Transcription
Okay, good morning everybody. We have spoken a lot about illegal immigration. We've spoken a lot about what's been happening in the channel, and the public are very, very focused on illegal immigration because of the scale of it, the unfairness of it, and of course, the repeated promises that successive governments make that they'll do anything worthwhile to deal with it.
Um, three have been returned, the government, a great victory. Three have been returned to France, and that was announced on the day that over 50 came in. So nothing consequential is going to happen on that score.
But there's been too little debate about legal immigration, too little debate about the consequences of what happened from, and you remember the days of Peter Mandelson boasting how they were going to open the doors. Uh, and indeed, for 20 years, I've been asking questions about the sheer number of people coming into this country, the impact that it's had on housing, on health, on roads. But I've been told for 20 years to shut up and go away because it's good for the economy. It's good for the economy, and that is all that matters. Well, quite how you measure quality of life against the economy, I don't know.
But now we're beginning to learn the truth that simply what we've been told on this wasn't true. Far too many that have come don't work, have never worked, and never will work. The ability to bring dependence of all kinds. And when you realize that most that come are very low-skilled and on very low wages, you start to get a very, very different picture. In fact, you start to get a massive benefits bill.
So, I want to be absolutely clear at the outset that we are here to make massive future cuts to welfare spending. I promised we'd announce this or something like this at our conference a few weeks ago. We are the party that will make massive cuts to welfare spending. And if we don't, well, what is coming down the track will best part bankrupt us. Although some might say we're almost there. Looking at the 30-year guilt deals this morning.
Under a Reform government, welfare will be for UK citizens only. It will not be for foreign-born nationals. Indeed, we'll become like most normal countries in the world. And in particular, what we're focusing on this morning is the Boris wave. The Boris wave after his huge victory in 2019. And I think the millions that came in the years of his premiership represents the greatest betrayal of democratic wishes, certainly in anyone's living memory. This is not what Brexit voters wanted, and it's certainly not what any Conservative voter wanted from 2010 onwards, where at election after election after election, they were promised that net migration would come down to tens of thousands a year, and we learn it was up to, in the worst year, a million, although we haven't yet got the revisions, by the time they come in, it almost certainly will be over 1 million.
The anticipated cost of the 800,000 plus who will qualify for indefinite leave to remain over the course of the next three to four years. The anticipated cost of this group of people is a staggering £230 billion. It is absolutely an eyewatering sum of money. We will not only say that these people do not qualify for indefinite leave to remain. We will abolish indefinite leave to remain as a category in this country.
Zia will lay out in a minute the, oh dear, that's not very good, is it? Well, things go wrong. Hey, we'll laugh and carry on. Zia will outline the visa scheme in just a moment, but you know, you come on a work visa, you can't bring a dependent with you. You can't claim benefits. And of course, there'll be a route to citizenship, but a much tougher route to citizenship than we currently have. As I say, we will become like normal countries all over the world. And it's vital that we do this and vital that we get it right. This is grossly unfair on taxpayers. They are being absolutely hammered, uh, to pay for people who are not British citizens. And in terms of the national debt, which I touched on earlier, well, we've got major, major problems looming there already. We are not the world's food bank. It is not for us to provide welfare for people coming in from all over the world. The 800,000 people that will get indefinite leave to remain, unless this policy is revoked, tend to be young, tend to be low-skilled, they are going to be a huge burden on the state. And yes, of course, there's been debate in the newspapers this morning about those already here with indefinite leave to remain. And I, you know, and we just don't know. We don't know because the figures aren't available just how many of those are currently claiming benefits. What we do know is that one in six claimants of Universal Credit alone today, one in six is a foreign-born national, and we don't have the relevant figures for PIP and many of the other benefits that are available. Getting numbers out of this, and the last government has proved a very difficult thing to do. So, yes, we'll have work visas, and I've made it very, very clear: you come here to work, and you're working. And what we're announcing today is without doubt a very bold set of proposals. It takes us away from where the debate in British politics has been for the last 25 years, but it does actually put the British people first. And that's why the document is entitled "Prioritizing UK Citizens." And that is the right, proper, decent, and fair thing to do.
I will hand over now to Zia Ysef.
Good morning, everyone. So, as Nigel has just outlined, uh, Britain is facing a looming fiscal disaster, the Boris wave. In fact, actually, the biggest betrayal the Tory government inflicted on this country has not yet exploded. That is the Boris wave. That is the millions of largely low-skilled, unskilled, non-EU migrants that were allowed to come to this country with more dependents than ever before, who will in the coming years be eligible to apply for indefinite, uh, uh, for ILR, indefinite leave to remain.
So, how do we solve this problem? And how do we finally, as Nigel says, put British people first? Give British young people asymmetric access to our labor market. Sort out the fact that for too many, for decades now, actually, in this country, business has had unlimited access to dirt-cheap foreign labor at the expense of British workers. And probably most punishing of all for the long-suffering British taxpayer, the enormous amount of money that is spent on welfare at the behest of the British taxpayer for foreign nationals.
