By Ben Kerrigan-
A company owned by a councillor from Reform UK has been fined £40,000 after being found to have employed a person without legal authorisation to work in the UK.
The business owner, Michael Andrew Harrison, (pictured) who holds a seat on Durham County Council, is now contesting the penalty a development that has triggered questions over enforcement of labour laws, the party’s internal vetting procedures, and political credibility as the party frames itself on stricter immigration and employment rules.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
The case centres on Harrison’s company, Churchills Management Ltd, which was listed in a government publication of businesses penalised for illegal employment. According to the official notice, the firm employed a worker who did not have the legal right to work at the time of hiring.
The fine, issued in February 2025, was publicly disclosed in November under routine publication of civil penalties for immigration infractions.
Harrison disputes the decision, arguing the employee in question a Thai national was legally eligible to work because they were married to a British citizen and had applied for an extension of leave to remain.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Legal advice received before employment was said to have indicated that their right to work continued under Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 while their application was processed. Harrison has appealed the fine the hearing is scheduled at Newcastle County Court.
The fine against Churchills Management Ltd emerges amid a wider crackdown on illegal working across the UK. Recent data from the Home Office show that employers who fail to perform valid “right to work” checks can face civil penalties of up to £60,000 per worker and even criminal prosecution in serious cases.
In the first quarter of 2025 alone, several businesses in sectors including retail, care, and hospitality were penalised some to the tune of six-figure sums. Observers note that the government’s increased enforcement activity reflects intensified political pressure to curb illegal employment and migration.
That context sharpens the political stakes for Reform UK. The party has long championed strong controls on immigration and illegal labour. The fine against one of its own councillors therefore undermines its public image fuelling accusations of hypocrisy and raising concerns about how thoroughly the party vets those standing for office.
Many analysts view the case as a test of whether Reform can sustain credibility while expanding its presence in local government.
A spokesperson for the Home Office issued a standard statement noting that “illegal working undermines honest employers, undercuts local wages and fuels organised immigration crime,” reiterating the government’s commitment to penalising businesses that breach right-to-work laws.
Meanwhile Harrison remains defiant. On social media he described the fine as a “targeted attempt to extract money from small businesses,” referencing his belief that his firm had complied with all required paperwork. He also claimed that before entering politics, he had been part of what he described as “a specialist team carrying out enforcement and flying illegal immigrants out of the UK,” suggesting the accusation felt personal and politically motivated.
Implications for Labour Market, Immigrant Rights and Reform UK
The incident highlights the tension between legitimate immigration enforcement and the risk of collateral damage when laws are applied rigidly in complex situations. Employers are required to verify documentation carefully.
The law under the Immigration Act demands that companies not just request documents, but properly check and record their validity before employing any individual. Failure to do so, even when legal ambiguity exists, can trigger heavy penalties.
Advocates for immigrant workers warn that overly punitive enforcement risks punishing victims of administrative limbo individuals whose leave-to-remain was pending renewal or was extended via legal processes. They argue that the burden should lie more squarely on authorities to ensure paperwork is processed promptly, and to provide clearer guidance to employers.
Critics of the current approach caution that blanket penalties may drive vulnerable people into precarious, unregulated labour, where exploitation and abuse are more likely.
The case may also prompt renewed debate about the responsibilities of elected officials who own or operate private businesses. Many observers argue that councillors and local politicians should be held to higher compliance standards, especially where laws around immigration and employment are concerned.
In the context of rising public concern over illegal migration, the fine against Churchills Management Ltd could erode public trust in Reform UK’s commitment to integrity and consistency.
Beyond the political fallout, the case underscores the challenges faced by small employers who try to navigate increasingly complex immigration-related regulations. Owners often juggle multiple responsibilities HR, finance, compliance and in a tightened labour market, small errors or misinterpretations of law can now lead to business-ending fines.
Groups representing small business owners have urged the government to simplify right-to-work checks and provide clearer, more accessible guidance to prevent inadvertent non-compliance.
As the appeal proceeds in court, Churchills Management Ltd faces uncertainty about its future. A ruling against the firm could confirm the Home Office’s stance that even contested immigration status does not excuse hiring without confirmed work rights. A successful appeal might highlight gaps and ambiguities in how the law is interpreted and potentially spur calls for reform.
Meanwhile Reform UK faces internal pressure. Party leadership will need to weigh the reputational risk against their policy agenda. If the court upholds the fine, members and voters may question whether the party can legitimately claim to uphold the kind of legal and immigration standards it espouses.
The court’s decision will bear close scrutiny not just by political opponents, but by employers, immigrant-rights organisations, and anyone concerned about fairness and rule-of-law in Britain’s labour market.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar