Ch-Ch-Changes: What’s in store for immigration and asylum law under the new Labour government?

Whether this truly was an “immigration election”, as Nigel Farage claimed it to be, the subject was certainly high on the political agenda, with each party listing immigration as a key issue in their manifestos and both Labour and the Conservatives pledging to bring down net migration and tackle so-called “illegal migration.”

Following the Labour victory, we have already had an intervention from Tony Blair on ID cards (an idea the government has appeared to rule out) and immigration policy featured prominently in the Prime Minister’s first press conference and this week’s media briefings by the new Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper.   

As the new cabinet get their feet under the table, what can we expect in terms of immigration policy in the coming months?

Beyond the election soundbites and beneath the somewhat vague manifesto commitments, we take a look at the likely priorities and associated challenges for the government, and what they mean for businesses and individuals alike.

Asylum

The Prime Minister didn’t hang around when it came to the Rwanda plan, declaring the policy "dead" in his opening press conference on Friday. The UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, under which asylum seekers arriving via small boats were to be removed to Rwanda for the processing of their claims, will be scrapped.

The move comes as no surprise, given Labour has long criticised the “unworkable” scheme. The new government plans to tackle the issue of small boat arrivals by introducing a new Border Security Command, recruiting 1,000 additional Home Office caseworkers to process claims quickly and negotiating new returns agreements with other countries. A Border Security Bill is expected to be announced in the King’s Speech on 17 July, laying the groundwork for establishing the new command force.

The Rwanda scheme will go down in history as one of, if not the, most expensive immigration policy that never came to bear. An estimated £270 million has already been paid to the Rwandan government without a single person being removed. The taxpayer reportedly won’t see a penny of that figure refunded if the break clause is exercised, and Rwanda has confirmed that it is under no obligation to provide a refund. Alongside the direct costs of the agreement, the soon-to-be redundant policy has resulted in significant associated expenditure by the Home Office. These include £15.3 million in set up costs, £2 million in direct staff costs and £2.3 million in legal fees following challenges by civil servants and migrants.  

Alongside the demise of the Rwanda policy, the Labour government has also confirmed it would not pursue the former Conservative government’s plan to withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights. While these changes are to be welcomed, it is disappointing that the party appears so far to have ruled out introducing new safe and legal routes to the UK for asylum seekers; a long-overdue humanitarian response to the crisis which has been identified by civil society groups as a key component of a reformed asylum system.

One of the most concerning legacies for our clients, requiring the new government’s urgent attention, is the ever-growing backlog in asylum case decisions and appeals. The situation inherited by today’s Labour government is desperate. By the end of March 2024, more than 86,000 people were still waiting for their claims to be decided. In a drive to speed up processing times, the Home Office has adopted a controversial ‘streamlined’ assessment approach. Questionnaires are substituted for interviews, interviews are shorter and decision letters are briefer. There is also a growing trend of asylum seekers being subjected to multiple substantive interviews to correct inadequate interviews conducted by seemingly under-prepared and/or under-trained interviewing officers.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a 330% increase in appeals from 2022/23 to 2023/24, many citing inadequate consideration of cases and errors in the decision-making process. There have been enormous delays in the tribunals as a result: the First-Tier Tribunal had a 27,000-appeal backlog in March 2024, which would take two and a half years to clear if no new appeals were lodged. It bears reminding that 50% of asylum and human rights appeals are successful.

The new government’s commitment to hiring 1,000 more caseworkers may go some way to addressing the backlog if corners aren’t cut with their training. We are yet to see if there will be a reversion to previous methods of claim processing, the party’s manifesto simply states it will “restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly, and fairly”. We don’t expect the picture to improve in the short term. It will take time for the new recruits to get up to speed and there is no proposal to increase the resources of the First Tier Tribunal.

Work visas

Labour has outlined a broad vision for addressing skills shortages, with limited concrete proposals for reform. The party aspires to fill vacancies by training UK-based workers, whilst recognising the continued role of migration for employers. We are not expecting short term changes to the current sponsorship system; the party’s manifesto centres on strategic planning.