So, here's our solution. Firstly, we abolish ILR altogether. We will replace it with a five-year renewable work visa, just like a lot of other countries do. America, uh, the UAE, many comparators out there. The qualifying salary for this work visa will be materially higher than it is today. The specific number will be determined by our net fiscal model in close to a general election because that's a sensible and responsible thing to do, but it will be materially higher than it is today. Number two, you cannot have criminal convictions. Number three, as Nigel says, when he's Prime Minister, we will ensure we legislate so that foreign nationals are ineligible to claim welfare. That one in six number Nigel mentioned is is a catastrophe. This cost us £9 billion pounds last year alone. And again, I want to emphasize that's before the impact of the Boris wave has actually been felt. So, we have to make these changes. It's the only way we can prevent the UK, frankly, going bankrupt many times over as a result of these issues.
We will also introduce an English standards test. So, we will materially increase the required threshold, uh, of English needed to qualify, um, for this five-year renewable visa. And because it's renewable, it means you must continue to adhere to those conditions in order to get it renewed after five years. That's exactly the sort of thing America does, for example, and it ensures the appropriate level of compliance. We will also increase the number of years it, uh, you need, you need to be in this country to qualify, um, for British citizenship. The British passport is incredibly precious. We think it's the best passport in the world. Um, it should be treated as such. So, we will increase, um, that threshold to seven years.
Now, we are aware, we are obviously aware that there are certain job functions in this country that are reliant on foreign labor without which there would be material detriment to British people. We call these national critical roles. So, as a result of that, we will create something called an ASSB, an acute skill shortage visa. These will be strictly limited in number. There will be a finite cap at the start of the year, and really importantly, any employer that is sponsoring via this visa and benefits from it will have to pay a levy that, in turn, is spent on training the equivalent British worker for that role. This has insanely never really happened before, which is why it just goes on and on and on, and the acute turns into the chronic. So, by implementing this policy, we will ensure that, for example, our care homes do have enough workers, but we'll go into the detail on that. That doesn't mean they can bring infinite dependents, but what it will mean is the national critical functions will be fulfilled in the near term, but British people will be trained up to do those jobs so that to the degree we do issue those ASSVs, it will build long-term, uh, native British capacity. That's a really, really important part of the changes we're making.
I also want to be clear: the existing routes for entrepreneurs, brilliant founders, for investors who want to come invest millions of pounds in this country, you are welcome. And in fact, uh, in, in the coming months and years, we will announce more routes, um, to do just that. You've already heard our, uh, Britannia card policy. Now, one of the interesting things about, uh, all of these policies we have announced here is that they can be summed up by the statement that a Reform government under Nigel expects migrants to more than pay their way, not commit crime, and ultimately to speak English and contribute to this country. The fact that this is in any way controversial says more about the state of decay and malaise and betrayal that the political class has inflicted on this country.
Um, so I want to say one other thing because Nigel mentioned it, but I just cannot emphasize this enough. You're probably going to have questions about, is it £234 billion? Is it £200 billion? Is it £400 billion? I want to make this point: the government chooses to hide data about the visa status and nationality of people using the NHS. So, we don't know what that cost item is. It chooses to hide the same for state pension recipients. It chooses to hide the same for PIP disability, uh, recipients, and it chooses to hide the same for social care. These are enormous cost items. Ask yourselves why they hide those numbers. The true scale of this fiscal disaster that is looming on this country if we do not get a Reform government and if Nigel's not the Prime Minister, in reality, is much, much higher than that £234 billion pounds a year. And that's before we talk about the robbing of British people of their culture, the robbing of our young people of opportunity. You know, Boris Johnson was in the last week, wrote an op-ed lambasting our younger generation for being wet, for being wimps. Now, look, there are many challenges that ail our, our young generation, and of course, they're not perfect, but they, no, no older generation in this country had to compete with so much cheap, unskilled foreign labor coming into this country. So, I personally thought Boris Johnson having the gall to write such a thing, uh, was a bit rich. Um, but look, ultimately, what this comes down to is prioritizing British people for British jobs, ensuring that our welfare system is for UK citizens and UK, UK citizens only, and ensuring that that Boris wave of enormous numbers, millions, in fact, 3.8 million, um, is what we would consider to be in the Boris wave. The 800,000 of that that one might estimate would get ILR. I want to emphasize this point too. Actually, this is a really important point to note that makes assumptions about the take-up of ILR that are based on historic data. That historic data was when EU nationals were the majority of the incoming net legal migration cohorts. This has flipped in completely on its head. So, even that would suggest that the assumption of £234 billion is way too low, because I put it to you, I put it to you, no matter what your political persuasion, try to be objective about answering this question: Do you think French people and Swedish people and Finn are more or less likely to apply for ILR and ultimately citizenship in this country than people from India, Afghanistan, or Pakistan? I think we all know the answer to that question. So, I want to emphasize again, the magnitude of this, this looming fiscal disaster is huge. Reform will solve the problem. Thank you very much, and we'll take questions.
Zia, thank you. As ever, we are open to all questions, unlike, I think, the other parties. And we're going to begin with Ian Watson from the BBC. There's a microphone. Better. Um, you may well participate in some of these, uh, questions, but let's ask you firstly a specific question and a more general question. Specifically, the first line of this document and the last line quotes a £230 billion figure, which the Centre for Policy Studies, who come up with a figure, say is no longer reliable. In the interest of honesty and transparency, will you withdraw that figure? More generally, isn't it the case that people are more concerned about what is going on in the channel than with people who are already here, who've passed English language tests, or perhaps paid modestly in the care sector? And doesn't it sit uncomfortably with a British sense of fair play to tell people who think they're here indefinitely that they've got to leave?
