BRITAIN'S plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda will cost £169,000 per person, according to the first detailed government assessment of a high-stakes promise to tackle record numbers of people arriving in small boats.
Prime minister Rishi Sunak's Conservative government wants to send thousands of migrants more than 4,000 miles (6,400 km) away to Rwanda as part of a deal with the central African country agreed last year.
The government sees the plan as central to deterring asylum seekers arriving in small boats from France. Sunak has made this one of his five priorities amid pressure from some of his own Conservative lawmakers and the public to resolve the issue, with his party well behind the main opposition Labour Party in opinion polls ahead of a national election due next year.
In an economic impact assessment published on Monday (26), the government said the cost of deporting each individual to Rwanda would include an average £105,000 payment to Rwanda for hosting each asylum seeker, £22,000 for the flight and escorting, and £18,000 for processing and legal costs.
Home Secretary Suella Braverman said these costs must be considered alongside the impact of deterring others trying to reach Britain and the rising cost of housing asylum seekers.
Unless action is taken, Braverman said that the cost of housing asylum seekers will rise to £11 billion a year, up from about £3.6 bn currently.
"The economic impact assessment clearly shows that doing nothing is not an option," she said.
The government said the potential savings were "highly uncertain", but estimated that to break even, the plan would need to have the effect of deterring almost two in five people arriving on small boats.
Labour said the economic assessment was a "complete joke" and it failed to accurately say what the overall cost of the plan would be.
The Scottish National Party accused the government of spending an "astronomical" amount of money deporting desperate people while failing to help people in Britain with the rising costs of mortgages and food bills.
On Thursday (29), the Court of Appeal will hand down its judgment on whether the Rwanda flights are lawful.
The first planned flight last June was blocked by a last-minute ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which imposed an injunction preventing any deportations until the conclusion of legal action in Britain.
In December, the High Court in London ruled the policy was lawful, but that decision is being challenged by asylum seekers from countries including Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran and Vietnam along with some human rights organisations.
Last year, a record 45,000 people came to Britain in small boats across the Channel, mainly from France. Over 11,000 have arrived so far this year.
THE US State Department on Monday said it was imposing visa restrictions on owners and staff of travel agencies in India who it says knowingly facilitate illegal migration to the United States.
An unspecified number of individuals associated with these travel agencies are being subjected to visa bans under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The action is based on information collected by the US mission in India, according to department spokesperson Tammy Bruce.
Washington often imposes such visa restrictions without naming the individuals involved.
"We will continue to take steps to impose visa restrictions against owners, executives, and senior officials of travel agencies to cut off alien smuggling networks," Bruce said. She did not provide details on how the travel agents had facilitated illegal migration.
The action is part of a broader effort under president Donald Trump's administration to curb migration to the United States and deport undocumented immigrants already in the country.
The US embassy in New Delhi has also issued repeated warnings on its social media platforms, advising Indian nationals visiting the United States not to overstay their authorised period of stay. It warned that overstaying could lead to deportation and a permanent ban from entering the country.
The Spain Airbnb crackdown has led to more than 65,000 holiday rental listings being removed from the platform, as the Spanish government takes firm action to address breaches in national regulations and respond to growing housing concerns.
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs ordered the mass delisting due to thousands of properties lacking valid licence numbers, having unclear ownership records, or showing discrepancies between listed information and official housing databases. The government said these violations warranted immediate removal from Airbnb’s platform.
This action is part of a wider effort to bring order to Spain’s short-term rental sector and alleviate the country's worsening housing affordability crisis, especially in major tourist destinations such as Madrid, Andalusia and Catalonia, where the volume of tourist rentals has surged.
Consumer Affairs Minister Pablo Bustinduy said the government aimed to end what he described as a “lack of control” and growing “illegality” in the holiday rentals market. “No more excuses. Enough with protecting those who make a business out of the right to housing in our country,” he said during a press briefing.
