the prime minister promises britain will have full control of its immigration policy after brexit. she says a new system will focus on the skills people bring, not where they come from. it takes back control of our borders, it ensures that free movement comes to an end once and for all and we will be deciding who comes into this country. we'll have the latest from the conservative party conference. also this lunchtime. civil partnerships are to be extended to heterosexual couples in england and wales. it could benefit millions of people co—habiting who don't want to marry. survivors of the indonesian earthquake and tsunami are increasingly desperate for aid, including food and water. the death toll is now more than 1,300. passengers stranded as the budget airline primera air collapses, only months after expanding into long—haul flights from the uk. and the funeral is held for the final victim

of grenfell tower — a man called a hero after sheltering other residents in his top floor flat. and coming up on bbc news... bbc sports personality of the year is set to return to birmingham, but we'll have to wait to find out who has made the shortlist. good afternoon and welcome to the bbc news at one. the prime minister has promised the uk will have full control of its immigration policy for the first time in decades, after brexit. theresa may says low—skilled immigration will fall under a new visa system where it's workers‘ skills that matter, not where they come from. the plans follow a recommendation by the migration advisory committee, which was also backed by labour.

the system would include criminal record checks before someone enters the country, and workers wanting to stay for longer periods would need to earn a minimum salary. our political correspondent iain watson has more details from the conservative party conference in birmingham. it's a political announcement the prime minister wouldn't leave to her home secretary. she personally pledged today that free movement would end after brexit in the biggest shake—up in the immigration system for a generation. in future, skills will matter more than nationality if people want to come to britain to earn their living. the policy we are announcing today, our future immigration policy, delivers on the result of the referendum. it ta kes on the result of the referendum. it takes back control of our borders, it ensures free movement comes to an end once and for all and we will be deciding who can come into this country. so what will the new system

look like? skilled workers would need a minimum salary offer and could bring in close family members only of sponsored by their employer. there would be temporary exemptions for low skilled workers, a scheme for low skilled workers, a scheme for agricultural employees has already been announced and there would be a light touch system for short stays for business travellers and tourists. labour say the government system is unfair as it prioritises higher earning bankers over much—needed nurses. some business leaders were less critical. we need to see a bit more detail but there are still some concerns, specific sectors like hospitality rely on lower skilled workers are what is the future? we have to look at salary threshold, why are we setting its own right to stop people coming in? and things like the immigration surcharge which small businesses won't be able to afford. the government is promising more detail on its immigration policy before the end of the year, potentially after any deal is struck with brussels but for the home secretary, this isn'tjust about controlling immigration, it's about

integration. how can we possibly make a common home together if we can't even communicate with each other? applause that is why i created a new integrated communities fund to work with people already in our country. and now, as home secretary, i will apply these principles to those who arrive in our country, so not only will there be a new values test but it will also strengthen the english language requirements for all new citizens. the prime minister intends to bring in the new immigration policy in 2021, after a transition period but if britain leaves the eu with no deal next march, any new system is unlikely to be fully in place. and guess who is here? the former foreign secretary, who's been critical to say the least of the deal the prime minister is trying to strike with the eu. never knowingly

understated, he called it arranged. today, he is setting out what looks suspiciously like an alternative ma nifesto, suspiciously like an alternative manifesto, calling for lower taxes, more house—building and of course, a different approach to brexit. no wonder the prime minister wanted to get the immigration announcement out first. the theme of the now, as my friend, and former colleague paul goodman might say, i am not naturally timid, it's not my way to confide my innermost feelings, but since this is only a fringe meeting it is unlikely to be widely reported. i will reveal that i have one overriding anxiety about current political scenes, both domestic and not international. it isn't global warming, terrorism, iran or russia, real though those challenges are. it isn't the

negotiating tactics of the eu, before or after lunch, it's not even the economic and political catastrophe that would befall us in the event of a jeremy corbyn government. horrifying though i find that idea. my friends, the one thing i really worry about in this critical autumn of 2018 is that after 200 years, this oldest and most successful of all political parties should somehow lose confidence in its basic belief in freedom. and that after 1000 years, of independence, after 1000 years of independence this country might lose confidence in its democratic institutions. that we should be so

demoralised and exhausted us to submit our institutions forever, indefinitely, to foreign rule. if i have a function, here today, it is to try, with all humility, to put some lived into the collective pencil, to stop what seems to me to bea pencil, to stop what seems to me to be a ridiculous seeping away of our self belief, and invite you to feel a realistic and justified confidence in what we can do. not in the spirit ofjingle, in partisan ship, but, as i know, this is a time of trial, and it is precisely because opposition is so serious and the decisions made for us so vital, that it is more necessary than ever that we feel that quiet and legitimate confidence in our country. that we believe in basic conservative ideas and values.