The first question, the £230 billion figure, as Zia has just said, that is without doubt too low. It underestimates things. I suspect many more than 800,000 actually will apply for indefinite leave to remain. Plus, it's quite tough to get all of the figures. And if you go back to those who've already been granted indefinite leave to remain, without doubt, the number is considerably bigger. The British public are very focused on what's happening in the English Channel. That is right because it's visible. It's there for all to see. And you now have Conservative and Labour governments both promising they'll do something about it. So the issue has become a very big national issue, and people are worried, as we saw with the Bell Hotel in Epping. They're worried about crime. They're worried about national security. There has not been a proper debate on legal immigration because all the so-called main political parties have agreed. Both Labour and Conservative governments have been happy to have open-door migration. The Liberal Democrats obviously would not criticize, nor the SNP, nor the Greens, nor anybody. And that is why we've not had a proper full national debate about this. What we are attempting to do today is to make people realize that large-scale migration into Britain, where 50% at least of those that come will never work and live off the British state, is actually making this country substantially poorer, and we want to have that debate. Quite how the Labour and Conservatives will defend themselves against this, I don't know. So, we want to have an honest debate. And you talked to me about a sense of fair play. Yes, you're quite right. A fair play to British people who've been priced out of the market, where minimum wage has become maximum wage in many, many sectors, where employers and others haven't bothered to upskill British people by relying on endless cheap foreign labor coming into Britain. This is the end of endless cheap foreign labor and an attempt to get young British people trained up to do the right jobs with the right pay.
Thank you, Olivia Utley from GB News. Sorry, I just thought that. Thank you. Under your proposals, those applying for citizenship would have to wait seven years. Is the Conservatives have said that they're double the time that someone would have to spend in the UK before applying for indefinite leave to remain from five years to ten years. Isn't your proposal actually more lax than theirs?
Well, they're just kicking the can down the road, aren't they? And let's not confuse citizenship with indefinite leave to remain. Yeah, exactly. So, so firstly, you know, once again, this is this actually probably is the ultimate example of the Tories turning up as firefighters for their own arson. Um, I mean, they've inflicted all of this on the country. This is probably the ultimate example of that. Um, but look, there are people who come to this country and contribute. I actually want to go back to that question about care home workers and fair play. Uh, my mother has worked in care homes for years, still works in care homes to this day, and she's over 70. And some people say, "Well, Zia, why don't you retire?" This, I could pay her all the money in my pockets, I couldn't stop her delivering care because that's who she is. And I will tell you this: inside care homes, nobody is more acutely aware of the abuse, the widespread atrocious abuse of the care home visa program, um, that has happened over the last few years. So, I want to be really clear, uh, about that. And we will ensure that there are enough staff, um, to staff those care homes, but as we've been saying time and time again, not for infinity number of years. We have to start training British people, uh, to do those jobs and incentivize, uh, people to do them. And look, um, currently, it's about five years, right? We are going to increase that, uh, to seven years. But the most important part of what we are announcing today, I can't emphasize this enough, is that the Boris wave of 3.8 million people, the 800,000 that we would conservatively assume will take up ILR and then live off the state for the rest of their, the rest of their lives, will not happen under a Reform government.
Very good. Mari Aurora from Sky News. Thank you. Mari Aurora from Sky News. Um, can I just get some clarity very quickly on if somebody is on benefits but has indefinite leave to remain at the moment, will they be deported? Is that exactly what the policy is? And if so, do you expect legal challenges on that? And if I may, just a second question: What about pensioners who have indefinite leave to remain? They won't be able to apply for a work visa because they're not working anymore, but they may have been in this country for decades.
Let us deal with the main objective of today's press conference. It's to wake everybody up to the Boris wave. It's to wake everybody up to the sheer irresponsibility of the last government and the massive impending cost that will have on this country for decades and decades to come. That is the primary reason that we're sitting here talking with you today. Yes, it is true there are those here on indefinite leave to remain that are living on benefits. Will we be free from legal challenges? Well, of course, having, having cut out, having cut out the Human Rights Act, the European Court in Strasbourg, British courts will be free to make judgments that are the right judgments, which they're not at the moment. We are not for a minute pretending that going back through the backlog is going to be an easy thing to do. It'll be complex. It'll come in many forms, but we do intend to address it.
Any thoughts on that?
Yeah. No, completely agree. I mean, look, um, will we get legal challenges to Nigel's entire agenda? Yes. One quite cool feature a government does actually have, if they have the political will and the parliamentary majority to do it, is to change the laws, which ultimately is what legal challenge is dealing with. So, as Nigel says, top of the agenda is leaving the CHR, repealing the Human Rights Act, replacing it with a British Bill of Rights. So, to the degree there are legal challenges, uh, Nigel's government will win them.
Okay. Romney Weeks from ITV News. Thank you very much. You seem to be quite keen not to be pinned down too much on the detail but to talk in broad brush terms, but what is the legal basis, for example, for removing indefinite leave to remain from people who've already been granted it, many of whom will have jobs, lives, families here, and care homes, restaurants, the NHS are already struggling to fill vacancies with exactly the kind of workers that you would be targeting. Are you happy to further damage those sectors? And how do you expect them to be able to afford to, to pay for the additional levy to train equivalent British workers?
