Labour spends £40m paying migrants to return home as Mahmood ramps up removals
Labour has spent almost £40m since taking power in July 2024 on a scheme that pays migrants with no right to remain in the UK up to £3,000 each to voluntarily return to their home country, according to Home Office figures obtained by The Independent. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood argues the assisted voluntary returns programme represents good value for taxpayers because it is far cheaper than housing asylum seekers in hotels or carrying out forced deportations, and the government has significantly expanded its use as part of a wider push to raise removal numbers.
Some 17,346 migrants took up the offer by March this year at a cost of £35.7m, with a further £4m spent in April, up sharply from 6,410 returns costing £24.2m under the previous Conservative government in a comparable period. The Home Office says the average assisted return costs £4,000 including flights, compared with £48,000 for a forced removal and £158,000 a year to house a family in an asylum hotel; a pilot scheme launched in March also offers 150 families up to £40,000 to leave. Nearly half of those accepted last year were Brazilian, and participants face a re-entry ban. The Conservatives criticised the policy as "paying them off" rather than preventing illegal arrivals, while groups such as the Refugee Council welcomed it as a more dignified and cheaper alternative to detention or forced deportation.
- Labour has spent almost £40m paying migrants up to £3,000 to leave the UK
- Voluntary returns have nearly tripled since 2024 versus the equivalent Tory period
- Critics say it "pays off" illegal migrants instead of stopping arrivals
New here? Start with this
People who claim asylum can stay in the UK while their claim is considered. If the Home Office refuses a claim and a person has no other right to remain, they may be asked to leave or removed; some choose to return to their country of origin with government help.
Assisted voluntary return schemes can cover travel and offer financial support to people who agree to leave. They are part of the UK’s broader system for managing immigration, which also includes forced removals and accommodation for people awaiting decisions.
The Home Office is responsible for immigration policy, and Shabana Mahmood is the Home Secretary. The debate around return schemes involves their cost to taxpayers, how they affect efforts to enforce immigration rules, and whether voluntary departure is preferable to detention or forced removal.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The AVR programme combines fiscal prudence with humanitarian treatment. At £4,000 average cost, it saves taxpayers enormously compared to forced removal (£48,000) or yearly hotel provision (£158,000), and the substantial increase in participants demonstrates its effectiveness. Crucially, it treats people with dignity rather than resorting to detention or coercive deportation, an approach endorsed by refugee organisations.
The case against
The scheme effectively rewards illegal entry by offering financial incentives, risking a moral hazard problem where prospective migrants calculate they might receive compensation rather than face deportation. Critics contend this addresses symptom management rather than root prevention, failing to deter future attempts. They argue that resources would deliver greater public value if invested in stronger border security and deterrence that prevents arrivals altogether rather than financing departures of those already present.