we believe in our democracy. and, quite frankly, i don't think conservatism or to be an ecclesiastical labour party conference of last week. i can't get away with too many reference to the 19705 and 19805, but surely to goodness, we can take on this tony benn tribute act and knock it was six. not by imitating or capering insincerely, not by metaphorically wearing string vests or allotments. but by systematically, systematically pointing out the damage they would do. they would spend hundreds of billions renationalising british industries.

they want to clobber business with new taxes, soviets on the board, they want to tap the economy and drive away investment. and it now emerges, they would consign the population to years of further rancour and uncertainty, as if the last couple of years wasn't bad enough. i promise you and never brexit referendum. another one. another one, as brenda from bristol might put it. we cannot, must not, and will not let this weaselly cabal of super animated marxists, anti—semitism condoning kremlin apologists anywhere near the government of this country. and that

means, and that means, instead of a being corbyn, we have to keep our basic ideas. and fit them to the problems of today. it's true that the old conservative buzzword of choice has a different resonance these days. in some respects, we have more choice than you can shake a stick at. i see some of you doing it already. we can zoom off to a b&b on cheap flights, our food, it already. we can zoom off to a b&b on cheap flights, ourfood, our cars, oui’ on cheap flights, ourfood, our cars, our life expectancy is longer. but there is one huge difference between a baby boomer like me, and all you millenniums. 0ne between a baby boomer like me, and all you millenniums. one way in which opportunity has diminished, and that is in the scope of the under generation. with their own

resources , under generation. with their own resources, to buy somewhere they can live, can call their own. it is disgraceful that we now have lower rates of occupation for the under 405 than france or germany. that reflects a failure of governments for the last 30 years to build enough housing, but it is also a opportunity for us tories. if we rise to the challenge, if we get it right, it is an open goal. this is one of those critical issues, women the phrase of chris patten, the fa cts the phrase of chris patten, the facts of life to turn out to be conservative. labour's instincts clash in a fundamental way with the instincts of ordinary people. worse still, labour's political interests, the building and control of state owned housing, the diametrically opposed interests of most families. i remember when i first realised that we tories were absolutely right about housing, i was a reporter on

the wolverhampton express and star. farfrom here. and i went out to the wolverhampton express and star. far from here. and i went out to see a couple who complained about stamp. ididn't a couple who complained about stamp. i didn't normally do dump stories, but they sent me. it was a terrible scene, sitting there, with the heating on and a baby crying, condensation dripping down the windows. these great black spores all over the walls, the chap was in his socks in an armchair, in a state of despair. the baby had a cough which was getting worse, and the council wouldn't do anything. and he felt that he couldn't do anything, because it wasn't his property. and ican because it wasn't his property. and i can see how he felt somehow and manned by the situation. and ifelt very sorry for them both. they were both total prisoners of the system. and i thought, what a difference it would make to that family, if they

had been able to take back control, to coina had been able to take back control, to coin a phrase. to buy that flat, and since then, i've lost count of the number of times, and i bet you have two, when i've been out campaigning, and someone has told me, on the doorstep, that they would vote conservative for ever. 0ut me, on the doorstep, that they would vote conservative for ever. out of sheer gratitude to a and margaret thatcher. and that is what people want, people wa nted and that is what people want, people wanted the pride of birthplace, it isa wanted the pride of birthplace, it is a sense of excitement, and to humanity. the first couple to take possession of a might hurt, and yet, labour hates that basic instinct. jeremy corbyn hates that instinct.

