Andy Burnham has received a fresh migrant warning (Image: Getty)
Net migration will increase to 230,000 within five years, the official spending watchdog has warned. Statisticians have revealed that net migration will fall to 120,000 this year, once official figures are confirmed.
But it will rise again starting next year, despite numerous attempts to reduce international arrivals. And Reform’s Zia Yusuf warned that another 1.1million migrants will be “added to Britain’s population over the next six years”. Mr Yusuf told the Daily Express the rise would come “all while our health service, housing, prisons, roads and welfare system are buckling under pressure”.
Zia Yusuf has blasted Labour’s record on migration (Image: Getty)
“Andy Burnham is betraying Britain, just like the Tories did. We need net negative immigration. That is what Reform will deliver.”
The latest official figures published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed in May that net migration dropped to an estimated 171,000 last year, the lowest level since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. The ONS hinted that the crackdown on foreign care workers and students, first introduced in 2023, was beginning to limit numbers.
Former home secretary Sir James Cleverly banned overseas care workers and foreign students from bringing their family members with them to the UK as part of a series of measures to slash record-high levels of net migration. He also increased the salary threshold for skilled workers to £38,700.
This rose again to £41,700 in July 2025. The minimum income requirement for British citizens and settled foreign nationals hoping to bring their partners to the UK was also increased from £18,600 to £29,000.
Net migration hit a staggering 944,000 in the year to March 2023, amid an influx of foreign students, a spike in non-EU workers, particularly in the health and social care sectors and the introduction of the Ukraine and Hong Kong refugee visa schemes, ONS figures revealed.
But the budget watchdog revealed: “We expect net migration to fall to 120,000 in the year to mid-2026. The near-term decline reflects visa restrictions introduced since 2023 alongside higher emigration following past high levels of immigration, especially among students.
“Net migration is then forecast to rise gradually to 230,000 by the year to mid-2031. This rise largely reflects our assumption that the net outflow of British nationals and EU nationals who arrived under the pre-Brexit immigration regime will gradually lessen.”
Bombshell Migrant Warning as Spending Watchdog Reveals New Figures
Britain’s immigration debate has intensified following the release of new figures from the country’s independent spending watchdog, raising fresh questions about the financial consequences of the asylum system and the government’s ability to control public expenditure. The latest findings have renewed political pressure on ministers to explain how much taxpayers are spending on migrant accommodation, asylum applications and related public services.
The National Audit Office (NAO), which examines government spending and assesses whether public money is being used effectively, plays an important role in monitoring the financial performance of public departments. Its reports often reveal weaknesses in government planning, unexpected expenditure and the long-term costs of major public policies. The latest figures concerning immigration have therefore attracted considerable attention from politicians and taxpayers.
One of the biggest concerns is the cost of accommodating asylum seekers while their applications are being processed. In recent years, the Home Office has faced increasing pressure to provide suitable accommodation for people arriving in the United Kingdom and seeking international protection. A shortage of available housing has resulted in the use of hotels and other temporary facilities, creating significant financial commitments.
The government has repeatedly promised to reduce the number of asylum hotels and move towards more affordable accommodation arrangements. However, converting former military bases and other large facilities into residential centres also requires substantial investment. Buildings must be adapted to provide sanitation, electricity, healthcare facilities, security and other essential services.
These developments have raised questions about whether the government can achieve meaningful savings in the long term. Although moving asylum seekers out of hotels could reduce certain accommodation costs, the initial investment and ongoing operating expenses may still be considerable.
Another important issue concerns the time required to process asylum applications. When decisions take months or years, the government must continue providing accommodation and financial support to eligible applicants. Delays can therefore increase public expenditure and create uncertainty for people waiting to discover whether they are entitled to remain in Britain.
The Home Office has faced criticism over its ability to process applications efficiently. A growing backlog can create additional pressure on immigration officials, accommodation providers and local authorities. Reducing this backlog is therefore an important part of the government’s strategy to manage the asylum system.
Opposition politicians have used the latest financial concerns to challenge Labour’s immigration policies. Conservative representatives argue that the government must strengthen border enforcement, improve the speed of asylum decisions and ensure that people who have no legal right to remain in Britain are removed when appropriate.
Reform UK has also called for a tougher approach to illegal immigration, arguing that the current system places an unacceptable financial burden on taxpayers. Its representatives have repeatedly highlighted the cost of asylum accommodation and questioned whether existing government policies are producing sufficient results.
However, the government maintains that immigration and asylum must be managed through an effective system that respects British law and international obligations. Ministers argue that providing accommodation for people awaiting decisions is a legal responsibility and that improvements to processing times will help reduce unnecessary expenditure.
It is also important to distinguish between asylum seekers, refugees and people who enter the country illegally. These categories are not interchangeable. An asylum seeker is someone who has requested international protection and is awaiting a decision. A refugee is someone whose claim has been recognised under the relevant legal framework. The financial and legal arrangements applying to different groups can vary considerably.
The wider economic impact of migration is also more complicated than accommodation expenditure alone. Migrants who are legally entitled to work can contribute to the economy through employment, taxation and consumer spending. Some sectors, including healthcare, agriculture, hospitality and social care, rely significantly on workers from overseas.
At the same time, rapid population growth can increase demand for housing, schools, healthcare and transport infrastructure. Local authorities may experience additional pressure if funding does not adequately reflect changes in population. Therefore, an effective immigration policy must consider both economic contributions and the costs associated with providing public services.
The latest spending figures have also highlighted the importance of transparency. Taxpayers need clear information about how much the asylum system costs, how accommodation contracts are awarded and whether government departments are achieving the savings they promise.
The National Audit Office’s role is particularly important because it provides independent scrutiny rather than simply repeating government announcements or opposition claims. Its findings can help Parliament understand whether public money is being spent effectively and identify areas where administrative improvements are necessary.
Ultimately, Britain’s migration debate is about more than the number of people arriving in the country. It also concerns the effectiveness of public administration, the protection of vulnerable people, national border security and the responsible use of taxpayers’ money.
In conclusion, the latest figures from the spending watchdog have renewed concerns about the financial pressures associated with Britain’s asylum system. The cost of temporary accommodation, delays in processing applications and the investment required to establish alternative facilities all present significant challenges for the government. Ministers will need to demonstrate that their policies can reduce unnecessary expenditure while maintaining legal obligations and providing an effective asylum process. For taxpayers, the central question is whether the government can deliver a system that is financially sustainable, transparent and capable of managing immigration effectively.