UK Home Secretary's £7 Billion Asylum Claim Scrutinized

In a recent statement to Parliament, Yvette Cooper, the UK Home Secretary, claimed to have saved £7 billion by cancelling a Conservative asylum policy. This assertion, made just before the House of Commons' summer recess, has sparked controversy and scrutiny.

The policy in question, known as the 'Duty to Remove', was introduced in the Illegal Migration Act of 2023. It aimed to prevent ministers from granting asylum to those who entered Britain illegally and required their deportation to their home country or Rwanda. Cooper's decision to end the retrospective element of this duty has raised questions about its financial implications.

An investigation into Cooper's claim revealed significant discrepancies. The Home Office's impact assessment, obtained by the author, exposed flaws in the Home Secretary's statement to Parliament. The assessment acknowledged that 63,053 illegal immigrants previously slated for deportation would now have their asylum claims heard, with up to 70% (44,137 people) predicted to be successful.

The Labour Party's approach appears to involve granting asylum to a majority of migrants crossing the Channel. This strategy aims to shift costs from the Home Office budget to welfare and local authority budgets, where they are less transparent. The impact assessment admits, "Any asylum seekers who are granted asylum will have full access to... the welfare system," and "local authorities incur costs."

European studies provide insight into the potential long-term costs of this policy. A Danish government study found that immigrants from certain regions cost an average of £9,648 per year. Research from the University of Amsterdam calculated a lifetime cost of £403,390 per asylum migrant. Based on these figures, the lifetime cost for the 44,137 migrants likely to win asylum under Labour's new policy could reach £17.8 billion.

Sir Matthew Rycroft, the Home Office's Permanent Secretary, declined to endorse Cooper's numbers when questioned. The impact assessment revealed that the calculation double-counted costs and made unrealistic assumptions about deportations and accommodation expenses.

"The scale and timing of removals is highly uncertain" and "the Home Office may continue to support a number of" failed claimants.

Critics argue that Cooper's approach mirrors that of Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor, in misrepresenting inherited policies and producing questionable statistics to justify predetermined plans. The result, they claim, will be increased immigration and higher costs for taxpayers.

As the debate continues, the true impact of Labour's asylum policy remains to be seen. However, the controversy surrounding Cooper's £7 billion claim highlights the need for transparency and accurate reporting in matters of immigration and public finance.