It’s been exactly one year since Labour won the 2024 General Election. Given that “immigration and asylum” was the second-most important issue for voters at the time – and by far the most important issue for Conservative and Reform voters – how has Labour performed on this issue? More specifically, how has the government performed on its own manifesto commitments?

When the manifesto finally arrived at immigration policies, with a section called “Secure Borders” (page 16), they were framed in the context of Britain’s “proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing persecution and abuse”, such as the Ukrainian, Hong Kong, Syrian refugees. Doing so allowed Labour to position itself as opposed to mass migration as a recent phenomenon, phrasing recent years as an exception to the rule of controlled migration. 

The manifesto was also full of a number of useless newspeak: “we will also act upstream, working with international partners to address the humanitarian crises which lead people to flee their homes, and to strengthen support for refugees in their home region”. 

On this basis, the manifesto made a number of commitments – but have they been delivered on? And have they been successful?

Legal immigration

Introducing visa restrictions

Pledge: To “reform the points-based immigration system so that it is fair and properly managed, with appropriate restrictions on visas”.

• Source: Page 41

Performance?: The Immigration White Paper was the closest thing we’ve had to any action on this pledge, but the reality is this paper amounts to tinkering with the edges, rather than any substantive reform: 

• Targets – There is no commitment to a target level of immigration, meaning the government can claim even a slight reduction in numbers as a victory. The reiteration of the period 2021-2024 as an outlier of unacceptably high levels implies that the average of the preceding decade (200,000 to 300,000 on average) ought to be the norm. 
• Work visas – There are very few concrete measures which are ready to be implemented. Raising the minimum skills threshold for a skilled work visa is welcome, but migrants already here and below the threshold are likely to be moved onto a “Temporary Shortage List”, should the Migration Advisory Council (MAC) recommend it. 
• Study visas – Reducing the Graduate Visa from two years to eighteen months is unlikely to affect numbers. The current data around lengthy stays suggest this will fail to bring numbers down or be poorly enforced. 
• Family visas – The paper states that a new policy framework will be created regarding family visas, but no details are given. 
• Indefinite Leave to Remain – The minimum period of residence for ILR to be granted is to be extended from five years to ten, which is unlikely to make much difference, as many will be happy to wait for the decade to pass, and it is already diluted with promise of exceptions for those making “a significant contribution”. 

If this White Paper had been issued in Autumn 2024 with a view to being implemented in 2025, the lack of detail and urgency would have been acceptable. As it stands, nearly a year into this government’s tenure, we could have expected more precision. It amounts to tweaks to existing policy, rather than any substantial overhaul, and will likely have a minimal impact on numbers. Moreover, as we’ve explained before, the attempts to tighten language requirements will have no actual effect on any of the numbers in any of the visa routes. 

However, we must recognise the right moves where they are made: ending the Health and Care Visa is a positive step, as it was a visa route rife with abuse and mismanagement, while the new cap on lower-skilled workers via the Temporary Shortage List indicates a willingness to focus on the highest quality migrants rather than neglecting control altogether.

Verdict?: Mostly failure, with some success

Illegal migration

Punishing employer abuses

Pledge: To crack down on employers who are breaching employment law, with those who flout the rules being “barred from hiring workers from abroad”.

• Source: Page 41

Performance?: The Deliveroo scandal goes to show just how poor the government’s intel is on this issue. 

How is it that asylum seekers in hotels are able to work as couriers? Part of the reason is because companies like UberEats and Deliveroo “hire” their employees as “contractors”, and do not do (and are in fact incapable of doing) appropriate background checks if the contractors choose to “subcontract” their work. 

This is the tip of the iceberg; without any indication that the government either has, or intends to find, clear data on exactly how many illegal migrants are working for employers wilfully exploiting the gaping holes in the system, we cannot begin to comprehend the scale of this issue.

Part of the reason Labour made such a big thing about this issue is the intention to protect British workers. Why, then, has the news broken this week that lower-skilled workers will be waved through under new visa rules? We already know that immigration undercuts wages and makes competing for the few jobs that are out there even harder – is this really going to protect working Brits?

Verdict?: Failure

Border Security Command

Pledge: To establish a “Border Security Command”, that would be funded by ending the Rwanda Scheme, to disrupt people smugglers and seek an EU security agreement.

• Source: Page 17

Performance?: On a strict basis, this manifesto pledge has been achieved – but so what? The Border Security Command was announced the day after the election and, after scrapping the Rwanda Scheme, was funded with an annual budget of £75m, which has been used to fund “sophisticated new technology and extra capabilities for the NCA to bolster UK border security and disrupt the criminal people smuggling gangs”.

Well, so much for all that: 41,760 migrants have been detected crossing the channel since the Labour Party came to power, and the people-smuggling gangs are still active. Arrests are being made, but the numbers are still rising – almost as if the focus on the gangs is a smokescreen, and as a way of excusing the actual migrants from their illegal actions. 

Verdict?: Failure

Asylum 

Clearing the asylum backlog

Pledge: To recruit additional caseworkers to clear the asylum backlog, which stood at 224,742 in June 2024, a record of four times its standing only a decade earlier. 

• Source: Page 17

Performance?: We will need to wait until September to determine if the asylum backlog has fallen, but on recruiting additional caseworkers, the government has categorically failed: there were over 2,500 asylum caseworkers at the end of 2024 and this has fallen to just over 2,100. It seems there is either a failure to recruit, or an even bigger failure to retain, the staff capable of providing this vital service.

One positive though is the increased rate of refusals. 

Verdict?: Failure

End the use of hotels for asylum accommodation

Pledge: To end the use of hotels for asylum accommodation.

• Source: Page 17

Performance?: No, the government has not achieved this target – in fact, the number of asylum seekers in hotels and barges has increased, with the government issuing a new contract for using hotels and barges until 2027, despite campaigning on the opposite promise.

In addition to this, the “government has opened more migrant hotels than it has closed”, with The Telegraph reporting that “there are currently about 30,000 migrants in hotels at a cost of more than £4.2 million a day to the taxpayer.” That’s a cost of £1.5bn a year. 

Verdict?: Failure

Establishing a returns unit

Pledge: To create a “Returns unit” with 1,000 staff to fast-track removals and negotiating returns agreements.

• Source: Page 17

Performance?: On the face of it, you would be forgiven for thinking the government is on course to achieve this target, with Lord Hanson remarking in the Lords on behalf of the government that “we have already begun delivering a major surge in immigration enforcement and returns activity to remove people with no right to be in the UK and ensure the rules are respected and enforced, redeploying significant numbers of staff to a returns and enforcement programme.” But as ever, the devil is in the detail: for the manifesto committed to 1,000 “additional” staff; this has clearly not been achieved if the returns unit is neither staffed by 1,000 people, nor by newly-recruited staff. 

Verdict?: Failure

Conclusion

Overall, if this was a school report card for the government, it would be expelled. There is no serious attempt to address illegal immigration, and legal migration is tinkered with at the edge while abuses of the asylum system by parasitic companies fly under the radar or are ignored completely. 

Almost all of the proposals in the manifesto regarding immigration were concerned with attempting to address illegal immigration, which is a complete red herring: in reality, illegal immigration is one tenth of the scale of legal migration. It is all well and good trying to disrupt the gangs profiting off the desperation of channel migrants, but where is the attempt to end the farce that is 431,000 net migration year ending December 2024? 

Net migration figures have come down, that much is true, but that is attributable entirely to the Conservative government (not that their record is acceptable either). Any reduction in figures cannot be claimed as a success for this government, and there’s no indication they even want to reduce the figures any further – Keir Starmer’s admission of “regretting” the “Island of Strangers” speech is proof of this. And the White Paper really is pathetic after ten months of trying to deal with an issue which, by now, has become the most important issue for Brits. 

This government has categorically failed the British people in getting migration, both legal and illegal, under control. It’s been a year – this level of inaction is inexcusable.