Families of failed asylum seekers in the UK may now be offered up to £40,000 to leave the country under a new trial scheme announced by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood.
Mahmood explained that the government intends to forcibly remove failed asylum seekers who do not accept the “incentive payments” up to £10,000 per person, capped at four members per family-within seven days of the offer.
The initiative is expected to focus on approximately 150 families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation, with the Home Office estimating potential savings of £20 million if the scheme is successful.
Critics, including the Conservatives and Reform UK, have argued that such payments could act as an incentive for illegal immigration.
The home secretary introduced the scheme during a speech at a left-leaning think tank, framing it as part of the “Labour case” for restricting certain asylum support. Currently, the government operates a voluntary returns program, where asylum seekers choosing to leave the UK can receive up to £3,000 in support.
Mahmood highlighted the high costs of accommodating asylum-seeking families, noting that housing a family of three can cost up to £158,000 per year. She described the increased incentive payment as a “significant saving to the taxpayer,” echoing similar reforms recently implemented in Denmark.
The government is consulting on humane and effective ways to remove families with children who refuse to leave voluntarily. Mahmood argued that failing to enforce removals has created “a perverse incentive” for migrants to cross the Channel with children.
The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, representing 100 organisations, raised concerns that families would have only a week to make potentially life-changing decisions without sufficient time to obtain legal advice. The group also warned that cutting support could leave children homeless.
Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp described the payments as “an insult to the British taxpayer.” Reform UK, while supportive of voluntary returns, called the £40,000 figure “staggering” and a “prize for breaking in illegally.”
A government source defended the payments, arguing that the cost of travel arranged by smugglers-between £15,000 and £35,000 per migrant-would still make illegal entry financially unviable for most.
In 2025, the UK received 82,100 asylum applications covering 100,600 individuals, with 58% of claims refused. That year also saw 28,004 voluntary returns, a 5% increase from the previous period.
Mahmood also confirmed that asylum seekers who break the law or work illegally will be removed from government-funded accommodation and lose their support payments. Changes, expected in June, will restrict accommodation and financial support to those deemed to “genuinely need it,” although the exact criteria are yet to be outlined.
While the Conservatives suggested Mahmood should go further, the Green Party criticised her proposals as echoing far-right rhetoric. The Refugee Council warned that these measures could increase rough sleeping and shift costs to local authorities and the NHS.
Prior to her speech at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), the home secretary had introduced measures to make refugee status temporary and to restrict study visa eligibility from four unspecified countries. Mahmood framed her reforms as creating an asylum system that is “compassionate but controlled.”
Some Labour MPs expressed concerns over temporary refugee status, warning it could threaten integration and cohesion for individuals who have lived in the UK for up to 20 years. Around 100 MPs signed a private letter urging reconsideration.
In her address, Mahmood emphasised that restoring order at the border aligns with Labour values, arguing that the majority of her party supports the changes. She also criticised the Green Party for advocating policies she claimed were “borderless” and costly, while the Greens denied misrepresenting their stance and stressed dignity for all migrants. Mahmood additionally critiqued Reform UK’s vision as a “nightmare” scenario of isolationist policy.
LawSentis View:
At LawSentis, we recognise the government’s efforts to control migration and manage costs, but we emphasise that any scheme must fully respect the legal rights of families and children. Offering financial incentives for voluntary departure may reduce pressures on public services, yet it also raises significant ethical and practical concerns, particularly around rushed decision-making and access to legal advice.
We urge careful monitoring to ensure that any returns are genuinely voluntary, and that vulnerable individuals are not forced into decisions that could have long-term consequences.