We've given you full details. None of the 800,000 plus that came here under the Boris wave that will be available to apply for indefinite leave to remain over the course of the next three to four years. None of them will be given indefinite leave to remain. None of them will be given access to the UK's benefit system, and none of them will be able to bring dependents. That, I think, is quite a lot of very exact policy detail. In terms of staff that are necessary, and I do repeat the point that mass unskilled migration has driven in many, many cases the minimum wage to become the maximum wage. Under our proposals, would pay go up? Yes, it would go up a bit, and I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Uh, would our proposals help train British people for jobs? It would. But let Zia reiterate how the visa scheme would work for where there are genuine labor shortages.
Yeah. Um, so firstly, you know, again, the premise of your question is everybody who is here on ILR is working, and actually, as we've already pointed out, that the opposite is the truth. Now, there are people who are on ILR who are contributing significantly to this country. We're not disputing that. That's why we are introducing this five-year renewable visa, albeit with a materially higher salary threshold, um, so that the people you're referring to who are adding a lot of value to the country, uh, fiscally, um, on a net basis, will be able to stay. That's totally fine, and they will have a path to citizenship. With regards to, for example, care workers, I've already referred to this. They would be inside that ASSB C category, acute, um, skills shortage visa. But we want to emphasize it will be a finite number. It will be capped. It will not be open to abuse. And to the degree that, um, employers benefit from that visa, they will have to fund a program to train British workers. I want to reiterate the fact that this doesn't happen currently is the reason why we have had open borders now, uh, for so many years. We are giving business. Look, I want to make the other point, too, which is, look, if we're serious about saying we're going to, uh, cut net immigration to zero, we're going to embark on deporting people who are here illegally, we're going to stop the abuse of our welfare system, yes, there will be some businesses who do have to pay more for that labor. There are 6 and a half million British people on Universal Credit, which is primarily, um, an out-of-work benefit, and only a third of the British people who are on benefits are actively looking for work. Now, we're not going to claim this is some super simple problem to solve, but we are deadly serious about solving it, and it will never be solved if there is a tap for unlimited, uh, low-skilled immigration.
Simeon Brown, Channel 4 News. Many of the people who took part in the protests a few weeks ago to unite the United Kingdom said that their beef was not with people who were here for legal purposes. They said that if you came here and you were working and you were contributing, that was fine for them. Does this policy almost betray, betray, you know, British values in the sense of fairness? And fundamentally, has there been an assessment of the cost? Many people on indefinite leave, they are working, they are contributing, they are running businesses, and so has there been a factor, a factor in of what impact this could have on those people? And ultimately, does this also set up potentially a kind of Windrush scandal type fiasco, especially when you consider how integrated many of those people really are? You know, they're in marriages, they're in friendships, uh, they're colleagues of people. So, this policy has a potential to not only unsettle deep social fabrics but also have a huge economic impact.
Yeah. I mean, look, the, um, the reason that people will answer that at the march or wherever else it may be, and it goes back to the first question that we had today, is there's been no debate on this. There've been no facts. If people are coming here, working, contributing, obeying the law, not bringing dependents, not using the welfare system, then people won't have any objections because we're a fair-minded country. What they don't know, because no one's ever told them, is over half of those that come don't work and will never ever work and are a direct drain on the taxes that they themselves pay when they get up in the morning and go to work. And, and, and, and we're not against skilled immigration into Britain. In fact, Zia has, you know, said, of course, we want this. We want people coming in. We want bright people coming in. We want those that will contribute to our society. We will have lower-skilled people on visas where there are genuine shortages in the market. We've not had the debate. And I, I repeat the point: for 20 years, I was told, "Shut up and go away because it's good for the economy." And now we can see not only is there a massive welfare bill, not only is there the impact on the quality of life through a population that has risen by 10 million in 20 years, uh, but that actually net financially, if you look at productivity and many other measures and deskilling of the British workforce, it's been a net loss. On the complexity of families going back, we understand that. Yeah, we do. We, we absolutely understand that. And, you know, that's why we're giving people advanced notice of what's coming. And this will all be in the frankly hundreds of pages of legislation that we aim to have ready should, uh, should Reform win the next general election. I want to go back. There was a question earlier about what's the legal basis for, uh, revoking on a retrospective basis that already. I want to be really clear about this: Parliament is sovereign. Parliament is sovereign, and with primary legislation, that will be the legal basis. Now, our aim, as we've said many times before, is to get Nigel into Number 10 Downing Street, flanked by 350 to 400, uh, Reform MPs who believe in this, who understand what our agenda is, and will vote this stuff through. The fact that these questions are even asked in a country like this is just a function of learned helplessness because we've had 14 years of Tory government. There were basically two or three different political parties in one, and nobody had, uh, the political courage. So, the answer is primary, primary legislation, and Parliament being sovereign.
Martin Beckford from the Daily Mail. Thank you. Um, you admit these ideas are very bold. Do you not have any concern that by promising such huge savings and massive reductions in immigration, you're bound to disappoint your voters who already have very low trust in politicians on this issue?
