Shabana Mahmood visits a Danish removal centre (Image: PA)
Shabana Mahmood has refused to rule out paying migrants up to £30,000 to leave the UK voluntarily. The Home Secretary said more “generous” offers would incentivise people to leave, as she confirmed Labour will hike payments – but refused to reveal the figure that will be paid. Foreign criminals, failed asylum seekers and immigration offenders currently receive up to £3,000.
Ms Mahmood, speaking in Denmark which has enacted policies that Labour modelled its own on, refused to rule out a ten-fold increase, insisting only that “I haven’t made any final decisions on what the right sum is”. She said a massive increase in payments to encourage migrants to leave could be worth it in the long run, because the UK would no longer have to pay for their housing and living expenses.
Ms Mahmood said: “I know it sort of sticks in your craw, basically, to think that you’re going to pay people who’ve come to your country illegally to leave and go back to their home country.
“What I would say to people, though, is when you look at the numbers, to house somebody in asylum accommodation, in a hotel, it costs £53,000 pounds a year per person every year, which is a huge sum of money that is going to waste at the moment.
“I think paying more than what we currently do is still going to be considerably less than what we’re spending on these people.
“I haven’t made any final decisions on what the right sum and the right sort of package will be for our country.
“It will be more than what we currently offer. And what I’ve seen here in Denmark is a more generous offer to get people to incentivise people to leave the country does work, because 95% of the returns that you see from Denmark are voluntary and people do make use of that incentivised package.
“It means that they do leave the country, and that’s very important.
“If we can get them out quickly and save a bunch of money in the process, I think it’s the right thing to do.”
Denmark is willing to pay up to 20,000 euros to convince migrants to leave the country voluntarily.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood visits the Sjaelsmark Returns Centre, on the outskirts of Copenhagen (Image: PA)
Migrants are also offered £2,258 if they withdraw their asylum claim within two weeks of arrival.
And Ms Mahmood, during a visit to Denmark, revealed migrants’ right to permanent asylum will be scrapped.
Instead, they will be offered temporary status, which will be reviewed every 30 months.
If their country is deemed safe enough for them to return, they will be sent back. Only children who arrive in the UK unaccompanied will be exempt.
Until now, successful asylum seekers have been granted refugee status for five years and allowed to bring their families to the UK. They then got almost automatic fee-free permanent settlement with continued access to benefits and housing.
Refugees will also be required to “earn” their settlement rights by working and contributing to society.
They will have to wait up to 20 years before they can apply to settle in the UK – and up to 30 years if they arrived illegally via small boats across the Channel or by claiming asylum after overstaying work, student or visitor visas.
The right of refugees to bring over their families has been halted until a new system is introduced.
The policies have been modelled on those introduced by Denmark.
But she will not introduce plans to prevent “ghettos” forming in the UK.
Copenhagen, in a move seen as controversial by left-wingers, restricts areas of Denmark to no more than 50 per cent of the population being non-‘Western’.
People have been forced to leave areas in a bid to force people to integrate better.
Ms Mahmood: “We’re not the sort of country where we’re going to start passing laws about where particular kinds of people can and should not live.
“I don’t think that the success of integration comes from counting the number of brown faces or white faces or black faces in a particular street or in a particular neighbourhood.
“That’s not the success of integration. The success of integration comes from whether our people are all able to speak English, access the labour market, have the right skills and are making a contribution.
“That I think is what ultimately holds the country together.”
But Danish immigration minister, Rasmas Stoklund, said “so far the work has been successful” and they were working to ensure there were “no parallel societies” in the country.
He added: “It is important that kids, when they go to school in the morning that they see that the adults in the neighbourhood go to work, that they don’t just hang around in this neighbourhood, and that they also experience what is the majority culture like, that they don’t grow up in a part of Denmark which could have been part of the greater Middle East.
“We need to live together here in Denmark.”
He added: “That is that we don’t want parallel societies. We won’t accept them and we won’t accept the norms of imams or anyone else trying to dominate areas of Denmark.”
