Afternoon summary
The UK has a relatively high rate of teenagers missing at least one meal per week because of poverty, the OEC report says. (See 4.13pm.)
Chris Huhne, the former energy and climate change secretary, has received a substantial six-figure sum from News UK. He is one of several figures who have received payments from the Murdoch-owned company as it settled historic phone-hacking cases.
Updated
The University and College Union says the government’s plans to toughen immigration qualifications by raising minimum salary requirements are a “massive own goal” that will hurt the higher education sector.
Jo Grady, the UCU’s general secretary, said:
By raising the [pay] threshold, ministers are sacrificing the ability of UK universities to attract talent, particularly among the early-career researchers who will become the pioneers of the future.
At their current salary levels, many postdoctoral positions will now be closed off to international talent. We are already hearing reports of people in established careers whose visas are coming up for renewal being told that, under these new rules, they won’t be able to stay in their jobs.
Worse still, the near doubling of the threshold for family visas is a callous move that threatens to tear families apart. It will have a disruptive effect on universities, but even more importantly it is just wrong that people’s lives can be turned upside down because ministers feel they have to appease their backbenchers.
Updated
This chart, from the OECD’s Pisa report, illustrates the link between pupils’ performance at maths and the likelihood that they might be missing meals due to poverty. (See 4.13pm.) The UK’s performance is marked by the blob numbered 18. Maths performance is above the OECD average, but on the number of pupils missing at least one meal a week it scores higher than average (ie worse).
Updated
UK has relatively high rate of teenagers missing meals due to poverty, at 11%, OECD survey says
The results of the latest round of the Programme for International Student Assessment – or Pisa – have been published today, showing UK scores have fallen sharply as a result of the disruption caused by Covid, yet the UK has still managed to inch up the global rankings because so many countries fared even worse.
One high score which is less welcome however is the proportion of UK teenagers who are skipping a meal at least once a week because there is not enough money to buy food.
One in 10 UK 15-year-olds (11%) told the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which conducts the survey, they had missed meals because of poverty, which puts the UK on a par with countries such as Mexico and Moldova.
In contrast, some of the wealthier OECD and European countries did not want to even respond to the question about food insecurity, because they felt it was not an issue in their country.
The OECD’s Alfonso Echazarra told a London briefing that one in 10 is “actually a relatively large proportion for an OECD country, and I think it is something to think about”. In contrast, Portugal, Finland and the Netherlands had the lowest rate of teenagers skipping meals because of poverty among those countries that participated.
On pupil wellbeing, the Pisa survey also found that more than a quarter (28%) of UK teenagers reported being bullied a few times a month, compared with the OECD average of a fifth, and almost two-thirds (64%) said they felt they “belonged” at school, which falls short of the OECD average of 75%.
Updated
Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, asks if Cameron will agree a UK-EU security pact. She says that he proposed that when he was PM.
Cameron says he expected to be asked to eat his words on occasion.
But he says the Ukraine war has shown how UK-EU security cooperation is working well, without a specific pact.
The Foreign Office questions are now over.
Michael Dobbs (Con) asked about relations with Greece. He says he is a supporter of the Parthenon Project, and asks Cameron if he favours the marbles returning to Greece.
Cameron says he does not agree with Dobbs about that.
Updated
Cameron says there is nothing more destructive to a country’s immigration system than having continual and very visible examples of the rules being ignored.
He supports EU efforts to tackle illegal immigration, he says.
Cameron is now dealing with the fourth question, about the EU.
Kate Hoey, the former Labour MP, criticises the Windsor framework.
Cameron says he was not involved in negotiating the Windsor framework, but he thinks it is a superb agreement.
He says he understands Hoey’s concerns about it. He knows the Northern Ireland secretary, Chris Heaton-Harris, is trying to get the institutions of Northern Ireland up and running.
Cameron tells peers he learned as PM UK can get concessions from European court of human rights without leaving
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a former Foreign Office permanent secretary, says Russia and Belarus are the only countries in Europe that have left the European convention on human rights. Does Cameron agree with Suella Braverman that the UK should join them?
Cameron says, from 2005 onwards, he has been making speeches about the need to put the national interest first. He says that is consistent with staying in the European convention on human rights. He says when he was PM he had a dispute with the European court of human rights on prisoner voting. The court backed down, he claims. And he says in future that some flexibility may be needed again.