The decision follows a broader trend of local authorities in Spain cracking down on tourist rentals. In 2023, the city of Barcelona announced a plan to eliminate all 10,000 of its licensed short-term lets by 2028, arguing that housing must be prioritised for long-term residents rather than tourists.
The Spain Airbnb crackdown reflects rising pressure on public officials to act, as protests continue over high rents and property prices, particularly in cities with large tourism industries. Many residents and campaigners argue that the expansion of short-term rentals has significantly reduced the availability of affordable housing.
- YouTubeYouTube/ WGN News
According to official data, there were approximately 321,000 licensed holiday rental properties across Spain as of November 2023, representing a 15% increase compared to 2020. Authorities believe many more operate without licences, prompting the Consumer Affairs Ministry to open a formal investigation into Airbnb in December.
In response to earlier scrutiny, Airbnb said it requires hosts to confirm they have permission to rent their properties and that they follow local laws. However, the company also claimed the government had not provided a clear list of non-compliant listings. It added that not all owners are required to hold a licence and questioned whether the ministry had the authority to regulate digital platforms.
Airbnb has yet to issue a formal response to the latest action.
The Spain Airbnb crackdown aligns with similar efforts across Europe, including in Portugal, the Netherlands and parts of Italy, where governments are introducing stricter regulations on short-term rentals in a bid to balance tourism with long-term housing needs.
As Spain continues to grapple with housing shortages and rising costs, the government has made clear that further measures may follow to ensure platforms and property owners comply with national laws.
Keep ReadingShow less
The man stood up during a Teams call to adjust a cable behind his computer, without wearing any trousers.
A MANAGER was sacked from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) after accidentally flashing his genitals during a video call, an employment tribunal has ruled.
The digital production manager, referred to as DB in the tribunal’s ruling, was earning £58,580 a year when the incident occurred. He stood up during a Teams call to adjust a cable behind his computer, without wearing any trousers, The Telegraph reported.
The tribunal said: “During the call, after approximately three minutes 26 seconds, the claimant stood to adjust a cable behind the computer and revealed he was wearing nothing from the waist down. His genitals were visible.”
Two Capgemini consultants based in India, who were on the call, complained to the FSCS the following week. An internal investigation concluded the staffer was “inappropriately dressed” and “naked from the waist down.”
DB, born in India, in the employment tribunal’s ruling, told his line manager in an email that he did not realise his camera was on and closed his laptop when he noticed. He was dismissed in January 2024 for breaching FSCS rules requiring employees to be dressed appropriately.
He later filed a complaint for unfair dismissal and racial discrimination. The tribunal ruled the dismissal was lawful and said his discrimination claims were not well founded, The Telegraph reported.
Keep ReadingShow less
He was jailed in October after admitting to breaching an injunction that barred him from repeating false claims about a Syrian refugee who had successfully sued him for libel. (Photo: Getty Images)
STEPHEN YAXLEY-LENNON, also known as Tommy Robinson, is set to be released from prison within a week after the High Court reduced his 18-month sentence for contempt of court.
The far-right anti-Islam activist was jailed in October after admitting to breaching an injunction that barred him from repeating false claims about a Syrian refugee who had successfully sued him for libel.
The Solicitor General had taken legal action against Yaxley-Lennon for comments made in online interviews and a documentary titled Silenced, which was viewed millions of times and shown in Trafalgar Square in July.
The sentence was made up of a 14-month punitive element and a four-month coercive element. Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson had said the four-month part could be lifted if Yaxley-Lennon complied with the court order to remove Silenced and related content from social media and other platforms.
On Tuesday, Yaxley-Lennon appeared via video link from HMP Woodhill in Milton Keynes. His lawyer, Alex Di Francesco, told the court that Silenced had been removed from accounts under his control and that requests were made to remove other interviews where the false allegations were repeated.
