Bosses should pay an annual charge of £1,000 for every skilled worker brought in from outside Europe, migration advisers have told the government.

The Migration Advisory Committee report said the proposal could raise £250m to go towards helping train British-based workers in UK firms.

It also suggested raising the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers coming to the UK by £9,200, to £30,000.

Ministers are concerned about the rising number of ‘Tier 2’ migrants.

There are also concerned about companies’ reliance on them to fill shortages in the labour market.

As such, the government asked the Migration Advisory Committee – the independent public body which advises it on migration issues – to investigate possible changes to Tier 2 visa requirements.

Currently, those wanting to work in the UK must be offered a starting salary of £20,800. There are some higher thresholds specific to individual roles.

In 2014, 151,000 skilled workers and their dependants arrived in the UK or were allowed to stay on.

The committee said raising the salary threshold to £30,000 would have excluded almost 28,000 people in 2014 – or about 18% of the total.

likely to be among those affected if the salary threshold rises to £30,000

The committee ‘strongly’ supports the introduction of the so-called Immigration Skills Charge to incentivise employers to reduce their reliance on migrant workers and encourage them to invest in training British workers.

The committee also recommends tightening the rules on intra-company transfers – overseas staff working for the same company in the UK – which have risen ‘very rapidly’ in recent years.

Professor Sir David Metcalf, committee chairman, said: “Skilled migrant workers make important contributions to boosting productivity and public finances, but this should be balanced against their potential impact on the welfare of existing UK residents.

“Raising the cost of employing skilled migrants via higher pay thresholds, and the introduction of an immigration skills charge, should lead to greater investment in UK employees and reduce the use of migrant labour.”

Businesses should be ‘content’ that £30,000 was a reasonable figure and the £1,000 charge would be put back into good UK firms, such as Rolls Royce, he said.

Skills shortages

Neil Carberry, of the business lobby group, CBI, said businesses agreed that training British-based people to do jobs where there were shortages was the long-term solution.

“But the question’s more complex than that,” he said adding:”we live in a global economy, we have short-term skills shortages, but we also have multi-national companies who frankly can base work in different countries and we want it to be attractive for these big companies to come and invest in the UK and create jobs here.”

The immigration skills charge is separate to the apprenticeship levy, due to be enforced in April 2017, which is payable by all medium and large companies.

In a related development, if an UK immigration law drafted in 2012 is followed through, non-EU workers living there and earning less than £35 000 a year may face deportation in less than 3 months.

Four years ago in 2012, the UK government’s Home Secretary Theresa May announced plans to introduce immigration rules to restrict UK immigration.

The rules are still scheduled to be enforced come April 2016, and will require non-EU workers to be earning above £35 000 a year if they have been in the UK for 5 years or more, to qualify for staying on.

If not, they will be deported.

This immigration rule has been met with some resistance and the Home Secretary has been called upon to re-think the new rules which have been labelled as discriminatory.

This especially since the average UK income is £26 500 per annum.

In a bid to halt deportation due to the law, an UK Parliament petition has been set up. Only British citizens are allowed to sign the petition.

Stories Continues after ad

The murder of ex-Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 in the UK was “probably” approved by President Vladimir Putin, a public inquiry finds.

Mr Putin is likely to have signed off the poisoning of Mr Litvinenko with polonium-210 in part due to personal “antagonism” between the pair, it said.

Mr Litvinenko’s widow Marina welcomed the report, calling for a travel ban on Mr Putin and sanctions on Russia.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said the inquiry had been “politicised”.

It said: “We regret that the purely criminal case was politicised and overshadowed the general atmosphere of bilateral relations.”

It said the inquiry had “not been transparent”, saying it had not expected the process to be unbiased.

Mr Litvinenko died aged 43 in London in 2006, days after being poisoned with the radioactive substance. He was a former Russian spy but fled to Britain where he became a fierce critic of the Kremlin.

Gordon Corera, BBC security correspondent, said there were “audible gasps” inside the court when the conclusion of the report was revealed, adding it had been “stronger than expected”.

Speaking outside London’s High Court, Mrs Litvinenko said: “The words my husband spoke on his deathbed when he accused Mr Putin have been proved by an English court.”

In a statement, Mrs Litvinenko urged the UK government to expel all Russian intelligence operatives and impose economic sanctions on Moscow.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said the report’s conclusions were “extremely disturbing”, saying: “It is not the way for any state, let alone a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to behave.”

Measures taken against Russia in 2007 – including the expulsion of diplomats – remained in place, she said, adding: “We are considering what further action we should take.”

Litvinenko inquiry reaction: Latest updates

Long road to the truth for Litvinenko family

Who was Alexander Litvinenko?

A deadly trail of polonium

Two Russian men, Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun, deliberately poisoned Mr Litvinenko, the report said. They both deny killing him.

Sir Robert said the two suspects were probably acting under the direction of Moscow’s FSB intelligence service.

Singling out then-FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev, alongside Mr Putin, Sir Robert wrote in the 300 page report: “Taking full account of all the evidence and analysis available to me I find that the FSB operation to kill Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin.”

Responding to the report, Mr Lugovoi, who is now a politician in Russia, said the accusations against him were “absurd”, the Russian news agency Interfax was quoted as saying.

“As we expected, there were no surprises,” he said.

“The results of the investigation made public today yet again confirm London’s anti-Russian position, its blinkeredness and the unwillingness of the English to establish the true reason of Litvinenko’s death.”

Mr Kovtun, now a businessman in Russia, said he would not comment on the report until he got more information about its contents, Interfax reported.

London’s Metropolitan Police said the investigation into the “cold and calculated murder” remained ongoing.

Motives for action

Publishing his long-awaited report, Sir Robert said he was “sure” Mr Litvinenko’s murder had been carried out by Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun.

Both are wanted in the UK for questioning, but Russia has refused to extradite them.

Sir Robert said Mr Litvinenko’s work for British intelligence agencies, his criticism of the FSB and Mr Putin, and his association with other Russian dissidents were possible motives for his killing.

There was “undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism” between Mr Putin and Mr Litvinenko, he added.

“I am satisfied that in general terms, members of the Putin administration, including the president himself and the FSB, had motives for taking action against Litvinenko, including killing him, in late 2006,” Sir Robert wrote.

The use of polonium 210 was “at the very least a strong indicator of state involvement” as it had to be made in a nuclear reactor, the report said.

The inquiry heard evidence that Mr Litvinenko may have been consigned to a slow death from radiation to “send a message”.

• 23 Nov 2006 – Mr Litvinenko dies three weeks after having tea with former agents Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun in London
• 22 May 2007 – Britain’s director of public prosecutions decides Mr Lugovoi should be charged with his murder
• 5 Jul 2007 – Russia refuses to extradite Mr Lugovoi, saying its constitution does not allow it
• May-July 2013 – The inquest into Mr Litvinenko’s death is delayed as the coroner decides a public inquiry would be preferable – but ministers rule out the request
• 11 Feb 2014 – High Court rules the Home Office was wrong to rule out an inquiry before the outcome of an inquest
• January 2015 – Public inquiry begins

Stories Continues after ad