£169k per Asylum Seeker

1 Apr 2016
Reaction score
United Kingdom

Home Office says Rwanda deportations would cost £169,000 per person and only save money if 37% of migrant arrivals deterred​

The Home Office has published the economic impact assessment for its illegal migration bill. It shows the government thinks it will cost £169,000 per person to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

Cost of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda

Cost of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda Photograph: Home Office
In a written ministerial statement announcing the publication of the impact assessment, Suella Braverman, the home secretary, says that these costs must be considered alongside the benefits of irregular immigration being discouraged. She says:

The economic impact assessment clearly shows that doing nothing is not an option, as the volumes and costs associated with illegal migration and the asylum system have risen significantly over recent years, driven by the rise in small boat arrivals. This increase of pressure on the UK asylum system, public sector spending, public service and accommodation capacity, and local communities, is unsustainable. That is why we are changing our laws and taking action to stop the boats.
In 2022/23, the current system cost the UK an estimated £3.6bn in asylum support costs alone and we are spending £6m a day on hotel accommodations. Unless we take action to stop the boats, these and other costs will continue to rise …
The economic impact assessment forecasts a monetised benefit of over £100,000 for every illegal migrant deterred by the bill. The impact assessment also considers non monetised benefits that would result from stopping the boats, including: fewer individuals undertaking hazardous and unnecessary journeys crossing the Channel; reduced pressures on public services and housing markets; and other wider asylum system benefits from fewer migrants being supported in the system.
She also says that, at current spending levels, the bill would need to deter 37% of arrivals to save money for the taxpayer. But if costs continued to rise, then by the end of 2026 a much lower deterrence rate would be cost effective, she says.

The economic impact assessment estimates that - at current spending levels - the bill would need to deter 37% of arrivals to enable cost savings for the taxpayer. However, the costs of accommodating illegal migrants have increased dramatically since 2020. If these trends continue, by the end of 2026 the Home Office would be spending over £11bn a year (or over £32, a day) on asylum support. In such a scenario, the bill would only need to deter 2% of arrivals for the policy to enable cost savings for the taxpayer.

Sponsored Links
currently the cost is £140m for 0 people

but Serco, Deloitte and other private companies have made a ton of money out of it....Im sure they arent Conservative donors, nah cant be surely
Sponsored Links
That’s cheaper than keeping them here.
According to their stats it is cheaper than housing them here IF the average asylum seeker takes 4 (edit, more like 7 to match the local housing costs, the 4 years applies to the deterrence effect) years to have a decision.

I'd also want to see their assumptions on volumes, £105,000 per person deported is an odd number. It feels like a £100,000 charge per person and a 5,000 contribution to a fixed cost.
I agree that the best way to deter economic migrants would be to have a fast track immigration court process. Run them 24/7. I can see practical problems, though, not least of which might be a lack of lawyers to handle all the appeals. But money talks. Offer them triple the normal rate. It would surely end up being cheaper than these other options. And more humane (for those who worry about such things).
If the average asylum claim took a mere three years then the scheme would have to cut illegal migration in half to break even.

The average time for a first round decision for asylum is currently sat at 84 weeks, or just over a year and a half. It was 30 weeks before COVID.

That 4 years looks pretty questionable to me.
currently the cost is £140m for 0 people

but Serco, Deloitte and other private companies have made a ton of money out of it....Im sure they arent Conservative donors, nah cant be surely
This is only the incremental costs, it ignores all the money already spent on it, any legal court cases and other setup costs.

It's a worse business case than the northern Ireland bridge.
Complete joke. The government is screwing is all. No doubt they've created the hype with three help of the press just to get a solution approved to make more money.
UK does not allow them to work.
In the black economy? Might be a deterrent for economic seeking 'asylum seekers' working in the black economy if they were discouraged from working. They're not paying their tax after all which seems to be problem for you with those in the higher tax bracket working the system.
Sponsored Links