Judge Johnson ruled that Yaxley-Lennon had “purged” his contempt. “The practical effect is that the defendant will be released once he has completed the punitive element, which I understand will be within the next week,” he said. The original release date had been set for 26 July, but it has now been moved up to 26 May.
The judge noted that while there was “an absence of contrition or remorse”, Yaxley-Lennon had given assurances that he would comply with the injunction in the future and understood the consequences of breaching it again. The court accepted that he had shown a “change in attitude” and had taken steps to comply with the order.
Yaxley-Lennon, 42, was jailed for 10 admitted breaches of the injunction after two contempt of court claims were brought against him by the Solicitor General. The injunction was first issued in 2021 after he falsely accused a Syrian teenager in a viral video of being violent. The teenager later won a libel case against him.
He was accused by some media and politicians of inflaming tensions that led to riots across Britain in July and August last year, following the murder of three girls at a dance workshop in Southport.
In January, a post from his social media account claimed that US billionaire Elon Musk was paying some of his legal fees. Musk has not confirmed this.
(With inputs from agencies)
Keep ReadingShow less
The first lady described the law as a "national victory"
US First Lady Melania Trump has welcomed a new law criminalising the non-consensual sharing of explicit images, including AI-generated deepfake content, calling it a major step towards protecting children and families from online exploitation.
The Take It Down Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump, makes it a federal offence to post "intimate images", whether real or digitally fabricated, without the subject’s consent. Under the legislation, individuals found guilty of intentionally distributing such content could face up to three years in prison. The law also compels technology companies to remove the offending material within 48 hours of notification.
The bill, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 409 votes to 2 in the House of Representatives and unanimously in the Senate in February, has been one of the most widely backed pieces of legislation during Trump’s second term in office. It marks the sixth bill signed into law since his re-election, with the administration often favouring executive orders to implement its agenda.
Melania Trump, who has largely kept a low public profile, played a key role in advancing the legislation. The first lady described the law as a "national victory" and stressed its importance in shielding children from harmful online behaviour.
“This legislation is a powerful step forward in our efforts to ensure that every American, especially young people, can feel better protected from their image or identity being abused,” she said. “It will help parents and families safeguard children from online exploitation.”
Melania Trump first appeared publicly in support of the legislation in March during a solo roundtable event on Capitol Hill, where she urged lawmakers to pass the bill. “It’s heartbreaking to witness young teens, especially girls, grappling with the overwhelming challenges posed by malicious online content, like deepfakes,” she said at the time.
The law addresses two main forms of abuse: revenge porn the non-consensual sharing of intimate real images and deepfake pornography, where AI is used to create fake explicit material by inserting someone’s face into pornographic content. These practices have become increasingly common, particularly targeting women and public figures.
Paris Hilton, businesswoman and DJ, publicly supported the legislation, calling it “a crucial step toward ending non-consensual image sharing online”. Major tech firms, including Meta, TikTok and Google, have also backed the new law.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the first lady was “instrumental” in rallying support for the bill and ensuring its passage through Congress.
Despite the strong support, the legislation has attracted criticism from some digital rights organisations. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) warned that the law’s broad scope could have unintended consequences for free speech and privacy.
“While protecting victims of these heinous privacy invasions is a legitimate goal, good intentions alone are not enough to make good policy,” the group said. “As currently drafted, the Act mandates a notice-and-takedown system that threatens free expression, user privacy, and due process, without addressing the problem it claims to solve.”
The Internet Society, another advocacy group for digital privacy, raised concerns that the law could undermine encryption and pose “unacceptable risks to users’ fundamental privacy rights and cybersecurity”.
Critics argue that the bill, while well-intentioned, lacks adequate safeguards to prevent misuse and could result in overreach, affecting legal online content, including LGBTQ+ material, adult entertainment, and political commentary.
Nonetheless, supporters maintain that the new law fills a critical gap in US legislation by targeting a growing form of online abuse and sending a strong message against digital exploitation.