Which immigration fees and surcharges did Labour explicitly commit to review, and what have legal analysts said about the economic impacts of keeping them unchanged?
Executive summary
Labour has not pledged a blanket rollback of recent immigration charges but has signalled targeted reviews: it will commission independent analysis of recent salary-threshold and family-dependant changes (notably the March/April 2024 employer and care-worker measures) and has left open the possibility of looking again at aspects of the points-based system and family routes; it has not explicitly promised to review specific fees such as the Immigration Health Surcharge or the full schedule of visa application charges [1] [2]. Legal and policy analysts warn that leaving steep fee increases—particularly the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) and raised visa fees—unchanged carries measurable fiscal gains for government but also demonstrable economic and social costs, including higher employer sponsorship costs, risk to recruitment in care and other sectors, and distributional effects on families and low‑paid migrants [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. What Labour actually committed to review — narrow, technical and focused
Labour’s explicit commitments in public legal briefings and policy dashboards have been procedural rather than blanket reversals: the party said it would commission the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to investigate the effects of the Conservatives’ April 2024 increase to skilled‑worker salary thresholds and to review the March 2024 ban on care workers bringing dependants, and it has flagged a broader evaluation of family‑route rules and the points‑based system rather than a wholesale review of fee levels themselves [1] [2]. Several law firms reporting on Labour’s early agenda emphasise that ministers have “not yet made any announcements on immigration fees” and that manifesto language was deliberately vague, focused on “reviews” and system reform rather than immediate fee reductions [2] [7].
2. Which fees sit at the centre of the controversy — IHS, visa fees and the employer levy
The most consequential recent hikes are the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS), raised from £624 to £1,035 per year in February 2024, large increases to headline visa application fees implemented from October 2023, and an employer levy on work visas of up to £1,000 a year — all of which legal briefings and parliamentary summaries identify as the key cost items that affect migrants, sponsors and employers [5] [4] [7]. While Labour has accepted the political imperative to reduce net migration levels and retained many of the Conservatives’ structural reforms, its public materials have not committed to reversing those specific fee changes [2] [1].
3. What legal analysts say about keeping fees unchanged — fiscal windfall versus economic frictions
Analysts are unified that higher fees produce near‑term fiscal receipts: official impact analysis estimated the IHS rise could generate an additional £6.2 billion by the end of 2028 (quoted in parliamentary briefing) and Commons commentary notes the government’s long practice of using fees to fund immigration activities [3] [4]. At the same time regulatory and commercial law firms warn of “real world” costs: the February 2024 IHS increase and visa fee uplifts make sponsorship and early‑career migration more expensive, particularly hurting graduates and care‑sector recruitment, and may reduce the affordability of family reunion — effects that could slow employer hiring, raise business costs and exacerbate care vacancies [5] [2] [1]. Independent research groups and legal analysts also underscore distributional harms: higher charges increase the take‑home cost for families and push some eligible applicants towards waiver routes or irregular solutions, with potential for increased labour exploitation or reduced workforce supply in lower‑paid sectors [6] [3].
4. The competing narratives and the analytical limits
The government’s defence is straightforward and routinely cited by legal commentators: fees offset processing and public‑service costs and help disincentivise non‑desired migration, forming part of a fiscal balance between growth and public‑service funding [4] [8]. Critics counter that the impact assessments used to justify fee hikes carry methodological limits and understate wider GDP, labour‑market and employer adjustment impacts; some civil‑society analyses suggest keeping the fees will produce net negative effects on specific sectors and lower tax and fee yields from reduced migrant employment, though magnitudes vary widely across studies [8] [9]. Reporting and legal briefings available to date do not show a firm Labour promise to re‑set fee schedules — only targeted reviews and MAC commissions — and the published impact analyses cited above are the principal quantitative anchors for the claim that high fees bring short‑term receipts at potential long‑term economic costs [1] [3] [4].
5. Bottom line for policy and law
Labour’s publicly stated approach is to probe and commission independent assessments of recent structural changes — salary thresholds and family‑dependent rules — rather than to promise immediate regulatory rollback of IHS or visa fee levels, and legal analysts warn that keeping the recent fee increases unchanged will strengthen public finances in the near term while risking recruitment, distributional hardship, and sectoral economic harms that may blunt long‑run growth and labour supply; precise net impacts remain contested and depend on modelling assumptions and political choices Labour will yet make [1] [3] [5] [6].