UPDATE: Cameron said:
I can go back as far as 2005 and point to speeches that I made that said we always have to put our national interest first, whether that is the need to deport dangerous terrorists, whether it is the need to have an immigration policy that works for our country.
I believe that is consistent with remaining in the ECHR.
But, as I found as prime minister, there are occasions when the ECHR makes judgments, as they did on the issue of prisoner votes, when they said it was absolutely essential that we legislated instantly to give prisoners the vote, and I said I didn’t think that was the case, I think that should be settled by the Houses of Parliament – and the ECHR backed down.
So that sort of flexibility may well be necessary in the future.
Updated
Back in the Lords Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, asks if Cameron is confident that sanctions are properly enforced.
Cameron says he has not specifically asked about this, but he says he will consult his office on this.
Overriding the European convention on human rights (ECHR) in an effort to realise the government’s Rwanda deportation policy is a “red line” for moderate Conservative MPs, a grouping representing them has said.
The One Nation Caucus, which represents 106 Tory MPs, said it would be closely examining the details of legislation being brought forward by the government very carefully to see if it maintained the UK’s commitment to the rule of law.
Matt Warman, a senior member of the caucus, said:
Overriding the ECHR is a red line for a number of Conservatives. Protecting and reforming institutions and upholding human rights should be the cornerstone of any Conservative government.
Another MP, the former first secretary of state Damian Green, said the government should think twice before overriding both the ECHR and Human Rights Act.
Updated
Cameron is now dealing with the second question, from Labour’s George Foulkes, about Belarus.
Foulkes says 1,500 people have been imprisoned by the Belarusian regime for their political stance. He says the UK should be imposing more sanctions on Belarus.
Cameron says 182 individuals and entities have already been sanctioned. That list is kept under review. This is Europe’s totalitarian regime, he says. He thanks Foulkes for his campaigning on this and says he agrees with the aim of the question.
Asked about claims that Turkish ports are being used to supply arms to Russia, Cameron says it is important to see where dual-use goods are being supplied to Russia. There are concerns about Turkey, he says. He says he raised that with the Turks. But there are concerns about other countries too.
Cameron insists there will be no reduction in military support for Ukraine in 2024
Asked how much the UK will spend on arms for Ukraine in 2024, Cameron says he does not have that figure to hand. But he says support will contain at the scale it has been before, or beyond that.
He says the UK will focus on what it is Ukraine needs.
In the Lords David Cameron is now taking question.
George Robertson, the former Labour defence secretary and former Nato secretary general, asks about support for Ukraine.
Cameron says the UK has provided humanitarian and economic support worth more than £4.7bn to Ukraine, and that it will continue to provide support.
Robertson asks why there was no mention of extra military aid in the autumn statement. He says the money offered for 2023 is about to run out.
Cameron says the UK has given military support worth £4.6bn to Ukraine. This is essential, he says, and it will continue.
Patrick Cormack (Con) asks if Cameron can do anything to speed up the supply of arms.
Cameron says there should be more focus on the success that Ukraine is having. On land the picture has been difficult, but in the Black Sea the Ukrainians have pushed the Russians right back. And he claims the Ukranians destroyed around one fifth of Russian helicopters in one night recently.
Updated
A reader asks:
Are those new immigration rules something the govt can just unilaterally decree? Or does this have to go to a vote?
In practice, they will just happen.
To implement the changes, the government does need to do it through secondary legislation – which involves changing regulations.
Secondary legislation is subject to approval by parliament. There are two mechanisms (or at least two mechanisms – in practice it is more complicated). Regulations subject to the affirmative procedure have to be approved and voted on, but regulations subject to the negative procedure go through unless voted down – and this more or less never happens, mainly because the government gets to decide whether or not there should be a vote.
Immigration rules are changed via the negative procedure, the Home Office says, and that means there is no realistic chance of a vote.
Updated
David Cameron to take questions on foreign policy in Lords
David Cameron is about to take questions in the House of Lords for the first time in his capacity as foreign secretary.
The session will last for about 40 minutes and four peers are down to ask the main questions, covering Ukraine, Belarus, Afghanistan and the EU. Other peers will be allowed to ask supplementary questions, but they should be broadly related to the main ones.