Thank you. I understand we're aiming high. I understand we're ambitious. We need to be. The country is in dire trouble. Dire trouble economically, dire trouble socially. Uh, these are, let's put it to you like this: there's nothing we're proposing that we don't think is doable. And the primary purpose of today's press conference, as I'm going to say for a third or fourth time, is to make sure that the Boris wave do not qualify for ILR, are not able to bring dependents, are not able to claim benefits. Otherwise, the cost to our welfare system over the next five to ten years will literally send us under economically. That is absolutely achievable. And indeed, when we spoke at the previous conference about deportations of illegals, you know, we had the former head of Border Force saying, "Yeah, actually, the numbers that they've talked about are realistic." Is it going to take great political will to achieve these things? Yes. And that's why those people that stand for us at the next general election, we don't want careerists. We want people who genuinely believe in this mission.
Thank you. Uh, Ryan Sabi from the Sam. Thank you very much. Um, with so many overseas workers who could possibly be leaving, are you sure, and how convinced are you, that British workers have the appetite and aptitude to do many of the jobs, especially with many on the long, long-term sick, sick, and 2.6, 6 million, um, on that long-term sick?
Well, we have to revise the long-term sick. The system that's been in place over the course of the last few years is frankly farcical, where you go to a family GP, you say you've got depression, the family GP feels pressured to sign you up. I mean, during the pandemic, it was being done on 10-minute Zooms. Um, and a lot of that needs to be revised. You know, there, I mean, it just is ridiculous that, you know, another thousand people a week are going onto long-term, uh, sickness disability benefits and frankly being written off and told that they're victims is not good for them either. Um, so look, we are going to have to, one thing that will encourage people to go to work, of course, is the fact that, you know, we're saying that average wages under these plans will go up. And I understand that some employers will say, look, life is tough, etc., but equally, you know, I mean, when you've got a million people now, 1 million people in work who would be better off coming off work and getting sickness and disability benefit, tells you what terrible poverty trap we're stuck in in this country. And that is why, and this is an aspiration we can't do in the first year. This will take time, but it's why our ultimate aspiration will be to raise to £20,000 the threshold at which people start paying tax. And that would get us out of this 16-hour a week trap. People want to go to work, but if they work for more than 16 hours, they're worse off than we currently are. I accept, and it referring back to to Martin's question earlier, that's not something we can do overnight. We would need to have created massive investment and huge growth to get there, but it's where we intend to get to.
Okay. Aubry Aliggressi from The Times. Uh, good morning. Thank you, Nigel. Aubry Algresi from The Times. Um, first question to Zia, if I may. What is the cap on the national critical role visas? Uh, how many will, uh, be eligible per year? How will the cap be set? Can it be changed on a whim or depending on sort of sudden shocks or needs of the economy, or is it going to be hardwired into legislation? You mentioned that care workers would be in that. What other professions will be as well? And if I may, Mr. Farage, I'd like to ask again: are you willing to deport pensioners who refuse to apply for, uh, the the new visa that you're setting up? Obviously, they won't be eligible for the worker skilled ones. Uh, yeah, those are the two questions. Thanks.
Yeah, sure. So, you know, the first question, uh, you asked with regarding, uh, the acute skills shortage visa. Look, this is a serious piece of work. Um, so we're not going to have all the answers to that now. It's going to be contemporaneous to when we are in government, if that's the result that the British electorate, uh, delivers. It will be, uh, it will recognize where the shortages, uh, actually are. But I want to emphasize, it will be capped. It will be finite. Obviously, if there's a major shock, you know, some sort of COVID-style black swan event in the middle of the year, of course, Nigel's going to be, uh, practical about that. But I want to emphasize again, it has to be capped. It has to be finite. I want to say one other thing, though. The policy team doing this work, it is pretty unfathomable how little data this country appears to have on any of this stuff. I mean, how is it that the ONS revises up the net migration number from last year from like 800,000 to a million when these are people coming to the country illegally, going through turnstiles, scanning their passports? If you would ask any corporate in and around London how many people are in their building at any given point, they would be able to answer because they're scanning passes. The reason why there isn't data on this stuff, no data on foreign nationals using the NHS or state pension or PIP, etc., is because the government does not want us to know the answer. So, we will materially upgrade, um, our data capabilities. But I want to emphasize again, strictly limited, um, strictly capped, and to the degree that they are issued, British workers will be on an accelerated basis trained up to take those jobs. The people you're talking about, the pensioners, probably have UK citizenship. If they haven't got UK citizenship, why on earth are we paying them old age pensions? Why on earth would we be paying them old age pensions? But you're missing the point. The real point is our biggest worry are not older people. If we're going to go back, our biggest priority are young, unproductive people who are here, who are not working. And yet, if they get ILR, we'll be able to bring extended members of their family to this country at enormous economic costs. It's actually the age profile that worries us about the Boris wave in some ways more than anything else. Young, unproductive people. Unlike the myth that everyone that comes to Britain works hard, pays their taxes, it just sadly isn't true. But I repeat the point for the fifth time: this press conference is about stopping the Boris wave of a minimum of 800,000 people getting indefinite leave to remain at vast cost to this country over the decades to come. Yes, there are historic messes and problems to clear up, and that will take time, but the immediacy of what we're talking about is what we believe we will be able to do within the first 100 days.
Thank you, Charles Hass, Telegraph. Um, can I just clarify on the proposals? Do they include, um, EU settled status citizens, or, is it only non-EU citizens, of which there are about 420,000? And if it does include EU citizens, what implications are that for renegotiating the withdrawal agreement? And finally, you've been a loss on legislation, um, and the importance of legislation. How are you going to deal with potentially massive opposition from the House of Lords to abolish it?
