Labour’s immigration ‘crackdown’ may save simply £600m as a substitute of the £10billion claimed by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood

Labour’s immigration ‘crackdown’ could save just £600million instead of the £10billion claimed by Shabana Mahmood, a new analysis suggests. 

The Home Secretary’s reforms would see most people have to wait 10 years to qualify for settled status – up from the current five years – which she argued would cut spending on public services. 

But the total saving could be far lower, according to data from the migration advisory committee released under freedom of information laws.

The figures will be leapt upon by Labour rebels looking to water down Ms Mahmood’s proposals, despite her insistence they are critical to counter the threat from Reform. 

Last month, Ms Mahmood said that 350,000 low-skilled workers on health and social care visas and their dependants were due to qualify for settled status over the next five years, giving them access to benefits, social housing and NHS treatment. 

‘We have never in the history of this country had so much low-skilled migration in so little time,’ she said. 

‘We estimate, based on findings from the migration advisory committee, that the lifetime cost to the taxpayer will be £10bn. That figure would be paid for by working people in this country.’

Shabana Mahmood’s reforms would see most people have to wait 10 years to qualify for settled status – up from the current five years. The Home Secretary is pictured today 

However, Jonathan Portes, a professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London, obtained new data from the migration advisory committee that he believes suggest a much smaller figure. 

His analysis of the data suggested 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. 

Based on his calculations, taxpayers would only save £600m over the course of the decade. 

Professor Portes told the Guardian that Ms Mahmood’s ‘claim that her proposals are necessary to save £10bn’ had been ‘thoroughly debunked by the government’s own data’. 

The Home Office said the £10bn figure was not meant to be potential savings but an illustration of the lifetime cost of care workers and their dependants to the public pursue. 

A spokesman said: ‘The methodology behind our estimates is published, and the home secretary has been clear that the estimated lifetime cost for the cohort of care workers and their dependants in the absence of the earned settlement measures would be £10bn.

‘We will always welcome those that come to this country and contribute to our national life. But the privilege of living here for ever should be earned, not automatic.

‘We must be honest about the scale and impact of hundreds of thousands of low-skilled migrants getting settlement and make no apologies for taking the necessary action to restore order.’

Migrants pile into dinghies in northern France yesterday. Regular migrants will have to wait for 10 years to apply for indefinite leave to remain but this will be 15 years for asylum seekers 

Widespread public anger over the scale of immigration has prompted Ms Mahmood to cut the numbers coming by both legal and illegal routes. 

Labour’s Left wing has been angered by the retrospective nature of the proposals to lengthen the amount of time migrants have to stay in Britain before applying for indefinite leave to remain. 

Former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner has described the plans as ‘un-British’ and accused Ms Mahmood of ‘moving the goalposts‘. 

Some ministers are reportedly working covertly with rebel MPs to ensure the measures do not apply to people who have already entered the UK.

Several Labour MPs spoke to the newspaper anonymously, with one suggesting that stopping the changes applying retrospectively could quell backbench anger.

Another said they felt MPs were being treated with a degree of ‘contempt’ as they were not being given a chance to vote on the plans, while a third said some rebels had been rung up and ‘shouted at’ after signing a letter condemning the proposals.