The Lords order paper, with the wording of the questions, is here.
Updated
Cleverly claims Rwanda deportation plan not about getting 'cheap or quick popularity'
At his press conference in Kigali James Cleverly, the home secretary, said the government was not trying to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as a means of gaining “cheap or quick popularity”. (See 1.49pm.) He said:
The UK and Rwanda are working on this because it is important, not because it is necessarily easy or that it buys you cheap or quick popularity.
But one of the claims about the policy is that it was originally announced precisely for that purpose. This is what Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser, posted on X two days ago.
He’s right.
the whole point of Rwanda was an *alternative* to facing the reality of the problems. but because Tory-SW1 world is so insane, Boris’s trick to divert them has actually worked far better than he planned & has taken on a life of its own, with even the new PM treating it as if it were an actual plan.
and even more weirdly, establishment NPCs like Will Tanner convinced themselves doubling down on it was a ‘win-win’ politically. and Sunak bought it because like other Tory MPs he wanted to believe in a *fake* rather than face the actual problems - which No10 has actively avoided facing since people told them in Jan ‘rwanda cannot work, here are all the legal & practical reasons why’.
and now Tanner is reduced to telling people in No10 ‘all the polls are wrong like in 2016’
so many layers of how people in politics run *denial-of-service attacks on their own perception of reality*...
Tanner is Will Tanner, Rishi Sunak’s deputy chief of staff.
he's right.
— Dominic Cummings (@Dominic2306) December 3, 2023
the whole point of Rwanda was an *alternative* to facing the reality of the problems.
but because Tory-SW1 world is so insane, Boris's trick to divert them has actually worked far better than he planned & has taken on a life of its own, with even the new PM treating… https://t.co/3Tx1MDERQD
Cummings was commenting on a tweet from a former No 10 adviser who claimed the Rwanda agreement was never intended to be a serious solution to the small boats problem.
The Rwanda policy was announced in April 2022, when Boris Johnson administration was floundering, partly because of the Partygate scandal. If it was intended to provide a popularity boost, it did not work. Public reaction was initially relatively, but not universally, favourable. But, over the last 18 months, as the government has repeatedly failed to implement the policy, it has reinforced perceptions that the government is incompetent.
Updated
Home Office publishses details of new UK-Rwanda treaty
The Home Office has sent out a news release about the UK-Rwanda treaty. It is due to publish the text of the treaty too, although it does not seem to be online yet.
The treaty was signed in response to the supreme court saying the deportation policy was unlawful because there was a risk of asylum seekers sent to Rwanda being returned to the country from which they were fleeing (“refoulement”, to use the migration law term – a practice banned under various conventions protecting refugees).
The treaty addresses the concerns of the supreme court in two ways.
First, as a treaty and not just an agreement between two governments (the previous one was described as a “memorandum of understanding”), it has greater legal clout. It is legally binding (meaning Rwanda is under more pressure to comply).
And, second, some of the safeguards in the original agreement have been beefed up, in response to concerns that the supreme court had about the Rwandan asylum system not containing enough measures to protect claimants.
Describing the treaty, the Home Office says:
The landmark treaty is binding in international law and ensures that people relocated to Rwanda under the partnership are not at risk of being returned to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened – an act known as refoulement.
It also enhances the functions of the independent monitoring committee to ensure compliance with the obligations in the treaty, such as reception conditions, processing of asylum claims, and treatment and support for individuals including up to five years after they have received final determination of their status. The committee is made up of eight independent members.
The monitoring committee will also develop a system which will enable relocated individuals and legal representatives to lodge confidential complaints directly to them. It will have the power to set its own priority areas for monitoring, and have unfettered access for the purposes of completing assessments and reports. It may publish reports as it sees fit on its findings.
To further bolster assurances that relocated individuals will not be returned, under the treaty, Rwanda’s asylum system will be strengthened through a new appeal body. The appeal body will consist of a Rwandan and other Commonwealth national co-president, and be composed of judges from a mixture of nationalities with asylum and humanitarian protection expertise (appointed by the co-presidents) to hear individual appeals.
Updated
Rwanda has been 'unfairly treated' by UK supreme court, its foreign minister suggests
Q: Rwanda has been traduced by the supreme court in the UK. So why is Rwanda continuing with this agreement? Why is Rwanda “bending over backwards over this”?
