It will cost £169,000 per person to send illegal migrants to countries such as Rwanda, according to new analysis published by the government.
An economic assessment of the Illegal Migration Bill also estimated that each person sent abroad to the east African nation, or a similar country, will save the taxpayer between £106,000 and £165,000 per person.
If the government wants to break even on the project, it would need to deter about 37% of people from crossing the Channel, the analysis estimated.
“This cost will only be incurred for people who arrive in the UK illegally. If an individual is deterred from entering the UK illegally, then no cost would be incurred,” the assessment notes.
An exact estimate for how much it would cost to send someone to Rwandawas not available, as the details are “commercially sensitive”.
However, the UK only has a deal in place to send people to Rwanda.
And things could get more expensive if the UK were to agree deportation deals with additional nations, as the government has indicated it wants to.
Setting up fees were not included in the £169,000 calculation – and it was noted the UK has paid Rwanda £140m so far and no one has made the journey there.
A breakdown of the costs said that a third country like Rwanda would get £105,000, the Home Office £18,000, costs for flying and escorting would be £22,000, costs for detention would be £7,000 and costs to the Ministry of Justice would be £1,000.
Advertisement
An extra 9% was added to account for estimates being optimistic, bringing the figure to £169,000.
And as unaccompanied children are excluded from being deported, the analysis warns that more young people – or those claiming to be so – could arrive under the scheme.
She said: “We cannot allow a system to continue which incentivises people to risk their lives and pay people smugglers to come to this country illegally, while placing an unacceptable strain on the UK taxpayer.
“I urge MPs and peers to back the bill to stop the boats, so we can crack down on people-smuggling gangs while bringing our asylum system back into balance.”
The Illegal Migration Bill seeks to prevent people who enter the UK illegally from making asylum claims, and instead aims to detain them before they get deported.
Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, branded the assessment “a complete joke”.
“By its own admission, this failing Conservative government is totally clueless on how much this bill will cost or what the impact of any of its policies will be. They are taking the country for fools,” she said.
“The few figures the Home Office has produced show how chaotic and unworkable their plans are. It suggests that if Rishi Sunak were actually able to deliver on his promise to remove every asylum seeker who arrives in the UK it would cost billions of pounds more even than the Tories’ broken asylum system today.”
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Reacting to the publication, the SNP noted that deporting all 11,000 people who have arrived in the UK on small boats this year would cost £1.8bn, according to the analysis.
The party’s home affairs spokesperson, Alison Thewliss, said: “”The astronomical cost of this policy adds an extra layer of disgust in those already opposed to these plans.
“At a time where so many are forced to flee persecution and unimaginable terrors it speaks to the inhumane priorities of the Tories that they would seek to enforce this.”
The Metropolitan Police is looking into reports that Prince Andrew asked an officer to help with an attempted smear campaign against the woman who accused him of sexual assault.
Andrewreportedlytried to get his personal protection officer to dig up dirt for a smear campaign against Virginia Giuffre back in 2011, according to the Mail on Sunday.
The Met Police said it was “actively looking into the claims made”.
The prince – who gave up his Duke of York title on Friday – has been approached for comment.
Meanwhile, it has been reported Prince William is planning to take a “ruthless approach” towards Andrew when he is king. The Sunday Times suggests William will ban his uncle from “all aspects of royal life” because of the ongoing risk to the Royal Family‘s reputation after a series of damaging revelations.
A US lawyer has predicted the scandal engulfing the royal “is not going away” and more stories will “leak out”.
Gloria Allred, who represents many of the victims of the late Jeffrey Epstein, believes Andrew will not be “let off the hook” over his links to the convicted paedophile.
“This is not going away. Even though he’s no longer a duke, and Sarah Ferguson is no longer a duchess, it’s not going away,” she told Sky News.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:49
Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?
Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening, after a series of fresh stories linked to the late Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein. She died in April, aged 41, with her family saying she “lost her life to suicide”.
Andrew will retain the dukedom, which can only be removed by an Act of Parliament, but will not use it.
Asked whether the government had plans to legislate to remove Andrew’s titles, Energy Security Ed Miliband told Sky’s Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips programme that they would be “guided by the palace” and the Royal Family.