The new government has pledged to establish a framework for collaboration between skills bodies, the Industrial Strategy Counsel and the Department for Work and Pensions. Government departments will be asked to draw up ‘skills improvement plans’ for sectors such as health, social care, construction and IT to address worker shortages. The manifesto is silent on whether employers in these sectors would be incentivised or obliged to train UK-based workers before hiring employees on Skilled Worker visas.

Whilst there is value in upskilling and increasing the employment of British workers, it is unlikely to significantly reduce the demand in many sectors for migrant workers, particularly given the continued labour shortages post-Brexit. The jury is also out as to whether such an approach will actually achieve the government’s stated aim of reducing net migration. In 2023, the CIPD found no evidence that removing the ability for organisations to hire migrant workers resulted in increased training of British workers. Similarly, employers who sponsor migrant workers are more likely to also be investing in British workers. In an interview with the Times, Madeline Sumption, Director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said:

it doesn’t make sense [to view a domestic skills policy as] a branch of immigration policy.
…
More training would not reduce migration, at least in the private sector. If we trained more engineers then it’s quite possible that they would employ more engineers; they would employ domestic engineers as well as from abroad. We may just end up with a larger engineering sector and not necessarily lower immigration.”

The commitment to strengthening the role of the Migration Advisory Committee is positive, suggesting a return to immigration policy informed by evidence and stakeholder consultation. However, the extent to which the new government chooses to adopt their recommendations remains to be seen. Whilst the committee disagreed with the former government’s removal of the Shortage Occupation List, Labour is unlikely to bring back a discount on the salary payable for workers in shortage occupations. The party has been vocal when it comes to the issue of undercutting local wages and has committed more broadly to pursuing sponsors who breach employment or immigration law. There is no indication that there will be new obligations for sponsors; rather, the new government looks set to continue the pre-established trend of greater enforcement and increased revocation of sponsor licenses for offending employers.

Family visas

Labour’s manifesto was silent on family visas. However, there may be relief on the distant horizon for those looking to bring their spouse or partner to the UK. In April the Conservative government increased the minimum family income requirements for the visas to £29,000 and set out a pathway of incremental increases to £38,700 in 2025. Whilst there is no manifesto commitment, the new government has previously indicated they would ask the Migration Advisory Committee to review the policy. Given the committee was not consulted on the original scheme, it is possible they may recommend abolishing or reducing the planned increase. However, under political pressure from opposition parties, and against the backdrop of a pledge to reduce net migration, the government may still decide not to alter the policy.

When it comes to family members of those on student visas or skilled worker visas in the care sector, the picture is unlikely to change for now. Prior to the election campaign, Labour signalled it would retain the existing ban on these groups sponsoring dependents. While there may be some rationale for limiting family members of undergraduate students, the impact the ban will have on the UK’s leading business schools, where students may be older and have partners, is of particular concern. The previous Conservative Government have shied away from treating some educational establishments more favourably than others, and as a result have resorted to these blunt policy instruments that have serious consequences for the UK’s leading MBA schools and their global position as a magnet for attracting the most skilled here. This policy needs to be reconsidered and a more fine-tuned solution found that doesn’t hamper the top UK business schools from competing.

Finally, the Labour party has also indicated that it will not undo the recent changes to the Rules that resulted in banning family members of care workers. This was inadvisable for several reasons, including its blatant unfairness and the fact that it creates an economy of indentured workers who have to leave their families behind and who are far less likely to integrate as a result. We encourage the new Government to think again about its own values and reverse this harsh and inhumane policy.

Looking ahead

Whilst the Labour manifesto gave us some indication of their immigration policy agenda, we are light on the detail. What is clear is that there is a lot of work to do to do, and although many changes can be made to the Immigration Rules without the need for primary legislation, we look forward to the 15 July, when the new government will outline its legislative priorities in the King’s Speech.

Further information

If you have any queries in relation to the above issues or any other immigration matters, please contact Oliver Oldman. 

About the authors 

Oliver is a senior associate in the Immigration Team and International Protection Group. He has been practising immigration law since 2012, with a particular focus on asylum, human rights, detention and deportation matters. 

Chloe is a trainee solicitor in our Immigration team. She has previously completed seats in Medical Negligence and Personal Injury, Dispute Resolution and Employment.