We, no, I mean, it's a good question because you're looking for the right answer, aren't you? But no, but we, we might, if we face that problem, just have to appoint a few more peers. But we'll leave Danny Krueger to work out all of those issues. He's, he's sitting at the back of the room. I'm very happy for you to chat to him afterwards. All right. EU national. Yeah. So, um, did you say 400,000 non-EU? They figure the migration observatory is about 420,000 people currently only. Okay. Yeah. I mean, the, the reality is that we think the numbers materially higher than that, and the government doesn't disclose these numbers. So that would be a guesstimate anyway. Um, look, the answer is no, in terms of EU, uh, settled status. I want to, but there is a caveat. There is a caveat. There are a lot of EU nationals in this country who, who are drawing on Universal Credit. So, you, you know, you can expect Nigel's government to, uh, open negotiations with the European Union specifically, uh, about the welfare aspect. But as Nigel has said time and again, the big issue we're talking about here is the non-EU numbers. And by the way, even if that 400,000 number is correct, which again, we certainly don't recognize that number, and we, we looked really hard to find any official data. Most of the people we're talking about here, here do not yet have ILR. This is the point. They're going to be getting ILR at extraordinary, unprecedented rates. They're much younger than historic migrants. They're from countries that are frankly, um, countries that will have a much higher propensity to claim ILR and citizenship than historically, because over 90, 90% I think it's 96% of the Boris wave are non-EU. This was the craziness of the betrayal. They, he basically flipped EU migration into non-EU migration and then turned on the afterburners. Yeah.
Michael Nolles, Daily Express. Thank you very much. Your policy document indicates that the number of dependents that someone can bring will be linked to their salaries, and it also specifies that, for example, Tier 1 would be one dependent. Will you specify who that dependent is? And to give an example, what would happen if it's a family of four, of two adults and two children? Thank you.
Yeah. So, um, so the answer is yes. Uh, if we're actually serious about ensuring migrants are paying their way, we know that dependents are orders of magnitude less likely to be working themselves and to be, uh, contributing even on a gross basis to the exchequer and to the country as a whole. So, it has to be linked, um, to, uh, to that. And if you're in any doubt about that, you know, if there's a world-class neurosurgeon who wants to move to the United Kingdom under a Reform government, um, we're not going to be asking which kid they have to leave behind, right? So, we have to be serious, uh, about this. The reason we haven't put the numbers in is again because we're serious. We need to do net fiscal modeling with whatever data is available. Uh, we will be lobbying as hard as we can to get disclosure from this government, um, about, you know, the inputs into that model, and it will be contemporaneous to, uh, just before a, uh, general, uh, election. So, there has to be a very serious discussion, uh, about how many dependents come, and that's why we've modeled it that way.
All over the world. You apply for a work visa. That visa is for you. Not to bring your family. It's for you. It's for a set period of time, and at the end of it, you leave, or you, or you're physically deported. That is how a normal work visa works. And we're talking about a five-year renewable visa. And there'll be those that bring great credit to themselves, to our country, who will want, in some cases, to transition to UK citizenship. Others who won't. And once the visa is up, it's up, and they go. Uh, and, and, and, and this is the odd thing about our debate in this country is that we just, we've just accepted that a work visa is an automatic right route and right, yeah, to immigration for you and the whole of your family from whatever part of the world it may be. That is how completely wrongheaded everything has been since New Labour, going back to the late 1990s, when this thinking first came in, having not been there at all in the decades since the end of the Second World War. You know, 50 years, 55 years of managed migration, sensible net migration that had come to Britain in all those years, and everything went haywire under New Labour, and sadly, the Conservatives, whilst talking the talk, never had the courage to walk the walk. And we have Nila Lloyd from PA. Thanks. Um, you said that legal migration under Boris Johnson was very poorly managed. But as it stands, isn't it the case that people who came to the, um, came to the country under that government will have had the opportunity to apply for UK citizenship by the time of the next election? And, um, is it part of your plans to retroactively review UK citizenship grants, as well as reviewing the right to be here for people who are previously granted ILR, or will everyone who has previously been granted UK citizenship be safe?
No, no. If you've been granted UK citizenship, you have been granted UK citizenship. To be absolutely clear, there should be no confusion over that. You know, we would not retrospectively change that because you become a legal citizen of this country. We would never, ever suggest otherwise. Yeah. No, nothing to add to that.
Okie dokie. Uh, Lucy White from Bloomberg. Hi, both. Thank you for taking questions. Um, I wanted to ask you about, well, Labour has already announced plans to extend the, uh, timeline for ILR from five years to ten years. Already, we've had a lot of questions from clients, from readers in the city, who are worried about the fact that they may no longer be able to, you know, have the plans that they were banking on when they arrived in this country. Do you accept this is going to have a huge chilling effect on the types of workers who want to come to the country? Um, and yes, you talk about the investor visa and so on, but there are, um, many people who would not qualify for an investor visa who are still bringing a lot of economic benefit to the country. And then, if I can ask about the care sector as well, um, how do you expect them to fund the training that you're asking them to do when it, it is largely a state-funded sector, and they're already saying that they can't afford that? Lots and lots of questions there. Very good.
