Show the Working

Reduce Net Migration and Reform the Immigration System

Labour · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Labour’s policy “Reduce Net Migration and Reform the Immigration System” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Prosperity & living standards — Mixed picture

moderate · moderate confidence

Reducing net migration could shrink the tax base and worsen shortages in key sectors like health and care in the near term, but if domestic training plans genuinely substitute for migrant labour over the long run, living standards and productivity could be sustained. The big uncertainty is whether workforce training plans will actually fill the gaps.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether domestic workforce and training plans can realistically replace migrant labour in shortage sectors at sufficient scale and speed — the evidence suggests this substitution is far from automatic.

Our reading: This policy creates genuine near-term and long-term tensions relevant to O13. In the near term, the fiscal and sectoral risks are real and sourced: the OBR and IFS both find that skilled migrant workers make net positive fiscal contributions, so reducing their numbers shrinks the tax base, with the IFS explicitly warning of a shortfall in tax receipts. Severe staffing shortages already exist in NHS and social care — sectors heavily reliant on migrant labour — and restrictive policies risk deepening those shortages, with downstream effects on productivity and living standards. On the other hand, reduced labour market competition at the lower end could improve wages for low-skilled domestic workers (IFS), and GDP per capita could rise even if aggregate GDP falls. The policy's stated mechanism — workforce and training plans to substitute domestic labour for migrant workers — is coherent in principle, but the evidence explicitly flags that substitution is not automatic and the timeline is uncertain. The closure of the skilled worker route for social care already illustrates the real-world bite of these restrictions. Because the near-term costs (fiscal drag, care/health sector strain) are well-evidenced, while the long-term upside (domestic skills substitution, higher GDP per capita) is plausible but uncertain and dependent on delivery of training plans that have no committed budget or quantified target in the policy text, the verdict is mixed at moderate magnitude over a long-term horizon. Near-term effects are more likely to worsen living standards through service quality and fiscal tightening; long-term effects depend entirely on whether domestic training plans deliver at scale — which the evidence says is far from guaranteed.

Healthcare — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

Cutting migration to health and social care is likely to worsen NHS and care staffing shortages in the short-to-medium term, because overseas workers fill a large share of those roles and domestic training takes years to scale up. The policy promises workforce plans to compensate, but evidence suggests these are unlikely to close the gap quickly enough.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether domestic training and workforce plans can be scaled fast enough to offset the loss of overseas health and care workers — evidence suggests this is uncertain and historically has not kept pace.

Our reading: The NHS and social care system are heavily dependent on overseas workers — over a quarter of NHS doctors are non-British, and staffing shortfalls already stand at roughly 100,000 with projections of 250,000 by 2030. The policy explicitly targets reducing net migration and has already moved to close the social care Skilled Worker route. While it promises workforce and training plans to compensate, the evidence consistently flags that domestic training pipelines take years to build and have historically not kept pace with demand. Experts warn that restricting immigration in these sectors risks deepening rather than resolving the staffing crisis. Migrants also tend to use NHS services less than UK-born residents, so reducing their numbers slightly reduces demand but this effect is dwarfed by the workforce supply impact. The direction of effect on healthcare access and waiting times is therefore negative in the near-to-medium term. The magnitude is moderate rather than major because the policy does include mitigation measures (workforce plans, MAC strengthening) and some reduction in demand-side pressure from fewer migrants using services, but the net effect on capacity is likely adverse. Confidence is moderate because the precise scale of workforce impact depends on implementation speed and how domestic training scales — genuinely uncertain parameters.

Good work & fair pay — Mixed picture

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy could protect UK workers' rights by barring exploitative employers from hiring abroad, but cutting migrant labour in shortage sectors like social care risks staffing crises if domestic training cannot fill the gap. The net effect on pay and job quality is genuinely split.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether domestic workforce and training plans can realistically replace migrant labour in shortage sectors — if they cannot, the result is vacancies and service degradation rather than better pay or security for UK workers.

Our reading: This policy has two distinct channels affecting O4. First, the employer-sanctions mechanism — barring exploitative employers from hiring abroad — directly targets a key driver of poor conditions for migrant workers: the tied-visa model that traps workers in abusive roles. This is a genuine improvement for job quality and worker security at the lower end of the labour market. Second, reducing overall migration in shortage sectors creates a countervailing risk. Social care and the NHS already face severe projected staffing deficits, and restrictive immigration policies risk worsening those shortages. Workers in those sectors — both domestic and migrant — face worse conditions when understaffed. The IFS finding that unskilled immigration can suppress wages at the bottom cuts the other way: less competition could lift wages for low-skilled domestic workers, but only if vacancies are actually filled by domestic recruits. That depends entirely on whether the promised workforce and training plans succeed — and credible analysts flag genuine uncertainty here. The net verdict is therefore mixed: real upside in employment rights enforcement and potential wage floor effects for domestic low-skilled workers; real downside risk in shortage-sector staffing crises. The magnitude is moderate because both channels affect large numbers of workers, and the time horizon is long-term because domestic workforce substitution, if it happens at all, takes years to build.

Education & opportunity — Little effect

minor · low confidence

This immigration policy touches on skills and workforce training, which could in theory nudge domestic skills development, but the training plans are aspirational with no committed budget or statutory mechanism. There is no direct effect on school standards, the attainment gap, or FE funding.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether the promised 'workforce and training plans' translate into funded, delivered domestic skills provision — or remain aspirational commitments with no legislative teeth.

Our reading: The policy's connection to O7 (education and opportunity) runs primarily through its stated ambition to link immigration restriction to domestic skills development and introduce workforce training plans. These commitments point in a direction that could, in principle, stimulate domestic apprenticeships and FE participation in sectors like health, social care, and construction. However, the policy text contains only soft commitments — 'plans introduced', 'linking immigration to skills policy' — with no committed budget, statutory duty, or quantified training target cited in the evidence. Under the soft-verb rule, this is insufficient to award an 'improves' direction. The policy says nothing about school standards, the pupil attainment gap, early years provision, or higher education access — the core O7 indicators. The skills/training angle is real but marginal and contested: evidence notes genuine uncertainty about whether domestic training supply can substitute for migrant labour at scale. On balance, the policy is largely an immigration-restriction measure that gestures at a skills link without delivering a concrete educational mechanism. The effect on O7 fundamentals at population scale is minimal and speculative — meeting the threshold for 'negligible' rather than a directional verdict. The magnitude is set to minor only because a long-run domestic-training stimulus is logically plausible, but confidence is low given the absence of evidenced delivery mechanisms.

Security in later life — Hurts

moderate · moderate confidence

Restricting immigration is likely to worsen staffing in social care and the NHS — sectors that older people depend on most — because many care workers earn below visa salary thresholds. The policy promises domestic workforce plans but there is no guaranteed mechanism or timeline for those to fill the gap.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether domestic training and workforce plans can be scaled quickly enough to replace migrant workers in social care before shortages deepen.

Our reading: O8 — security in later life — hinges on social care access and the NHS. Both sectors are heavily dependent on migrant workers. The evidence shows that the Skilled Worker route for social care has already been closed, and experts directly warn that this risks worsening staffing crises in care and health. Many social care workers earn below visa salary thresholds, making them ineligible under tighter immigration rules, leaving a structural gap. The policy does promise workforce and training plans, but research explicitly notes uncertainty about whether domestic training can substitute for migrant labour at scale — this is an aspiration without a committed deliverable or timeline sufficient to close the gap in the near term. Additionally, the IFS warns that reduced migration shrinks the tax base, which puts fiscal pressure on the public spending that funds the state pension and social care. The combination of near-term workforce pressure in care and NHS — sectors older people depend on most — and medium-term fiscal drag points to a worsening of the O8 indicators during this parliament. The magnitude is moderate rather than major because the domestic training commitment, if delivered, could partially offset the harm over time, and because some degree of migration restriction was already underway regardless of this policy.

Immigration & border control — Moves toward more control

We don’t call this better or worse — that’s your call; we only show which way the policy moves it.

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy moves immigration in a more controlled direction by tightening visa rules, penalising employers who misuse the system, and aiming to reduce reliance on overseas workers in key sectors. Whether it will actually lower net migration by as much as intended depends on how quickly domestic training can fill the gaps.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether domestic workforce and training plans will substitute sufficiently for migrant labour, given significant existing shortages in sectors like health and social care.

Our reading: The policy combines stated intent to lower net migration with concrete mechanisms: tighter visa restrictions, employer sanctions, a strengthened MAC, and sector-based workforce plans designed to reduce dependence on overseas labour. These measures all point in a more controlled direction. The closure of the social care Skilled Worker route is a measurable step already in train. The main uncertainty is whether domestic training pipelines can genuinely substitute for migrant labour in shortage sectors, which affects how much net migration actually falls relative to the policy's ambition.

Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on healthcare →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Compare all parties on education & opportunity →Compare all parties on security in later life →Compare all parties on immigration & border control →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home