This is the moment 18 workers were arrested in an immigration bust at a busy DPD delivery depot. The staff were detained on suspicion of immigration offences amid a crackdown on illegal working in the parcel delivery sector. Officers arrived at the parcel delivery company’s Dudley Port in Wolverhampton last Tuesday (September 29), with wiedly circulated social media footage appearing to show uniformed workers sitting beside their vans as Home Office officials patrolled around them. Following the raid, the business was handed a Civil Penalty Referral Notice, meaning further investigations will now take place to establish whether it has any liability.

Under the rules, businesses can face hefty fines if they are found to have employed illegal workers and failed to carry out the required right-to-work checks. Fines can reach £45,000 per worker for a first breach and rise to £60,000 for repeat offending. In the most serious cases, businesses can also face prosecution.

In a statement, the Home Office said: “We will not stand for illegal working”. “Since coming into office, immigration enforcement activity has risen to its highest level on record under this government, with illegal working arrests up by 122 per cent. “We have strengthened right to work requirements to cover the parcel delivery sector, helping to ensure appropriate checks are carried out.

“Businesses failing to meet their obligations may face fines of up to £60,000 per illegal worker and, in the most serious cases, criminal prosecution,” it added, according to The Sun.

However, DPD has denied that it was served a penalty notice and insited it has robust checks in place. A spokesperson said: “At DPD we take our legal obligations extremely seriously and we have right to work checks in place for all of our people.

“In addition, we have carried out a review of these procedures ahead of the new legislation that came into force recently, and we will continue to support and work closely with the Home Office on this issue,” the statement added. “We can also confirm DPD has not been served with a Penalty Notice.”

The latest crackdown comes after nine people were arrested at two DPD depots in the south of England this summer. Immigration Enforcement officers arrived at sites in Basingstoke, Hampshire, and Newbury, Berkshire, on June 11, where right-to-work checks were carried out on more than 100 people across the two sites.

Seven Indian nationals, one Ghanaian national and one Pakistani national were arrested on suspicion of immigration offences. All nine were placed on immigration bail with conditions while further inquiries took place.

Illegal Immigration Crackdown by Tories Would ‘Boot Out 150,000 a Year’

The Conservatives have unveiled an ambitious immigration crackdown promising to remove up to 150,000 people a year who have no legal right to remain in Britain, placing tougher border enforcement at the centre of Kemi Badenoch’s political agenda.

The proposal would establish a new £1.6 billion Removals Force, designed to identify, detain and deport people who have exhausted their legal right to stay in the country. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp has argued that Britain needs a fundamentally different approach to illegal immigration, with stronger enforcement powers, expanded detention capacity and more effective arrangements for returning people to their countries of origin.

The Conservatives say their plan could deliver 750,000 removals over a five-year parliamentary term. They also argue that people arriving illegally by small boat should face rapid removal, rather than remaining in Britain while lengthy legal proceedings take place.

However, the ambitious target has prompted questions about whether the proposals could be delivered at the scale promised, how much they would ultimately cost and what legal changes would be required.

The announcement has nevertheless ensured that immigration remains one of the central battlegrounds in British politics, with the Conservatives attempting to demonstrate that they have a detailed alternative to the current system.

A new force to accelerate deportations

At the heart of the Conservative proposal is a new enforcement organisation modelled partly on the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, commonly known as ICE.

The party wants the Removals Force to replace or substantially overhaul the existing Home Office immigration enforcement arrangements, giving it a stronger operational focus on finding and removing people who have no lawful basis to remain in the country.

The Conservatives have proposed increasing annual funding from approximately £820 million to £1.6 billion. They say the additional resources would allow the authorities to expand enforcement operations, increase detention capacity and arrange more removals.

The force would target several groups, including people who arrive illegally, failed asylum seekers who have exhausted their appeal rights, foreign offenders eligible for deportation and people who have overstayed their visas.

These groups are not legally identical. A failed asylum seeker may have exhausted the relevant procedures, while someone accused of entering unlawfully may still have an asylum claim that must be considered. Foreign nationals convicted of crimes can also have individual circumstances that affect whether deportation is lawful.

The Conservatives argue that a more integrated enforcement system would help officials identify cases, prioritise removals and reduce delays.

The proposed expansion of facial-recognition technology would also play a role in identifying people suspected of having no right to remain. This element is likely to attract scrutiny over privacy, the accuracy of identification systems and the safeguards governing their use.