they live in rather nice islington town houses which they own, they would much rather be elected to stay in social accommodation. passed by hereditary right, as the state owned dwellings are from one generation to the next. and they like it that way. because they know that as soon as you get a mortgage or have a stake in society, you are less likely to go on strike, and more likely to vote conservative. if you stay in social rented accommodation you are more likely to vote labour. i'll tell you something, my fellow homeowners, the paradox is, that conservative approach, not only delivers more homes for hire purchase, it delivers more affordable homes as well. more homes for all tenures. if you look at the record for the previous mayor of

london, something my friend might ca re london, something my friend might care to consult, you will see that not only did crying come down by 50%, death by fire 50%, tube delays down by 30%, crossrail extension, tubes to battersea, investment, new museums, new museums in east london, and so on, and by the way, the treasury council tax was cut by 20%. you will see that in those years we build more homes, more tenures and the previous administration. precisely because we changed the constricting rules and stopped development is going ahead. you will see now how under a hashtag the number of new build is slumping. because labour gets tangled in its

cynical political objectives. and it is the conservative approach that gets things done. so, let's follow oui’ gets things done. so, let's follow our instincts and give millions more young people the chance to become owner occupiers, let's encourage small private builders, something we have long campaigned for, let's take on the big eight home builders. some are frankly abusing their position. let's crack down on land owners, and let's give councils a real incentive to go from planning permissions and bills. to encourage building on brownfield sites, which is long overdue fiscal devolution. give good counsels the ability to retain stamp duty, council tax, business counsels the ability to retain stamp duty, counciltax, business rates, caps on developments, and they will have emotive, to go for growth in

the future. you need to make sure that councils don't recklessly hike the business rate. the yields are so different across the country. but we ought to be devolving that power, giving back control. because fiscal devolution is not only tory in principle, it is a way to help councils, that right now, are feeling the screws of the rising cost of services, and it is also a way to build the homes are children and grandchildren are going to need. cani and grandchildren are going to need. can i champion the free market, as i do, you see that i don't claim it is perfect. it is a disgrace that no bank went to jail for the crash in 2008. and i can see... normally i'd

stick up for bankers, as a rule, someone stick up for bankers, as a rule, someone shed, but i can see that they have cunning ways of ripping off the consumer. but the occasional failure of markets, no matter how conspicuous, does not mean that state control is better, it does not mean that. it doesn't follow. i listen carefully, i listen carefully tojeremy listen carefully, i listen carefully to jeremy corbyn listen carefully, i listen carefully tojeremy corbyn last listen carefully, i listen carefully to jeremy corbyn last week, listen carefully, i listen carefully tojeremy corbyn last week, and it was astonishing that he had nothing to say about the wealth creating sector of the economy. the people who get up at the crack of dawn to get their shops ready, the grafters, innovators and entrepreneurs. he didn't mention a single sector of the british economy, nothing interested him except nationalising 10% of every company for more than 250 employees. 0nly organisation

whose output is singled out for praise was preston council. i am sure there are a great bunch in preston council but they are not the locomotive of the uk economy. we conservatives know that it's only by strong private sector that we can pay for superb public services. that is the central cemetery of our one nation toryism. 0nly is the central cemetery of our one nation toryism. only by making the streets safer, by either way, don't you think it's time we brought back systematic stop and search. enter politically correct nonsense. enter the politically correct nonsense! it is endangering the lives of our young people in our capital and elsewhere. it is only by putting in the infrastructure, for a properly funded nhs, to give people the peace of mind they need. let's get that

extra funding into the nhs now. it's only by making sure that people have the skills and training they need, that you can create, that public investment. you create a platform for businesses to grow and succeed. and that is how to solve the uk's productivity puzzle. it is that virtue, that symmetry, it means we must, on no account followjeremy corbyn and treat captives as a kind of blue word. we cannot lose faith in choice, and markets. we need to restate the truth, that there is simply no other system so miraculously successful and technocrats satisfying wants and needs. our taxes, we should not be co nsta ntly needs. our taxes, we should not be constantly aiming to increase them, we should try to cut them. mindful

of the 14th century sage of tunisia, picked up later, that you can often cut taxes to increase that, and we should have as i as our objective to cut taxes for those on low incomes. let's say now, no new tax increases, it is the conservatives who give people back control of their money. instead of treating business is morally dubious, the conservatives should celebrate how to do good. and success of british business today. the only country in the world to have a trade surplus, manufacturing ingenuity, i think of the factory that makes bus stops underscores to

las vegas. it is a fact in uxbridge, as it happens, if you wake up in las vegas with a hangover, as i'm sure some of you have, out in the street, the chances are if you look up they will be some uxbridge sealy knew from the elements. i think of that other uxbridge factory that makes the futuristic display cabinets for duty—free toblerone is in every airport in saudi arabia. think of the invisible hand of the market, reaching out from saudi arabia, circling the earth, pointing its finger at uxbridge. and now was the time to turbo—charge those exploits, and be truly global, again, not long