“I think it’s really important as a government minister that we allow the Royal Family to make its decisions on these questions,” he added.
“Prince Andrew has given up these titles by agreement with His Majesty the King and I think that’s, you know, that’s obviously the position.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:48
Prince Andrew urged ‘to come clean’
‘It’s not over’
Ms Giuffre alleged she was forced to have sex with Andrew when she was 17 – allegations he has always denied.
Ms Allred said: “The fact that Virginia is now deceased – may she rest in peace – doesn’t mean it’s over for Prince Andrew. It’s not over. More will come to leak out.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:11
Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew
Reports of attempted smear campaign
It has now been reported that Andrew passed Ms Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to his taxpayer-funded bodyguard in 2011, asking him to investigate.
He is said to have emailed the late Queen’s then-deputy press secretary and told him of his request to his protection officer, and also suggested Ms Giuffre had a criminal record, the Mail on Sunday reported.
A Met Police spokesperson told Sky News: “We are aware of media reporting and are looking into the claims made.”
The prince’s alleged attempt, on which the Met officer is not said to have acted, came in 2011, hours before the publication of the famous photograph of Andrew with his arm around Ms Giuffre in London, which he has claimed was doctored.
The Mail on Sunday said it obtained the email from disclosures held by the US congress.
“It would also seem she has a criminal record in the states,” Andrew said to the former press secretary, according to one email published by the newspaper. “I have given her DoB and social security number for investigation with XXX the on duty PPO.”
Ms Giuffre’s family responded, the newspaper said, saying she did not have a criminal record.
In her book, titled Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir Of Surviving Abuse And Fighting For Justice, she wrote, according to The Telegraph: “As devastating as this interview was for Prince Andrew, for my legal team it was like an injection of jet fuel.
“Its contents would not only help us build an ironclad case against the prince but also open the door to potentially subpoenaing his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.”
Image: The Duke of York and the Prince of Wales at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral last month. Pic: PA
Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday that the “continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family”.
He insisted he was putting his “family and country first” and would stop using “my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”.
Ms Allred told Sky News she felt Andrew’s statement on Friday, describing the scandal as a “distraction”, was an “insult” to Epstein’s victims.
“What it’s saying [the statement] is it’s continued bad PR for the monarchy,” she said.
“All right, I’m happy about this small consequence that he has to pay… no longer a duke, but look, he’s living a privileged life while many victims are still suffering from the harm that was done by many people involved with Jeffrey Epstein.”
Ms Giuffre’s family has urged the King to go further and take away Andrew’s prince title.
Pete Aitken says his daughter Hannah would still be alive if she hadn’t been sent to a series of “failing” mental health hospitals, which made her increasingly unwell.
Warning: This article contains references to suicide
Hannah Aitken was 22 when she took her own life two years ago. Her death has left her family in turmoil.
“I think about Hannah every hour of every day, more than once, every hour, every day,” her dad Pete said.
Throughout the family home are photos, candles and purple flowers, Hannah’s favourite colour. Her parents have planted a tree in the garden where her beloved trampoline once stood.
Image: Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah died by suicide in 2023
Hannah had autism and ADHD and struggled with her mental health. In 2017, she was sent to Huntercombe Hospital-Stafford. It was in special measures when she arrived.
Pete says the unit made Hannah worse. “I don’t believe that they gave her any care or treatment there that helped her.”
Over a period of four years, Hannah was sent to six different mental health hospitals. The majority were publicly funded and privately run.
Three were rated by the care regulator, the CQC, either ‘inadequate or ‘requires improvement’. Two of the units were closed down while Hannah was a patient.
“That to me is an indication of how bad the system is, and how bad the care that she received was,” Pete said.
“All they could do was… like prison keep her safe, but not give her any quality of life. They took all that away from her.”
Image: ‘I don’t believe that they gave her any care’, Pete says
Hannah emailed Sky News in 2023 following one of our reports to share her story.
She wrote: “I will never forget what I was put through… I put up with so much and it’s only now I realised it wasn’t right, for years I blamed myself.”