For the plan to succeed, the new organisation would need more than additional funding. It would require trained personnel, suitable detention facilities, reliable identity checks, transport arrangements and cooperation from foreign governments.

Why the Conservatives believe removals must increase

The party’s argument is that immigration rules lose credibility if people who have no right to remain can stay in Britain for years without a realistic prospect of removal.

Conservatives say the existing system has struggled to keep pace with the number of cases requiring enforcement action. They point to the costs of asylum accommodation, the use of hotels and delays in returning people whose applications have been refused.

The party also argues that the prospect of being removed could discourage people from making dangerous journeys across the English Channel.

Under this reasoning, if prospective migrants believe that arriving illegally will not result in permission to remain, fewer may attempt the crossing. The Conservatives say that faster removals would also weaken the business model of smuggling networks that charge people substantial sums to reach Britain.

However, deterrence depends on more than the announcement of a policy. It would depend on whether removals actually take place, how quickly cases are resolved, whether countries accept returned nationals and whether alternative routes remain available.

People-smuggling networks may also adapt to changes in enforcement, making it difficult to predict the effect of any single measure.

The proposed target of 150,000 removals annually is therefore a political commitment that would need to be tested against practical results.

The financial challenge behind the £1.6 billion plan

The Conservatives say the Removals Force would receive £1.6 billion a year, roughly double the funding previously allocated to the existing enforcement system.

They argue that some of the additional money could be found by closing asylum hotels and reducing the wider costs associated with a system they describe as inefficient.

The financial argument is straightforward: if people without a legal right to remain are removed more quickly, the government could reduce the length of time some spend in publicly funded accommodation and avoid certain ongoing costs.

Yet faster removals would also require substantial investment.

Detention facilities need to be built or expanded, staff must be recruited and trained, and removal flights and other transport arrangements must be organised. Legal challenges, identity disputes and difficulties obtaining travel documents can create further costs.

Closing hotels would not necessarily eliminate accommodation spending altogether. People who remain eligible for asylum support may still need housing while their cases are assessed, and alternative accommodation must be available before hotel use can be reduced safely.

The government would therefore need to demonstrate that the proposed funding was sufficient to cover the additional operational requirements and that projected savings were realistic.

The financial outcome would depend on the number of people actually removed, the cost per case and the extent to which removals reduced other public expenditure.

Leaving the European human rights framework

The Conservatives have linked their deportation strategy to major changes in Britain’s legal arrangements, including withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights and the repeal of the Human Rights Act.

The party argues that existing human rights protections and legal procedures can make it harder to remove people whose immigration cases have been refused. It says changing the framework would give ministers and enforcement officials greater freedom to carry out deportations.

The proposals also include restricting asylum claims by people who enter Britain illegally and ending or substantially changing existing routes for immigration appeals and judicial review.

These would be major changes to the legal system rather than straightforward administrative adjustments.

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty, while the Human Rights Act gives effect to Convention rights in domestic law. Leaving the Convention would not automatically resolve every legal question concerning asylum, detention or deportation.

Other legal obligations, including international refugee protections, would need to be considered. The relationship between the proposed reforms and arrangements connected to Northern Ireland would also require careful examination.

Critics argue that restricting access to legal challenges could increase the risk of people being removed unlawfully, particularly where officials have made mistakes about identity, family circumstances or the danger someone could face on return.

The Conservatives maintain that their proposed changes are necessary to restore control over immigration enforcement. Whether the package could achieve its stated objectives without creating additional legal and diplomatic problems would depend on the precise legislation and how it was implemented.

What happens to people arriving by small boat?

The Conservatives have made people arriving by small boat a central priority of their proposed removals strategy.

The party says new illegal arrivals should be removed within a week, either to their country of origin or, where appropriate and lawful, to another country able to receive them.

The proposal is intended to change the incentives facing people considering a dangerous Channel crossing. Rather than entering a process that could leave them in Britain for an extended period, the Conservatives want rapid decisions followed by removal for those who are not entitled to stay.

But the process would present significant operational challenges.

Authorities must establish who a person is, determine the relevant facts about their case and identify a country willing and legally able to accept them. Some people may have no valid travel documents, while others may claim that returning them would expose them to persecution or serious harm.

Those claims cannot automatically be treated as valid, but neither can they simply be ignored. The government would need a system capable of making lawful decisions quickly and arranging returns when those decisions permit it.