Biruta says the government is continuing with this because it thinks it is doing the right thing in terms of dealing with a global crisis.
There are situations around the world that will continue to produce refugees.
It is not helpful to criticise a country like Rwanda that is offering solutions, he says.
We were “unfairly treated” by international organisations, by the media, by courts, but we think we are doing the right thing, he says.
And he suggests Rwanda’s critics have not always offered solution.
The government can survive criticisms from these actors, he says.
Cleverly says he has “a huge amount of admiration” for the Rwandan government. It has been getting criticism out of proportion to the effort it has been making.
The Rwandan government is trying to continue its processes, as all governments should do this.
He says the UK and Rwandan government are doing this because it is important, not for quick popularity.
UPDATE: Cleverly said:
The UK and Rwanda are working on this because it is important, not because it is necessarily easy or that it buys you cheap or quick popularity.
We do this despite the fact that it is difficult and sensitive, because if we don’t address these issues, the people that will ultimately be the winners are the people smugglers, they are the slave traders, they are the criminal gangs …
Rwanda is stepping forward to be a thoughtful and careful partner in solving these incredibly difficult international issues.
I think that they deserve support in doing that and I have been uncomfortable with the tone and the volume of some of the criticism directed at Rwanda for having the courage to step forward and to try and be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.
Updated
Q: Will Rwanda remain committed to this even if there are further delays?
Biruta says Rwanda is committed to this partnership.
Cleverly says UK not paying extra money to Rwanda specifically linked to new treaty
Q: How much extra money has the UK paid Rwanda?
Cleverly says the Rwanda government has not asked for, and the UK has not provided, any funding related to the treaty.
But the deal reflects costs that may be imposed on Rwanda as a result of the partnership.
Dealing with migration is important, and is not cost-free. But it is the right thing to do, he says.
Rwanda is helping the UK in its fight against illegal migration, he says. They are doing so “professionally, thoughtfully” and as a partner working on a global challenge.
Updated
Q: Were you offended by the supreme court ruling?
Biruta says before the judgement Rwanda had been accepted as a legitimate partner. He implies the ruling was a surprise. But he says that in life there is always room for improvement.
Rwanda treaty addresses all concerns raised by supreme court, Cleverly claims
Cleverly and Biruta are now taking questions.
Chris Mason, the BBC’s political editor, goes first.
Q: You are not the first home secretary to come here. What makes you think this time will be different? And are you confident flights will happen?
Cleverly says the UK has been working with Rwanda on a range of issues, including the migration partnership. The Rwandan government has shown an “energy and a professionalism”, and a desire to work with the UK, he says.
He says he wants this part of the migration plan up and running as soon as possible.
The treaty addresses all the points raised by the supreme court, he says.
The UNHCR regards Rwanda as a credible, long-term partner, he says.
And he says the terms of the treaty will be reflected in domestic legislation soon.
Updated
Cleverly says Rwanda has made 'strong commitment' to safety of asylum seekers
Cleverly starts by saying that he knows Biruta from his old job as foreign secretary. He says he has found Biruta, and the Rwandan government in general, as “professional, thoughtful and serious partners on the world stage”.
Cleverly says Rwanda has shown itself to be a country that is serious about dealing with asylum seekers.
He says the economic development partnership part of the deal is important. The UK wants to address the factors that led people to travel abroad, he says.
Rwanda has made a “strong commitment” to the safety of asylum seekers, he says.
This is an important point because the supreme court ruled the deportation policy illegal on the grounds that Rwanda was not safe.
Updated
Cleverly holds press conference with Rwandan foreign minister after signing new deportation treaty
In Kigali James Cleverly, the home secretary, has just signed the new treaty with Rwanda. The foreign affairs minister Vincent Biruta signed on behalf of the Rwandan government.
The two ministers are now holding a press conference.
Junior doctors in England to stage more strikes
Junior doctors in England are to stage more strikes after talks between the government and British Medical Association broke down, the union has said.