Shabana Mahmood Explains Why Taxpayers Should Give Migrants Up to £30,000
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has sparked fresh debate over Britain’s immigration policy after defending proposals that could see some migrants receive payments of up to £30,000 to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily.
The controversial proposal has raised questions about the use of taxpayers’ money, the government’s approach to illegal immigration and whether financial incentives are the right way to encourage people without permission to remain in Britain to return to their home countries.
Supporters argue that voluntary departure schemes could save public money by reducing the costs associated with detention, lengthy legal proceedings and forced removals. Critics, however, question why taxpayers should provide substantial sums to people who have no legal right to remain in the country.
WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT OFFERING UP TO £30,000?
The proposed payments are linked to the government’s efforts to encourage certain migrants to leave Britain voluntarily rather than requiring expensive enforcement procedures.
The Home Office argues that voluntary returns can be cheaper and more efficient than detaining individuals and arranging compulsory deportations.
Under the proposed approach, eligible individuals could receive financial assistance to support their return and reintegration in their countries of origin.
The potential payment of up to £30,000 has attracted particular attention because of the considerable amount involved.
For many British taxpayers struggling with rising living costs, housing expenses and pressure on public services, the idea of providing such large payments to migrants is likely to generate strong reactions.
SHABANA MAHMOOD DEFENDS THE POLICY
Shabana Mahmood has defended the government’s approach by emphasising the importance of reducing the costs of Britain’s asylum and immigration system.
The Home Office faces significant financial pressures associated with accommodation, legal proceedings, detention facilities and the administration of asylum applications.
The government believes that encouraging eligible individuals to leave voluntarily could reduce some of these expenses.
From this perspective, providing financial assistance is presented as a practical alternative to more expensive enforcement measures.
However, the government must explain clearly who qualifies for the payments, how eligibility is assessed and what safeguards prevent abuse of the system.
WHY ARE TAXPAYERS ANGRY?
The proposal has raised several concerns among members of the public.
First, many people question whether individuals who have entered or remained in Britain unlawfully should receive financial incentives to leave.
Second, there are concerns about fairness. British households facing financial difficulties may struggle to understand why the government is considering payments worth tens of thousands of pounds when public services are under pressure.
Third, critics want reassurance that the policy will actually save money rather than simply transferring immigration costs into another government programme.
These concerns deserve clear answers.
At the same time, it is important to recognise that voluntary return assistance is not necessarily a reward for breaking immigration rules. Such schemes can be designed to facilitate departures and reduce the costs of compulsory removal.
COULD THE POLICY ACTUALLY SAVE MONEY?
The government’s argument rests largely on financial calculations.
Detaining individuals, processing legal challenges and arranging removals can be expensive and time-consuming.
If voluntary departure payments reduce these costs, the government could potentially save taxpayers money over the longer term.
However, the financial benefits depend on several factors, including the number of people accepting the offer, the actual cost of each departure and whether recipients would otherwise have been removed.
Transparency will be essential.
The government should publish clear information showing how much the programme costs, how many people leave voluntarily and how much money is saved compared with compulsory removal procedures.
Without that information, claims that the scheme represents good value for taxpayers will remain difficult to assess.
CONCLUSION: A CONTROVERSIAL TEST FOR THE GOVERNMENT
Shabana Mahmood’s defence of payments of up to £30,000 to encourage migrants to leave Britain has opened another difficult debate about immigration policy and public spending.
The government argues that financial incentives could help reduce the costs of an expensive immigration system and make voluntary departures easier to organise.
Opponents question whether such payments are fair to taxpayers, particularly during a period of economic pressure and strained public services.
Ultimately, the success of the policy should be judged by evidence rather than political promises.
The government must demonstrate that the scheme is properly targeted, financially responsible and genuinely more cost-effective than compulsory deportation.
British taxpayers deserve transparency about every pound spent, particularly when the government is asking them to finance a policy that could involve payments of up to £30,000 per person.