Danielle Cohen Immigration Law Solicitors Limited | View firm profile
On 1st June 2026, the Financial Times published an article about Rwanda’s claim for £100m compensation against the UK government over the failed asylum scheme. This is a compensation for cancelling the previous Conservative’s Government plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. The Rwanda Government asked the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague to force the UK to hand over compensation for alleged breaches of the deal to pay Rwanda to house and consider the claims of people who had sought asylum in the UK.
It was Keir Starmer who cancelled the deal and the plan that was struck by the previous Tory predecessor, Rishi Sunak, was ruled unlawful by the UK Supreme Court.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration unanimously rejected four of Rwanda’s five claims against the UK and rejected the fifth by majority, with only one Judge dissenting.
Rwanda demanded a £50m payment for the second year of the deal and a £50m payment for the third year, with an alternative that the payment for that year be reduced to £10.4m to reflect the date of cancellation. It also demanded £6m or an apology for breach of the deal. Only four people ever went to the East African country to have their asylum claim considered and all of them volunteered to accept the offer of up to £3,000 each to have their claim processed.
The UK Home Secretary, Ms Mahmood, announced in November changes to the immigration rules to people who will be granted asylum. They will be granted only temporary leave to remain in the UK and perhaps this is the current Government’s means of deterring asylum seekers from coming to the UK. However, let us not forget that whilst the UK ditched its Rwanda plan, the EU is reviving it. The Danish Immigration Minister said in August 2025 that sending asylum seekers outside the block has so much traction now and Denmark, Italy and Germany have been among those advocating for centres to be set up in non-EU countries to house people awaiting an asylum decision on repatriation. However, the moves to outsource asylum have suffered legal setbacks across Europe.
How many migrants are in the UK?
The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs committee publishes a report on the 23rd June 2026 on settlement, citizenship and integration. Key findings of the report are that there are significant gaps in official migration data, which makes it difficult for the government to formulate immigration policy or to assess likely impact of government policies. The report states “the most disturbing revelation of this enquiry is that we do not know how many migrants are in the UK… This is a historical problem of data collection and includes an absence of departure records for migrants who have arrived and are due to leave between 2021 and 2026 and is ongoing.” The Home Office migration statistics focus primarily on their arrivals rather than outcomes, so we do not know what happened to the migrants who entered the UK – whether they are employed or use public services. The reports’ final chapter raises concerns about the Home Office capacity to manage existing complexities and to implement future reforms. Additional checks and extension applications will increase workloads for a department that already struggles with backlogs.
The Row over Settlement
The Home Secretary’s plans to make migrants wait longer before they can permanently remain in the UK are manifestly unfair “and potentially unlawful” said the Lord Committee in the report of 23rd June 2026. The Lords Justice and Home Office Committee stated that the move could damage the UK’s reputation as a destination for highly skilled migrants. The Lords Committee report said “any retrospective change would be manifestly unfair and may be unlawful towards migrants who have planned their lives around the current system and made significant long-term decisions such as career, housing and family life decisions with the expectation that they would be able to qualify for ILR under the current rules”. It is understood that Ms Mahmood is ready to press ahead with the plans although there may be concessions to reduce the wait for some migrants such as high earners and those working in public services such as doctors, teachers and nurses. Madeleine Samption, the Head of Oxford University’s Migration Observatory, said to The Telegraph that “the UK might be seen as an unreliable place to be a migrant and in the future that could have a knock-on effect in attracting people who the UK wants to attract”. Mike Tapp, the Immigration Minister, told the Lords that the Home Office had been receiving legal advice and was satisfied that the proposed retrospective action was legal, with impact assessments to be published in due course. The Home Office spokesman said “we will always welcome those that come to this country and contribute to our national life. But the privilege of living here forever it should be earned, not automatic.”
And in a further twist, the Times newspaper published on 26th June 2026 stated that the Immigration Minister, the same Mike Tapp, called for the foreign care workers to be exempt from having to wait 10 years before they can settle, and the Home Secretary was unaware that he had written that piece in the first place. When she asked Keir Starmer to sack him for discussing her immigration policy in the Times, he replied that he would not be intimidated, and defended his decision to give his own view on policy. He said “I am adamant that we must always put country above party politics, and I will continue to so.”
What would Andy Burnham do?
Mr Dampier writes in the Daily Telegraph of 24th June 2026 that the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, was weighing up plans to either abandon or water down the retrospective reforms of Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, for indefinite leave to remain. As we recall, plan was to increase the time added to be eligible for ILR from five to ten years, an attempt to correct the errors of the last Conservative Government he says, which opened the borders to an unprecedented wave of immigration, popularly called the “Boriswave.” Without the reform the Home Office predicted that it will lead to a spike in grants of ILR and would mean that those obtaining ILR would become eligible to benefits such as universal credit, child benefit and access to social housing. The Home Secretary argued that this could cost the British taxpayer up to £10bn, with other estimates rising to £61bn or more. However, if Burnham becomes the next Prime Minister and he was to focus “on fairness for migrants over fairness for British people, states the article, then he too will risk a loss of trust with all the consequences that comes with it”.