The Conservatives say their wider legal reforms would make rapid removals more achievable. Critics argue that a one-week timetable would be difficult to deliver consistently and could lead to prolonged disputes when countries refuse to cooperate.

The distinction between announcing a removal deadline and carrying out a lawful removal is crucial to evaluating the proposal.

The question of foreign criminals

Another major element of the plan is the removal of foreign nationals who have committed crimes and are legally eligible for deportation.

Chris Philp has argued that people who commit serious offences should not be allowed to remain in Britain simply because enforcement arrangements are slow or ineffective.

The Conservatives have suggested that foreign criminals should receive greater priority within the new system, with the aim of increasing the number removed each year.

Supporters say deportation can protect the public and demonstrate that serious offending has consequences beyond the criminal sentence imposed by a court.

However, deportation is a separate legal process from imprisonment. Authorities must consider nationality, immigration status, the relevant statutory rules and any applicable legal protections. A conviction does not automatically mean that every foreign national can be removed immediately.

The government would also need to secure travel documents and cooperation from receiving countries. Where a person cannot lawfully be returned to their country of origin, officials may need to explore other lawful arrangements.

The Conservatives’ ambition to expand removals would therefore require close coordination between prisons, probation services, immigration enforcement and foreign governments.

Could the plan reduce Channel crossings?

The Conservatives believe a credible removals system would discourage people from attempting the journey across the Channel.

Their argument is that smugglers exploit the expectation that people who reach Britain may remain for a considerable period, even when their asylum claims are ultimately unsuccessful.

If removal became faster and more predictable, the party says, the incentive to pay smugglers could diminish.

However, migration decisions are influenced by numerous factors, including conflict, persecution, family connections, employment prospects and conditions in transit countries. The effect of enforcement measures can therefore vary.

The practical success of the policy would need to be assessed through evidence showing whether small-boat arrivals declined, whether removals increased, how long cases took to resolve and whether the changes reduced the overall costs of the asylum system.

It would also be important to distinguish people who are not entitled to remain from those who qualify for protection under the law.

A successful system would need to process legitimate asylum claims efficiently while ensuring that people who have no legal right to stay can be removed in accordance with the applicable rules.

Labour and Reform UK face their own challenges

The Conservative announcement comes amid intense competition between the major parties over immigration policy.

Labour has emphasised enforcement against people-smuggling networks, cooperation with international partners and improvements to the processing and removal of people who have no right to remain.

The Conservatives argue that these measures do not go far enough and that more fundamental changes are required.

Reform UK has also proposed a substantially tougher approach, including large-scale deportations and stronger pressure on foreign governments to accept returned nationals.

This creates a difficult political environment for Badenoch. The Conservatives need to demonstrate that their plan is both more detailed than their rivals’ proposals and capable of overcoming the problems that have frustrated previous governments.

Their record in office will also form part of the debate. During the Conservatives’ years in government, Britain experienced substantial levels of legal migration as well as continued small-boat arrivals. The party has acknowledged mistakes in its previous approach and argues that its new proposals reflect lessons learned.

Opponents will ask why voters should believe that a new enforcement organisation can achieve the promised results when previous systems struggled to deliver removals at the required scale.

The answer will depend on the detail of the legislation, the resources provided and the ability to secure practical cooperation from other countries.

A major pledge that must be tested against reality

The proposed Removals Force represents a significant shift in the Conservatives’ approach to immigration enforcement.

Its £1.6 billion budget, proposed use of facial-recognition technology and target of 150,000 removals a year would require substantial changes to the way the system operates.

Supporters argue that Britain needs a stronger deterrent against illegal immigration and a more effective way to remove people who have no legal right to remain. Critics question the cost, the legal implications and whether the target is achievable.

Both the financial and operational details matter. The government would need enough detention capacity, trained staff, reliable casework and international cooperation to turn the headline figure into actual removals.

It would also need to ensure that people entitled to protection are not wrongly removed and that enforcement powers are exercised lawfully.

Ultimately, the proposal will be judged not by the size of its announced budget or the forcefulness of its language, but by its measurable results.

If the Conservatives can demonstrate that the system increases lawful removals, reduces delays and provides value for money, they will have evidence to support their argument. If the target proves unrealistic or the legal and operational obstacles remain unresolved, the gap between the promise and the outcome will become a central issue.

For now, 150,000 removals a year remains an ambitious Conservative pledge—not a guaranteed result. The challenge is to show precisely how the policy would work, what it would cost and how Britain could enforce its immigration rules effectively while continuing to meet its legal obligations.