No 10 plays down concerns new £38,700 family visa income threshold too restrictive
If the immigration plan announced yesterday was a budget, the bit most in danger of “unravelling” would be the huge increase in the minimum salary threshold for family visas. The Daily Telegraph is normally an enthusiastic supporter of immigration crackdown, but last night there was a lot of interest on X in these tweets from Tim Stanley, a writer on the paper, complaining about the policy.
A friend has just messaged in a blind panic to ask if @JamesCleverly’s immigration plan means he can’t bring his partner into the country.
— Tim Stanley (@timothy_stanley) December 4, 2023
The Gov is doubling the salary required of a British subject to bring a spouse or dependent into the country - to £38,700. 🧵
So, if you fall in love & marry someone from overseas, that’s the income you need to settle them here. It’s very high. Something like 75% of us earn less than that.
— Tim Stanley (@timothy_stanley) December 4, 2023
Is it fair to limit family formation to the rich? Is it conservative potentially to divide families?
It is telling that this is the one element in the package about which Labour is most critical. This morning Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said this morning that this plan could have an impact “on British citizens who fall in love across borders” and she said the new £38,700 threshold should be reviewed by the Migration Advisory Committee. (See 11.21am.)
At the lobby briefing this morning the PM’s spokesperson implied that the new rule was not as restrictive as some people implied.
He said that the £38,700 threshold applied to the household as a whole, and not just the individual bringing a dependant to the UK, and he said people would not necessarily need to earn this amount every year. He explained:
They can also demonstrate this through their level of savings.
If you don’t meet the minimum income requirement, you may also be able to bring a dependant to the UK if you get certain benefits, for example disability living allowance.
The spokesperson also said that in exceptional circumstances the threshold could be disapplied.
The family immigration rules contain a provision for exceptional circumstances where there would be unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner, a relevant child or another family member if their application were to be refused.
And he also said that some people affected by the new rule might be able to apply for another sort of visa, such as a student or a skilled worker one.
Updated
At the morning lobby briefing No 10 also rejected suggestions from the care home sector that preventing people with care visas from bringing dependants to the UK would stop people applying. The PM’s spokesperson said:
Through work with the Home Office and the Department of Health, we believe that there will still remain high demand for these roles even with these changes, which are necessary.
Updated
No 10 says it is not considering annual cap on immigration numbers 'at this point'
Downing Street said this morning that it was not considering introducing an annual cap on immigration numbers “at this point”. Asked about Robert Jenrick’s comment this morning saying there were “merits” in the idea (see 9.41am), the PM’s spokesperson said:
I think we’ve set out the toughest approach to tackling legal migration and bringing the numbers down.
What we said is that we are not prevented from going further should we wish to do and I think that’s what the immigration minister was emphasising this morning.
At the moment our belief is that having full control of our immigration system ensures we’re able to prioritise the skills and talent that are needed to grow the economy, support the health and care sector. We think the approach we set out yesterday achieves that and we aren’t considering a cap at this point.
Updated
James Cleverly, the home secretary, is due to take part in a signing ceremony in Kigali shortly to agree the new deportation treaty with Rwanda. He took part in this morning’s cabinet meeting virtually, and told colleagues “the treaty was the culmination of months of work”, No 10 said at the morning lobby briefing. Cleverly also said the treaty meant “we now have the strongest possible agreement with Rwanda and one which goes far beyond that of the UNHCR’s with Rwanda”, No 10 said.
Updated
Nigel Farage, the former Ukip and Brexit party leader, is viewed by ITV bosses as one of the most boring participants they have had on I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here, the Daily Mirror claims in its splash.
Tuesday's DAILY MIRROR: Farage makes you kip#tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/SjN4BUPtzx
— Jack Surfleet (@jacksurfleet) December 4, 2023
Presumably this won’t bother the Conservative MP Jonathan Gullis. Last night he told GB News that he would like to see Farage in the House of Lords as a Tory peer and serving in government as home secretary.
Updated
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, told BBC Radio Scotland this morning that the government’s immigration crackdown would wreck the economy. He said:
I think it’s absurd, I think it’s ignorant, and it’s going to wreck the economy because we know that migrants contribute more to the UK Treasury than what they take out.
James Cleverly, the home secretary, thanked Rwandans for showing him the “pain” they went through as he visited a genocide memorial, PA Media reports. PA says:
Cleverly was shown around the Kigali Genocide Memorial, which honours the hundreds of thousands of victims of the 1994 atrocity.
