What Labour's immigration reforms will mean for the care sector
It seems as though Sir Keir Starmer can't run a whatsit in a brewery.
Paul Griffith
West Malvern, Worcestershire
SIR – I note that at present anyone applying for care work in the UK – whether foreign or British – needs as a minimum to meet the B1 standard of proficiency in English: in other words, 'the ability to understand common phrases and everyday expressions, manage most situations likely to be encountered in travel or work, and produce simple connected text on a familiar topic'.
Now, according to your report (May 8), the Home Secretary will be demanding that all work visa applicants have English at B2 – in other words, A-level – standard.
Is she really intending to turn the crisis in social care into a complete disaster, or is this simply an oversight?
Dame Patricia Hewitt
Thornham, Norfolk
SIR – During my recent second career as a local councillor, I discovered that many social care workers were women in their late thirties and forties who above all wanted flexible working arrangements so they could be home for the children after school and during school holidays, and available during any child illnesses.
This cohort, by and large, were not so interested in securing generous public sector pensions, but wanted a good rate for a difficult job with reasonably flexible working hours.
I was informed, however, that there was no scope within local government pension rules to allow such a trade-off, and that flexible employment contracts would not be agreed by the unions. The only way to offer flexibility was to use expensive agency workers, often from overseas.
This is something the Government should act upon if it is to encourage these carers back into the market.
Alan Law
Streatley, Berkshire
SIR – I read Jane Shilling's column ('The elderly need to be recognised for their skills, not as a burden', May 12) with interest and agreement. I get the impression that this Government considers them a burden, rather than a demographic that still contributes to society in many ways through voluntary and paid employment.
Now with the crackdown on immigration, care homes will no doubt be tearing their hair out and may face closure. The patronising tone from Labour is outmoded. Just treat us with more actual respect and then we will willingly give it back.
Judith A Daniels
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
24 minutes ago
- Reuters
Evolution of the UK electorate from landowners to suffragettes to 16-year-old voters
LONDON, July 17 (Reuters) - Britain on Thursday set out plans to lower the voting age to 16 in a landmark reform to the process that underpins one of the world's oldest parliaments. Who can currently vote? At present, anyone aged 18 or over can vote in UK general elections if they are a British citizen, a qualifying citizen from the Commonwealth group of former British colonies, or a citizen of Ireland, and are registered to vote. Members of the upper house of parliament and convicted prisoners serving a sentence are excluded from the franchise. When did parliament get elected representatives? In 1295, the English parliament, then made up of nobles and bishops, was extended to include elected representatives, setting the model for future parliaments. How was the electorate restricted? In the 15th century, the vote in England was restricted to men who owned freehold land worth at least 40 shillings, narrowing the electorate to wealthy landowners. The English and Scottish parliaments passed a law in 1707 uniting the two countries into one sovereign state called Great Britain. At this time, the right to vote was still severely restricted. About a century later, Ireland merged into Great Britain to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. When was the first UK election? The first ever UK general elections ran from July 5 until August 14 in 1802. In 1832, the vote was extended to more men by a broadening of the property qualification, while parliamentary seats were redistributed to better represent rapidly growing towns and cities. But the legislation defined a voter as a male person, formally excluding women from voting in elections. Before that, there were occasional instances of women voting. When did women get the vote? Women were granted the right to vote in stages, starting in 1918 when women over the age of 30 who owned a property or were married to a property owner were given the right. All men over the age of 21 were also given the vote at this stage. Ten years later, the vote was finally extended to all women over the age of 21, before the age was lowered to 18 for both men and women in 1969. What earlier efforts were made to move the age under 18? A bill to reduce the voting age to 16 failed to pass due insufficient parliamentary support in 2008. Proposed legislation giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in Scottish parliamentary and local elections was passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2015, broadening the electorate in Scotland's devolved administration. Four years later, the Welsh Parliament followed with a similar bill, marking the largest franchise extension in Wales since 1969. Which countries have lowered the age below 18? If the plan to lower the age to 16 is passed, Britain would be on par with Austria, Nicaragua, Argentina and Malta, according to U.S.-based research group World Population Review. The age is still 18 to vote in a national election in most major economies, from the United States and Germany in the west to China and India in the east. What were other notable reforms to the UK system? The state began cracking down on illegal practices, such as bribing, in the voting system as early as 1872, through the Secret Ballot Act, enabling people to vote in private without being intimidated into voting for a particular party. Before the turn of the century, attempts to bribe voters were criminalised, with more severe fines and in some cases imprisonment set as punishment. In 2022, Boris Johnson's government introduced a requirement for voters to show photo ID while voting to crack down on possible voter fraud.
