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 Defends Controversial Proposal to Give Migrants Up to £30,000 in Taxpayer-Funded Payments as Immigration Row Intensifies
Britain’s immigration debate has entered another explosive phase after Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood explained why taxpayers could be expected to provide migrants with payments of up to £30,000.
The proposal has raised difficult questions about government spending, immigration enforcement and the responsibilities of the state towards people who have no legal right to remain in the United Kingdom.
At a time when millions of British households are struggling with rising living costs, expensive housing and pressure on public services, the prospect of substantial taxpayer-funded payments to migrants is likely to generate considerable controversy.
For supporters of the approach, financial incentives could represent a practical way of encouraging people without permission to remain in Britain to leave voluntarily.
For critics, however, the idea raises an obvious question: why should ordinary taxpayers finance payments that could reach tens of thousands of pounds for individuals who have entered or remained in the country unlawfully?
Mahmood’s explanation comes against a backdrop of mounting political pressure on the government to demonstrate that it has a credible immigration strategy.
The issue is no longer simply about controlling Britain’s borders. It is increasingly about the cost of enforcing immigration rules and whether the government can persuade the public that its decisions represent value for money.
Why is the government considering payments of up to £30,000?
The central argument behind voluntary departure payments is that removing people through compulsory enforcement procedures can be expensive, complicated and time-consuming.
Immigration enforcement may involve detention, legal proceedings, transportation arrangements and extensive administrative work.
Some individuals may challenge removal decisions, making the process even longer and more costly.
The government therefore has an interest in encouraging eligible individuals to leave voluntarily rather than requiring authorities to pursue every case through more complicated enforcement procedures.
Financial assistance can be presented as an incentive to make that decision.
Depending on the circumstances and the rules of the relevant scheme, voluntary return support may include assistance with travel arrangements, reintegration costs and practical support after arrival in the country of return.
The argument is that spending money upfront could potentially reduce the longer-term financial burden associated with prolonged immigration enforcement.
However, the figure of £30,000 is particularly sensitive.
It is important to distinguish between a maximum possible payment under specific circumstances and a standard payment automatically offered to every migrant.
The exact eligibility requirements, payment structure and conditions are essential to understanding what the proposal would actually mean for public finances.
Mahmood faces an uncomfortable question about taxpayers
The most politically difficult aspect of the proposal is undoubtedly its impact on public confidence.
British taxpayers contribute towards healthcare, education, policing, housing and numerous other public services.
Many people believe that government spending should prioritise citizens and legal residents who are already struggling to make ends meet.
Pensioners facing difficult financial decisions, working families dealing with expensive childcare and young people struggling to save for their first homes may find it difficult to understand why migrants could receive substantial financial assistance to leave the country.
The political optics are challenging.
Even if ministers believe voluntary departure payments could save money in the long run, convincing ordinary voters that the arrangement is fair will be another matter entirely.
The government must explain why such payments are necessary, how much they will cost and what evidence demonstrates that they produce better results than alternative enforcement methods.
Without clear answers, the proposal risks becoming another symbol of the growing divide between Westminster and voters concerned about immigration.
The wider immigration crisis puts Labour under pressure
Mahmood is operating in an increasingly difficult political environment.
Immigration has become one of the defining issues of British politics, with voters demanding stronger border controls and more effective action against people smugglers.
The Channel small-boats crisis has attracted particular attention.
Images of overcrowded inflatable boats crossing dangerous waters have become familiar, while the number of people seeking asylum continues to generate political arguments about accommodation, public spending and the capacity of local authorities.
For the government, the challenge is complicated.
It must demonstrate that immigration rules are being enforced while ensuring that asylum applications are handled lawfully.
It must also deal with people whose applications have been rejected and who are expected to leave the country.
Voluntary departure schemes are one possible part of that process.
But critics question whether offering money will genuinely discourage illegal migration or simply create another financial incentive that could be exploited.
The government will need to show that the system is properly controlled and that payments are conditional on individuals actually leaving Britain.
Could the scheme save taxpayers money?
Supporters of voluntary return programmes argue that the financial calculation should not be based solely on the amount paid to an individual.
Instead, ministers should compare the cost of voluntary departure with the total expense of detention, enforcement, legal challenges and removal.
If a voluntary payment helps resolve a case quickly, the government may argue that it represents a more economical solution.
However, that calculation depends on several important factors.
How many people would accept the offer?
How many would leave without financial assistance?
Would payments encourage some individuals to delay departure in the hope of receiving additional support?
And how would the government prevent people from attempting to manipulate the system?
These are not minor administrative questions.
They determine whether the programme represents a genuine saving or simply creates another expensive commitment for taxpayers.
The government should also publish clear figures showing how much has been spent, how many individuals have departed and what savings have been achieved.
Transparency will be particularly important if payments approach the maximum figure of £30,000.
Reform UK and the Conservatives could seize on the controversy
The proposal provides political ammunition for opposition parties, particularly those seeking to present themselves as tougher on immigration.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has repeatedly made immigration a central part of his political message.
The party has argued that Britain needs a much tougher approach to illegal migration, stronger enforcement and a significant reduction in the number of people arriving through unauthorised routes.
A taxpayer-funded departure payment of up to £30,000 could become an easy target for Reform politicians.
They could argue that the government is spending public money on financial incentives rather than demonstrating that immigration rules have meaningful consequences.
The Conservatives could also use the controversy to question Labour’s priorities.
For the opposition, the issue offers an opportunity to connect immigration policy with the everyday financial pressures experienced by British households.
However, Labour will argue that responsible government requires looking at the overall cost of different approaches rather than choosing policies simply because they sound tougher.
The political battle is therefore likely to focus on whether voluntary returns are an effective enforcement tool or an expensive concession.
The question of fairness cannot be ignored
Beyond the political arguments, the proposal raises a wider question about fairness.
There is a difference between providing practical assistance to someone returning home and offering a substantial financial incentive to leave a country where they have no right to remain.
Some people will regard the first as a reasonable humanitarian measure.
Others will see the second as an inappropriate use of public money.
The government must recognise that public confidence is essential to the success of immigration policy.
People are more likely to accept difficult decisions when they understand the reasons behind them and believe that everyone is being treated according to clear and consistent rules.
If ministers cannot explain why particular payments are necessary, opposition to the scheme could become much stronger.
Equally, refusing to consider voluntary departures simply because they are politically unpopular could leave the government facing higher enforcement costs.
The challenge is finding a balance between financial responsibility, effective border management and basic humanitarian considerations.
What happens next?
The controversy surrounding Mahmood’s explanation is likely to intensify as politicians and taxpayers demand greater clarity about the scheme.
The most important questions concern eligibility, the maximum amount available, the number of people expected to benefit and the total cost to the public purse.
Ministers will also need to explain how voluntary departures fit into their wider plans for immigration enforcement.
If the programme produces measurable savings and increases the number of people leaving Britain voluntarily, the government will argue that the investment is justified.
If costs rise without a significant improvement in departures, however, the political consequences could be serious.
For Labour, the danger is that a policy intended to make immigration enforcement more efficient could instead reinforce the perception that the government is struggling to control the situation.
For Mahmood personally, the challenge will be to convince a sceptical public that payments potentially reaching £30,000 are not an unnecessary reward but a carefully controlled mechanism designed to reduce the overall cost of immigration enforcement.
Ultimately, British taxpayers deserve clear answers.
They deserve to know exactly where their money is going, why the payments are being considered and whether the approach delivers results.
In a country where immigration remains one of the most divisive political issues, simply telling voters that a policy could save money will not be enough.
The government must prove it.