He follows in the footsteps of predecessors Dame Priti Patel and Suella Braverman, who both made private visits to the site during their trips to Rwanda over the last 18 months.
After seeing a memorial garden and historical exhibits accompanied by centre staff, Cleverly signed a visitor book with a message saying: “Thank you for helping me see the pain you went through, but also the commitment to peace that you have chosen to make. We must never forget, but must learn, grow and work to a better future.”
UK pupils’ science and maths scores lowest since 2006 in international tests
The UK has suffered a sharp decline in its performance in the latest round of influential international academic tests, wiping out recent progress, as the widespread disruption caused by Covid continued to take its toll on education, the Guardian reports.
Labour calls for some of government's immigration crackdown measures to be reviewed by Migration Advisory Committee
Yesterday, when he was being interviewed at the Resolution Foundation conference, Keir Starmer was asked by Zanny Minton Beddoes, the editor of the Economist, if he could say in what way his policies were different from the Conservatives’. Starmer was able to provide a half-decent answer, but he did not entirely dispel her suggestion that in many areas the policy overlap is getting more and more pronounced.
Starmer was speaking before James Cleverly announced his immigration crackdown. If Minton Beddoes had heard Labour’s response, she might have put her question even more forcefully. That’s because, while the party has insisted that the announcement is proof that the government has failed on immigration, it has not committed to reversing any of the measures.
Here is the statement that Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, issued last night.
Today’s announcement is an admission of years of Tory failure on both the immigration system and the economy, as net migration has trebled to a record high under the Tories since they promised to reduce it at the last election.
Labour has said repeatedly that net migration should come down and called for action to scrap the unfair 20% wage discount, raise salary thresholds based on economic evidence, bring in new training requirements linked to the immigration system, as well as a proper workforce plan for social care. Immigration is important but the system needs to be controlled and managed. But whilst the Conservatives have finally been forced to abandon the unfair wage discount that they introduced, they are still completely failing to introduce more substantial reforms that link immigration to training and fair pay requirements in the UK, meaning many sectors will continue to see rising numbers of work visas because of skills shortages.
In interviews this morning Cooper was asked in more detail about some of the measures in the package. This is what she told the Today programe.
Ending the 20% wage discount for jobs on the shortage occupation list
Cooper welcomed this announcement, pointing out that it is something that Labour has been asking for.
Increasing the minimum salary threshold for people on a skilled workers visa
Cooper said Labour had been calling for this “because the Migration Advisory Committee has warned about exploitation of low paid workers under the skilled visas system”. But she did not explicitly say that she favoured the threshold going up to £38,700 (from £26,200). The MAC should be advising on the details, she said.
Reviewing the shortage occupation list
Cooper said the fact that the government was keeping the shortage occupation list highlighted the government’s failure to tackle skills shortages. She said:
What that means is, if you’ve got a shortage occupation, not just health and social care workers – that might be also engineers, might also include now bricklayers - employers will still be able to recruit at less than the threshold. And yet the government is still doing nothing to tackle those skills.
Raising the minimum income for family visas
This is one of the most controversial measures in the package because it means that, if a Briton wants to marry a foreigner and bring them back to the UK, they will have to be earning £38,700 a year (up from £18,600 a year). Cooper said she would like this figure reviewed. She said:
We think the Migration Advisory Committee should look at this very swiftly before it is introduced, particularly at the impact this is going to have on British citizens who fall in love across borders.
But she said that she approved in principle of people being required to support family members coming to the UK. And she complained the new rule had “come out of thin air”.
Asked if she would retain this rule if it were in force when a Labour government came into office, Cooper just repeated her call for the MAC to review this. It had not been reviewed for 10 years, she said. She also warned that the plan could lead to an increase in people marrying foreigners before the new limit comes into force.
Care workers being no longer allowed to bring in dependants
Cooper said Labour supported the changes to people on graduate visas being able to bring in dependants. On the proposal for care workers, she said, again, the MAC, should look at this. There has been a big increase in the number of care visas being issued, she said. She said Labour wanted a fair pay agreement to make care jobs more appealling to British workers.
Updated
Deportation flights to Rwanda will begin before election, says Jenrick
Deportation flights to Rwanda will take place before the next election, Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, said this morning. Ben Quinn has the story.