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Fujitsu ‘kicking can down the road' on compensation, says Post Office campaigner
Fujitsu are 'kicking the can down the road' on compensation for its role in the Post Office scandal, a leading campaigner has told Parliament. Conservative peer Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, who played a pivotal role in exposing the outrage, accused the Japanese tech giant of holding out with a view to reducing the amount it would ultimately have to pay. He argued the only way to change the under-fire company's attitude would be for the Government to stop awarding it contracts. Despite its involvement in the Post Office debacle, the firm has continued to secure multimillion-pound deals with Whitehall, bankrolled by the taxpayer. Fujitsu has already acknowledged it has a 'moral obligation' to contribute to compensation, pending the outcome of the public inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams. The firm has come under renewed pressure after the publication of the first part of Sir Wyn's final report. It found around 1,000 people were wrongly prosecuted and convicted after Fujitsu's defective Horizon accounting system made it appear that money was missing at their Post Office branches. Some victims were sent to prison or financially ruined, others were shunned by their communities, and some took their own lives. The long-running battle for justice accelerated dramatically after ITV broadcast the drama Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, which highlighted the scandal. Sir Wyn said around 10,000 people are eligible to submit compensation claims following what has been dubbed as the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history. Speaking in Parliament, Lord Arbuthnot said: 'This matter has taken place over many years, under Labour ministers, Lib Dem ministers, Conservative ministers, 'We should all, frankly, hang our heads in shame.' He added: 'I went along to The Oval last week to listen to Sir Wyn give his excellent report, and he used a telling phrase about Fujitsu, namely that they were kicking the can down the road. 'That's exactly what they are doing. 'The longer they think they can stave off paying a single penny towards the victims of this matter, the less they think they will have to pay. 'Does the Government recognise that the only way we can change that behaviour is to stop giving them contracts?' Responding, business minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said: 'I must pay absolute tribute to him for all of his involvement in this running scandal over many years, and for helping to bring the scandal to light.' She said the Government was in 'active dialogue' with Fujitsu on the issue of compensation. The company has said it will not bid for contracts 'with new Government customers' until the Post Office Horizon inquiry concludes. However, this still leaves it open to tender for work with existing Whitehall clients or 'where there is an agreed need for Fujitsu's skills and capabilities'. Latest figures show a further 12 new deals had been struck with the company over the last year, in addition to extensions of existing contracts. The Government has said the majority are for services already provided by Fujitsu and were put in place to ensure continuity of services. Lady Jones told peers: 'The extent of Fujitsu's role on the scandal is not fully known, and therefore we feel it would be inappropriate for the Government to take further action until we have all parts of the inquiry before us.' A Fujitsu spokesperson said: 'We have apologised for, and deeply regret, our role in subpostmasters' suffering. We hope for a swift resolution that ensures a just outcome for the victims. 'We are considering the recommendations set out by Sir Wyn in volume one of the inquiry's report, and are engaged with Government regarding Fujitsu's contribution to compensation.'
The Independent
25 minutes ago
- The Independent
Police wrong to march in Pride parade, court rules
The High Court has ruled that uniformed police were wrong to participate in Newcastle 's Pride parade in 2024, a judgment with wide-reaching implications for police involvement in community events. The case was brought by Linzi Smith, who argued that Northumbria Police breached impartiality by appearing under a banner supporting transgender rights. Mr Justice Linden agreed, stating the Chief Constable's participation was likely seen as the force's endorsement of the march's cause, indicating a political stance. The ruling is expected to lead to new national guidance for police forces on maintaining impartiality while engaging with communities, as confirmed by the National Police Chiefs' Council. The judgment has sparked debate regarding the balance between police visibility and community trust, and the need to avoid perceived political alignment.
