Paying failed asylum seekers to leave is value for money, says Mahmood

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has said she is prepared to consider a "substantial rise" in payments to failed asylum seekers in order to convince them to leave the country voluntarily. She argued that this was often "better value for money for the taxpayer" than the cost of keeping them in the country.

Ms Mahmood also defended her decision to begin deporting families whose asylum claims have been refused, even though this includes children. The plans are part of a wider reform of the UK's asylum system announced in Parliament this week, which has sparked outrage from some Labour MPs and peers.

'Value for Money'

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Political Thinking with Nick Robinson, Ms Mahmood was asked whether paying failed asylum seekers to leave was the right use of taxpayer money. She noted that looking after failed asylum seekers currently costs the taxpayer £30,000 per person per year, making cash payments "value for money," even if the sums rise above the current upper limit.

"I've already asked my officials to pilot a tiny programme where we have more flexibility... just to see how it improves behaviour," she said.

"I haven't landed on the full amount... but I'm willing to consider a significant increase on what we currently pay, because of the fact that... it's often better value for money for the taxpayer."

She added: "I know it sticks in the craw of many people and they don't like it... but it works, and a voluntary return is often the fastest way to get people back to their home country."

Deporting Families

A change in government policy regarding families with children has also proved contentious among some backbench Labour MPs. The government intends to prioritise removing families who have been refused asylum; if they opt not to leave the UK voluntarily, they could be forcibly removed.

On Tuesday, Labour peer Lord Dubs, who came to the United Kingdom from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia on the Kindertransport, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Ms Mahmood was "weaponising children" and should reconsider.

"I always listen closely to what he says, but on this occasion, I disagree. I will never use children as a weapon," Ms Mahmood said.

She argued she had a responsibility to avoid putting children on board crowded small boats crossing the Channel.

"There is a perverse incentive there to cross with your children, which may put your children in jeopardy," she said. "We would never ever remove a family with children [unless] they have failed in their application."

While acknowledging that removing children required careful consideration, Ms Mahmood explained that she must be fair to British taxpayers who are footing the bill.

"It's correct that if you're a failed asylum seeker, the fact that you have a child under the age of 18 is not a reason why you should keep in supported asylum accommodation forever more," she said.

Asset Seizures

Another issue that has sparked concern is reports that asylum seekers could be stripped of their jewellery at the border upon arrival.

Ms Mahmood clarified that asylum seekers would not have items of sentimental value, such as wedding rings, taken away. However, she said that people with a "flashy Rolex watch, e-bike, car, or other high-value assets" should use them to contribute to the cost of their stay.

She gave the example of an asylum seeker who was receiving £800 a month from his family and had bought an Audi. Ms Mahmood said: "He was not obligated under any of our laws to pay for the cost of his asylum."

She noted that most British residents must undergo means-testing for the benefits system, where assets are considered when determining social security eligibility.

"I'm trying to make that change... to place asylum seekers on the same playing field as British citizens."