Prof Brian Bell, chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, said some industries could struggle with recruitment because of the government’s new visa rules. He told Times Radio this morning:
I think we’re going to see quite a lot of what you might describe as middle-skilled jobs that are going to struggle.
Social care will still be allowed to employ people at lower wages, the big change is workers won’t be able to bring their dependants with them, and that’s a fundamental change.
Sunak on ‘wrong side of history’ over infected blood scandal, says charity
Rishi Sunak will be on the “wrong side of history” in his handling of the infected blood scandal, the head of a charity has warned, after his government suffered its first parliamentary defeat over when to compensate victims, Jamie Grierson reports.
Immigration crackdown will be good for economy, Jenrick claims
In his interviews this morning Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, claimed the UK would benefit from the immigration crackdown announced yesterday.
Jenrick claimed the measures would benefit the economy. He told Times Radio:
We believe that this will be good for the economy because it will encourage employers in particular, to invest in their own workforce, raising skills levels, investing in technology and efforts to improve their productivity. It will help more people off welfare and help those who are economically inactive.
He also claimed the economic impact of the proposals had assessed, and discussed with the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility. “So we’ve taken this in a very considered way,” he said.
And he claimed it would help social cohesion. He told Sky News:
We want to help people on welfare and into work. We want to reduce pressure on housing and public services, and also to build a more socially cohesive and united country, which is difficult, I would argue impossible, when such large numbers of people are coming into the country.
Jenrick says there are 'merits' to idea of having annual cap on immigration numbers
Last night Suella Braverman, the former home secretary and the most prominent voice on the Tory right for tighter immigration controls, gave a qualified welcome to the immigration crackdown. It was “a step in the right direction”, she said in a thread on X. But she said it was too late to have an impact on numbers before the general election, and she said further measures were needed.
Among other things, she called for an annual cap on immigration numbers.
As well as these proposals, we should go further: shortening the graduate route - not just reviewing it again; & we need an annual cap, set by Parliament, across all visa routes, so we don’t get into this terrible situation again & government can be properly held to account.
As well as these proposals, we should go further: shortening the graduate route - not just reviewing it again; & we need an annual cap, set by Parliament, across all visa routes, so we don’t get into this terrible situation again & government can be properly held to account. 3/4
— Suella Braverman MP (@SuellaBraverman) December 4, 2023
This morning Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, was asked if he favoured an annual cap. He told Times Radio:
There are merits to ideas like that. But what matters now is action. The public wants to see us actually deliver reducing levels of net migration, as I’ve been very clear, that people are sick of talk on this topic.
In this answer Jenrick sounded more positive about the cap proposal than his boss James Cleverly, the home secretary, did when he was asked about it in the Commons yesterday.
Robert Jenrick says immigration crackdown may not go far enough and further measures may be needed
Good morning. Most government announcements have only a limited impact on life as its lived in the UK – in other words, you have to look hard to notice – but yesterday’s plan to slash immigration numbers was probably an exception. It is intended to close down very high immigration as a component of the economy. It won’t stop all immigration by any means, but if it achieves what ministers expect, it will deliver a noticeable jolt to how the UK functions.
The announcement has had a good reception in the parts of the press that matter most to No 10 (not the Guardian), but even if it reduces net migration by 300,000, as the Home Office expects, that will not meet the Conservative party’s manifesto pledge of getting it below the level it was in 2019 (around 230,00). Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, has been giving interviews this morning and he said the government remained committed to that target. Speaking to Times Radio, he was evasive about whether it would be possible to achieve this before the next election, but he said if further measures were needed, beyond what was announced yesterday, the government would act. He said:
If we need to take more action then we will because we’re determined to meet the manifesto commitment and to ensure net migration is reduced. We all stood on that manifesto in the 2019 election and we’re determined to meet it as quickly as possible.
If we need to go further, and we may well do, then we should and we will, because I’m determined that we meet that manifesto commitment.
I will post more from his interviews shortly.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Rishi Sunak chairs cabinet.
Morning: James Cleverly, the home secretary, is due to sign a treaty with Rwanda in Kigali.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
11.30am: Victoria Atkins, the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
Around 3.20pm: David Cameron takes questions for the first time in his new role as foreign secretary.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