Um, so Labour have said they will extend it from five years to ten years because, you know, they're being advised. There is a fiscal disaster coming down the road at them, but they're obviously aware of this. They've said they'll kick it from five to ten years. As far as I'm aware, they've taken no action on this whatsoever. And all that is doing is kicking the can down the road whilst at the same time, huge numbers of people continue to come. So that doesn't actually solve anything. And would those in the city that are coming in from America to work for Goldman Sachs, uh, be worried whether they met the salary thresholds? I very much doubt it. Care sector. Yep. Um, so that, that's spot on. The kind of people that you'd be talking about there will not have any issues with the work visa, uh, that we're talking about. Uh, in terms of the care home sector, look, there's a huge amount of work to be done, uh, on the care sector. We know there's going to be a big shortfall of beds. Our policy teams have already started working on this. But I want to emphasize again, no one is more acutely aware of the abuse in the care home sector, about the total lack of checks there were for, there were no real checks at all about whether they even had the relevant qualifications. What you ended up happening actually was the honest people self-selected out, and the dishonest people, in many cases, not all, but in many cases, ended up coming here with a huge number of dependents. I'll give you a statistic: in 2010, the number of dependents per, um, per work visa issued was 0.7. Um, now that number is 1.2. And when you extrapolate that through any model on this stuff, that is a catastrophe. And the care home sector is a big, uh, part of that. That I think it was in 2023, the relevant government department thought that they were going to issue 6,000, 6,000 visas, and this is in the document, and they ended up issuing 58 times more than that. 58 times more than that. This is the state of decay and total malaise and incompetence that we currently have in our immigration policy. So, we will ensure the British people have enough hospice beds, have enough, uh, care home beds, but all of this is connected. That we're not going to, we're certainly not going to have that because it's an infinity amount of money that the care home sector needs if we're also going to take care of the millions of Boris Wave, uh, migrants who would end up staying here for decades.
Yeah. Alan Sherry, Guido Forks. Thank you. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has responded to your plans today and he says, "Thousands of Londoners have indefinite leave to remain. They have legal rights and are our friends, neighbors, and colleagues." He goes on to say, "Threatening to deport people living and working here legally is unacceptable." What's your response?
What about the ones that aren't working? What about the ones that have never worked and never will work? What about having an honest debate about those we've let into this country, many of whom are great people, fine, we understand that. But too many of whom are not. We've totally, we've totally misunderstood what a work permit, what a work visa is. It's been a backdoor to full-time settlement. And look, you know, we will do battle with Mayor Khan in the 32 London boroughs that are up for election next May.
And and I'll answer more directly questions from him, uh, when my time comes.
Uh, two more. Kitty Donaldson from the I newspaper. Uh, thanks very much. Apologies if I missed this, but have you put an uh, a salary cap on the higher uh rate visa, working visas? And secondly, just to go back to the care sector. Um, we're staring down the barrel of an aging population, uh, councils who are strapped for cash, will there be a sort of transition period where you say to councils, look, we're not taking away all your cheap labor? And how long will that transition period be? And uh, I mean, when if Reform wins uh the general election, at which point do you think you'll get to the point where you've got the sort of labor you want to have in place in the care sector?
On the first part of that on caps, you ask about salary caps. There was another question over there about numbers caps. Uh, the point about caps is that there are things that need to be changed every single year. They vary according to circumstance, according to industry. And you know, the answer is the answer is we don't know where the next general election is going to be. I suspect it might be rather sooner than some other people think it will be. Uh, and and we'll do that nearer the time. To do it now would be quite ridiculous.
Care again. Yeah. I mean, look, uh, it's exactly as uh Nigel said, we are very much aware of all of the issues that exist inside the care sector. Yeah. Want to emphasize as it says in the document, we will ensure that this is all done on a staged and staggered basis in consultation with business. But I want to say one other thing too. You know, I understand why this is the case, but most of the sort of human questions that have been put to us, you know, what about this particular person or this particular person? Well, number one, if people in this country on an ILR and they are contributing, they're going to be absolutely fine. So, that's crystal clear. But what no one has really asked a question. What about the British people whose backs are breaking under the enormous tax burden and that's only going to increase? We're going to get a budget from Rachel Reeves imminently. That is going to be the most they're going to be hideous tax increases for working people. That's the reality. This country is buckling under that pressure. When we speak to voters, when we speak to British people, nobody seems to care about their plight. Nobody seems to care about the plight of young people, as I said, who have to compete with all of this foreign labor. So, those are the people ultimately we're looking out for.
It's a very strong point. And last question, Anna Grace, Financial Times. Thank you. Um, Nigel, you said in your opening remarks that we don't know how many migrants are claiming benefits. Um, but you wrote in the Daily Mail that most migrants rely on benefits. Can you clarify which cohort you were referring to in the article and what's the source of that statistic? Um, and because because migration experts that I've spoken to this morning say that there's no evidence at all for that claim.
We are firmly of the belief with research backing it up that just over 50% of those who are coming up as part of the Boris wave for indefinite leave to remain are not working, have not worked and in all probability will never ever work. And by the way, if you if you want to challenge what I've just said, ask the government for the numbers. Ask the British government for the numbers because we've been trying for quite a long time and failed. Maybe with the the might and the power of the Financial Times, you can get a straight answer.
I see one more hand up over there if you want to pass the microphone down. Two more. Sorry. Okay. Much Agie Shambre, LBC. Um, first question. Have you done any modeling on how many businesses will close as a result of this policy? And if you have, can you tell us how many? And also today you've been extremely critical of Boris Johnson. Talked a lot about the Boris wave. If you are so critical of him, why are you accepting people who were in his government who are extremely close to him politically like Nadine Dory's and Jake Barry?
