way of "better connecting footfall" from the bus station to the indoor market. Gakhal said the council was also announcing a £15,000 fund to increase footfall through events in the area. "I am determined to ensure that traders have a big say in how this is used but I'm clear that it will benefit both the indoor and outdoor markets and the wider town centre", he said. Follow BBC Wolverhampton & Black Country on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Reform the NHS, not our shopping baskets
This week, the NHS will publish its 10 Year Health Plan. The most we can expect from this exercise in Soviet-style planning is tinkering around the edges of an edifice that was erected when Joseph Stalin ruled in Moscow. By 2035, the end date of this 10-year plan, the country will almost certainly be unable to afford the NHS in its present form – if, indeed, it hasn't collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions by then. Unable to address the fundamental problems of the NHS, the dirigistes of Whitehall have come up with a new plan to direct us how to lead our lives – telling us what we should or shouldn't be allowed to choose to put in our shopping baskets. Supermarkets will be expected to cut 100 calories from the average shopping basket by limiting sales of sugary and salty snacks or other 'junk food'. Ever since Napoleon Bonaparte sneered at England as 'a nation of shopkeepers', we have worn his insult as a badge of honour. We are proud to be a people who earn our living by trade and we cherish the liberties that are the glory of a commercial society. Even those of us who are not shopkeepers are at least customers. So little does this Labour Government know the British people that it is about to resort to distinctly Napoleonic measures to punish both retailers and consumers. Yet previous attempts to control consumption have never succeeded in changing enduring patterns of behaviour rooted in human nature. It is outrageous that officials feel empowered to tell us what we can, and cannot, eat. The public is being infantilised and robbed of agency. Centuries have passed since Parliament abandoned sumptuary laws that prohibited the lower orders from imitating the luxurious dress of the aristocracy. But the bureaucratic mind is obdurate in its disdain for popular tastes in food and drink. Combined with Labour's instinct to meddle, along with its insatiable fiscal appetite, it is no surprise that, as we report today, a modern version of the sumptuary laws is about to land on an unsuspecting nation. Obesity is a genuine and growing problem, but, hitherto, all attempts to address it by fiscal means have failed. The latest obesity tax – supermarkets will be fined if they don't reduce the nation's calorie intake, and this will inevitably be passed on to consumers – now emerging from the bowels of the Health Department and the Treasury, claims to be aimed directly at our waistlines. In reality, like all its predecessors, it will target our wallets. There is a certain grim irony in the fact that this policy should have been adopted at the same time as the decision by the NHS to prescribe the weight-loss drug semaglutide (contained in Ozempic and Wegovy). It is fairly obvious that the underlying rationale of the new regulations is less about obesity than about the Government's failure to control spending. No doubt figures will be trotted out about how many lives will be saved by cutting consumption of ultra-processed foods or any other category of comestible that attracts the ire of the health bureaucrats. But the truth is that new rules are being concocted because the Government is running scared of its own MPs, who have effectively imposed a veto on cuts in welfare spending. What would genuinely make a difference to life expectancy and health outcomes would, of course, be a radical reform of the NHS, a more active population, and a reduction in the numbers wasting their lives on benefits. Rachel Reeves has just poured another £29 billion into the health service, without any clear cost-benefit calculation. Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, is intelligent enough to know that he has inherited an obsolete behemoth that is crying out for root-and-branch reform. But building a new consensus for a new NHS would require the Labour Party to rethink its assumptions about the social contract, as well as the role of insurance and individual responsibility. The original 1946 NHS Act created 'a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales'. Today, the nation's health is not safe in the hands of a dysfunctional Labour Party that would rather do anything – even introducing an assisted-dying service – than take on the overdue task of making the NHS fit for purpose. These new directives are at best a displacement activity, at worst an act of fiscal condescension. A nation of shopkeepers deserves better than to be bossed around by its own government.
