Mahmood's Migration Savings Claim Debunked by Government Data
Exclusive analysis of government figures has revealed that Shabana Mahmood's proposed migration changes would deliver a mere fraction of the claimed savings, casting doubt on the home secretary's assertions. According to data obtained via a freedom of information request, the public finances would gain approximately £600 million, not the £10 billion Mahmood suggested.
Extended Qualifying Period Under Scrutiny
Under Mahmood's plans, most individuals would need to wait 10 years to qualify for settled status, which grants access to benefits, healthcare, and social housing, rather than the existing five-year period. The home secretary argued this extension would alleviate strain on public services, but the data indicates otherwise.
Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics and public policy at King's College London who obtained the data, stated that the savings are likely to be offset by costs associated with migrants leaving the UK and high earners being deterred from moving here. He emphasised that the lifetime fiscal profile is strongly age-dependent, with net negative contributions often occurring later in life due to pensions and social care.
Detailed Analysis of Fiscal Impact
The newly released data from the migration advisory committee suggests migrants are net contributors for the first two decades after arrival, only turning negative after about 40 years. Benefit expenditure is much smaller than tax contributions, according to the findings.
Portes' analysis indicates that the direct saving from delaying indefinite leave to remain is about £2,000 per care worker and £4,000 per dependant over the full 10-year delay period. Using Home Office estimates of the numbers of migrants approaching eligibility for settlement and their dependants, this translates to savings of roughly £600 million over the 10-year period.
However, Portes noted some caveats: child benefit was not included in the data, and there are different estimates of how many migrants would ultimately seek long-term settlement in the UK. Longer settlement times could also lead to lower tax revenues as people remain in lower-skilled work linked to visas rather than progressing to higher salaries.
Political and Expert Reactions
The Labour-aligned thinktank IPPR has questioned the £10 billion figure, stating it cannot be reached without the majority of care workers and their dependents leaving the UK entirely. IPPR warned that the departure of large numbers of skilled care workers would likely incur significant costs to the Treasury, outweighing any savings.
Labour opponents of the proposals, including MP Stella Creasy, argue that the claim of a £10 billion saving is impossible to sustain and call for parliamentary scrutiny. Sunder Katwala, director of the British Future thinktank, highlighted that the findings suggest fiscal impacts would be a small fraction of what headline soundbites implied.
Max Wilkinson, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson, criticised the government's claim as a fiscal fantasy, noting that forcing care workers into a decade of uncertainty risks needed tax revenues that fund public services.
Home Office Response and Methodology
The Home Office clarified that the £10 billion figure was not intended to represent potential savings but rather an illustration of the lifetime cost of the cohort of care workers and dependants currently due to become eligible for indefinite leave to remain. A spokesperson stated that the methodology behind the estimates is published and defended the need for action to restore order in the immigration system.
As the Home Office consults on the changes, which are not expected to be put to a parliamentary vote, the debate continues over the true fiscal impact and fairness of Mahmood's proposals.