Hannah never fully recovered from her hospital admissions. In September 2023, she took a fatal dose of poison, which she had bought online.
Her family are now campaigning for a change in the law governing poisons.
Image: Family photos of Hannah Aitken, who died in 2023
Her dad said: “One gram of this poison is lethal. We found out from Hannah’s inquest she ordered a kilogramme of 99.6% purity.
“There is a legitimate use for it, but we understand that the concentration for that is something like less than 1%.”
Hannah’s death once again raises questions about why the NHSoutsources mental health services to failing private providers.
An NHS England spokesperson said: “Our thoughts are with Hannah’s family at this incredibly difficult time.
“The NHS has repeatedly made clear that all services must provide safe, high-quality care, irrespective of whether they are NHS or independent sector-led, and we continue to work closely with the CQC to monitor, identify and take appropriate action where it is needed.”
Elli Investments Group, the owners of The Huntercombe Group until 2021, has said they regret that these hospitals, which were independently managed, failed to meet expectations
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK
Prince William is planning to take a “ruthless approach” towards Prince Andrew when he is king, according to reports, as a US lawyer predicts the scandal engulfing the royal “is not going away” and more stories will “leak out”.
The Sunday Times suggests William will ban his uncle from “all aspects of royal life” because of the ongoing risk to the Royal Family‘s reputation after a series of damaging revelations.
It comes amid reports that Andrewtried to get the Metropolitan Police to dig up dirt for a smear campaign against his sexual assault accuser Virginia Giuffre back in 2011.
Gloria Allred, who represents many of the victims of the late convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, believes he will not be “let off the hook”.
“This is not going away. Even though he’s no longer a duke, and Sarah Ferguson is no longer a duchess, it’s not going away,” the US lawyer told Sky News.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:49
Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?
Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening, after a series of fresh stories linked to the late Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein. She died in April, aged 41, with her family saying said she “lost her life to suicide”.
She alleged she was forced to have sex with Andrew when she was 17, allegations he has always denied.
“The fact that Virginia is now deceased – may she rest in peace – doesn’t mean it’s over for Prince Andrew. It’s not over. More will come to leak out,” Ms Allred added.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:11
Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew
Reports of attempted smear campaign
It has now been reported that Andrew passed Ms Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to his taxpayer-funded bodyguard in 2011, asking him to investigate.
He is said to have emailed the late Queen’s then-deputy press secretary and told him of his request to his protection officer, and also suggested Ms Giuffre had a criminal record, according to the Mail on Sunday.
Sky News has contacted the Met for comment. A spokesperson for the force told the PA news agency: “We are aware of media reporting and are looking into the claims made.”
The prince’s alleged attempt, on which the Met officer is not said to have acted, came in 2011, hours before the publication of the famous photograph of Andrew with his arm around Ms Giuffre in London, which he has claimed was doctored.
The Mail on Sunday said it obtained the email from disclosures held by the US congress.
“It would also seem she has a criminal record in the states,” Andrew said to the former press secretary, according to one email published by the newspaper. “I have given her DoB and social security number for investigation with XXX the on duty PPO.”
Ms Giuffre’s family responded, saying she did not have a criminal record, the newspaper said.
In her book, titled Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir Of Surviving Abuse And Fighting For Justice, she wrote, according to The Telegraph: “As devastating as this interview was for Prince Andrew, for my legal team it was like an injection of jet fuel.
“Its contents would not only help us build an ironclad case against the prince but also open the door to potentially subpoenaing his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.”
Image: The Duke of York and the Prince of Wales at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral last month. Pic: PA
Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday that the “continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family”.
He insisted he was putting his “family and country first” and would stop using “my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”.
Ms Allred told Sky News she felt Andrew’s statement on Friday, describing the scandal as a “distraction”, was an “insult” to Epstein’s victims.
“What it’s saying [the statement] is it’s continued bad PR for the monarchy,” she said.
“All right, I’m happy about this small consequence that he has to pay… no longer a duke, but look, he’s living a privileged life while many victims are still suffering from the harm that was done by many people involved with Jeffrey Epstein.”