Well, we've we we've accepted one or two people that were in that government who understand the error of their ways and have come to us for repentance um is the answer to that. And how many business I wonder how many businesses have closed. I wonder what's happened to genuine growth with this. If you actually have a look at what has happened to UK productivity since Blair launched the mass migration experiment, you will find it has actually been in productive terms a disaster for this country. So how many firms that could have prospered haven't? How many have gone bust that shouldn't have done? It's led to a change of culture that has been ruinous. Yeah. And and how many you should ask how many um a question for the government. How many businesses have gone under and will go under as a result of the increase in national insurance contributions to name just one tax just name one tax in recent uh months that has been imposed on on British people that was attack on jobs we've already seen from HMRC payrolls uh coming down so the reality is what we're proposing is going to be for the benefit of British workers and ultimately for the benefit of British businesses too.
Right and this really is the last question there. Sorry, were you on the list earlier? No. Go on. Thank you. Eleni career from the Guardian. A couple of quick questions. Uh, will you revoke ILR from Ukrainians and Hong Kongers who have moved here under the government schemes to support those specific groups? Um, and many people with ILR have lived here for longer than a decade will have British families, children who have um, only British citizenship. Are you willing to split up families in order to by removing ILR from those people? 800,000 people are due to qualify for indefinite leave to remain over the course of the next few years. This press conference is to say none of them will get it. Thank you. Uh, there was one more hand over there. Thank you. Um, Jane Merrick from the eye paper. I actually wanted to ask about the recognition of Palestine. If you win the next election, will you drecognize Palestine?
Well, that's a big if down the road type question. I think I think that Stalmour was completely wrong to do that. You can't reward uh, you know, terrorists like Hamas. And even though he tried to caveat what he said, the fact is that right at the moment Hamas and the Palestinian cause are inseparable one for the other. And how can you recognize a state if you don't even know what the boundaries geographical boundaries of it would be? Let alone to recognize a state where the people that are running it are intent on wiping out the population of Israel. So, I think that was a terrible mistake.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much indeed. Thank you. I don't know why those names were not on the list. Thank you. I don't know why those names were not on the list. Well, that was a press conference by the uh, Reform UK party, Nigel Farage and Zia Ysef spelling out uh, a new policy that was widely trailed ahead of this conference that they proposed to abolish indefinite leave to remain completely within the first 100 days of a Reform government. Uh, they have also stated they would change the law so nobody other than UK citizens will be eligible for any form of welfare and increase the qualifying period for UK citizenship to seven years. They say that ILR indefinite leave to rem would be rescindered from those currently holding the status and then replaced with a five-year renewable visa. Uh, slight confusion though at the end there. Interesting question from the Guardian. Would that mean that ILR would be rescinded from those uh, from Ukraine and from Hong Kong? And Nigel Farage there saying at the end that this would be about the new what he has dubbed the Boris wave. Those who uh, he estimates to be 800 thou 800,000 people who potentially will be coming in uh, in the next few years. Uh, so that uh, there this Reform press conference widely trailed. We'll be getting reaction uh, to that coming up on Sky News in the next hour. Uh, plus we will uh, get more about the recognition of Palestinian statethood and the flag that's been raised over new Palestinian embassy.
[Music]
Hello. Good afternoon. Breaking news in the last hour. Nigel Farage has pledged to kick out hundreds of legal migrants out of the country if he becomes prime minister. Speaking in the last hour, the Reform UK party leader revealed plans to scrap indefinite leave to remain visas as well as make welfare only available to British citizens. We will not only say that these people are do not qualify for indefinite leave to remain. We will abolish indefinite leave to remain as a category in this country. We are not the world's food bank. It is not for us to provide welfare for people coming in from all over the world. The 800,000 people that will get indefinite leave to remain unless this policy is revoked tend to be young, tend to be low-skilled. They are going to be a huge burden on the state.
Well, our political correspondent Mario Aurora was at that news conference and asked Mr. Farage whether someone with indefinite leave to remain on benefits would be deported. and if so, whether to expect legal challenges. Let us deal with the main objective of today's press conference. It's to wake everybody up to the Boris wave. It's to wake everybody up to the sheer irresponsibility of the last government and the massive impending cost that will have on this country for decades and decades to come. That is the primary reason that we're sitting here talking with you today. Yes, it is true. There are those here on indefinite leave to remain that are living on benefits. Will we be free from legal challenges? Well, of course, having having cut out having cut out the Human Rights Act, the European Court in Strasburg, British courts will be free to make judgments that are the right judgments, which they're not at the moment. We are not for a minute pretending that going back through the backlog is going to be an easy thing to do. It'll be complex. It'll come in many forms, but we do intend to address it.
So, any thoughts on that? Yeah. No, completely agree. I mean, look, um, will we get legal challenges to Nigel's entire agenda? Yes. One quite cool feature a government does actually have, if they have the political will and the parliamentary majority to do it, is to change the laws, which ultimately is what legal challenge is dealing with. So, as Nigel says, top of the agenda is leaving the CHR, repealing the Human Rights Act, replacing it with the British Bill of Rights. So to the degree there are legal challenges Nigel's government will win.