ago i became the first foreign secretary to visit per room, for 50 yea rs. secretary to visit per room, for 50 years. —— approval 52 years. i was ata soire years. —— approval 52 years. i was at a soir e and i remember an anecdote about my labour predecessor who had made a pass at a gorgeous creature clad in scarlet, and i wondered why it had taken 52 years for a british foreign secretary to go again to that incredible place, it can't have been in discretions of lord george brown. it was 25 years since any of my predecessors went to chill your argentina. since any of my predecessors went to chill yourargentina. i'll tell since any of my predecessors went to chill your argentina. i'll tell you why, it was because our global strategy, our strategy was focused on the eu. and of course, that was sensible in the 19th typical 19705

when we firstjoined the common market, it makes much less sense today in the globalised economy. in 95% of the world grosses outside the eu. of course, the eu is, and always will be colossal to us, but the rest of the world is proportionally gaining ground. i was thrilled to find that even though our trade with latin american countries is still relatively small, way behind our competitors, the uk is already the second biggest investor in peru. we already have the largest quote of argentinian mile back, and following the olympics there are british co nsulta nts the olympics there are british consultants helping the pan american games in peru. these arejust the

beginnings, think what we could do if we had properfree beginnings, think what we could do if we had proper free trade deals. and that is why it is so sad and desperately wrong that we are preparing to agree to terms with brussels that would make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to do such deals. and that's why it was such a mistake of us to, it is such a mistake, to leave on the chequers plan. locked in the tractor beam of brussels. we will not only beam of brussels. we will not only be prevented... we will not only be prevented by the chequers deal from offering our tariff schedules, who will be unable to make our own laws, our regulatory framework for goods and much more besides, that is

politically humiliating for a £2 trillion economy. it occurs to me, that the offers of chequers risked prosecution on the 14th century statute which says that no foreign court or government shall have jurisdiction in this country. look it up. look it up. i thought you'd like that point. it will mean that uk business and industry, the entire economy, would be exposed perpetually to regulations that might have been expressly designed at the behest of foreign competitors, to do them down. it would mean that whatever the eu came up would mean that whatever the eu came up with in future, banning the sale of eggs by the dozen, banning diabetics from driving, banning gaping, or whatever, all those have been considered by brussels in the

last few years. while this nonsense, we would have to implement, with no ability to change or resist. that is not pragmatic. that is not a compromise. it is dangerous and u nsta ble compromise. it is dangerous and unstable politically and economically. my fellow conservatives, this is not democracy. that is not what we voted for. it isa it is a constitutional outrage, it's not taking back control, by the way, they know whit in brussels. don't be fooled by the suggestion that the eu will reject these proposals, because

what they want, above all, is to demonstrate, to any other country that might dream of following suit, that might dream of following suit, that you cannot leave the eu without suffering adverse political and economic consequences. what are the chequers proposal show is that the united kingdom, for all its power, and might, and network of influences around the world, for all its vulnerable parliamentary history, was unable, ultimately, to take back control. and instead of reasserting our ability to make our own laws, the uk will be paraded in manacles, down brussels like cracked a curse. and do not believe, do not believe, do not believe, that we can somehow get it wrong now. budget now and fix

it later. get out properly a two down the line. that is a total fa ntasy. down the line. that is a total fantasy. that is a total fantasy. the opposite will take place. i've been watching the eu for 30 years, every time a referendum goes against the federalist cause, i have seen how the forces lock on, and slowly, slowly, the defending countries winched back into place. and by its ma nifesto winched back into place. and by its manifesto democratic injustice, chequers provides the perfect argument for those who want to return to the eu. it is therefore a recipe for continued acrimony. if chequers is agreed, i'm afraid it will only embolden those who are now

calling for a second referendum. these are the same people, incidentally, were explicitly, i remember it, you remembered, told the elected in 2016 that if they voted leave there was no going back. remember that, no second chances, that was it. leaving the customs union single market, now they say no such thing was on the agenda. they said the people had to get a drought in 2016, because they would never be asked again. and now they are cynically campaigning to do just that and now they are cynically campaigning to dojust that in a way i think would be disastrous for trust in politics.