-
Question
The right hon. Member criticises the impact assessment as lacking serious analysis and failing to consider basic options such as speeding up the asylum system. She highlights rising costs due to Tory mismanagement and questions where funding will come from for detention and relocation measures.
Minister reply
Minister Jenrick responds that the assessment confirms the high cost of the current broken system, arguing Labour’s approach would lead to greater taxpayer spending and pressure on communities. He asserts that only the Conservative party can tackle illegal migration's root causes, emphasising their commitment to securing borders.
-
Question
The Opposition seem to think that the Rwanda scheme is purely about displacing people who have entered illegally from Kent to Rwanda. In fact, it is about deterring them from coming in the first place and instead encouraging them to use the safe and legal routes that are now in the Illegal Migration Bill.
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a view expressed by some, mainly on the left, that the UK is somehow an outlier in pursuing a policy like Rwanda. Leaders across the world are looking to the UK not as an outlier but as a leader in this field.
-
Question
The Tory Illegal Migration Bill has almost completed its journey through Parliament and only yesterday did the Home Office deign to publish this ludicrous economic impact assessment. There is nothing about the backlog they have created; it is all about the boats.
Minister reply
I am delighted that the hon. Lady celebrated Refugee Week. I do not know if any refugees came to it, because the SNP does not house refugees in Scotland.
-
Question
When it works, it will be a bargain, won’t it?
Minister reply
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Border security is the first priority of any Government.
-
Question
The Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee that those savings would happen. Can the Minister help me by pointing to where those savings are in the impact assessment?
Minister reply
The document makes it abundantly clear that, were costs to continue to rise on the current trajectory—the system would be costing an additional £11 billion. By delivering this system and ensuring a genuine deterrent effect, we will ensure that we save the taxpayer that money.
-
Question
Although the British public want us to stop the boats, the British public are also generous in spirit, and what they really want is to make sure that this country is not being taken advantage of. The responsibility to tackle that lies with the machinery of Departments, our criminal justice system and our law enforcement agencies.
Minister reply
Our policy with respect to Rwanda is not the totality of our approach; we are also investing significantly in law enforcement at home and abroad.
-
Question
The Minister is proposing, according to the document, to spend eye-wateringly large sums—£169,000 per person—to process claims in Rwanda. He wants to spend that money to treat people with great cruelty.
Minister reply
I usually have the utmost respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but he is wrong in each respect of that question. The figure does not relate to the Rwandan partnership.
-
Question
What is nonsense is to deny that it makes economic sense to offshore. Nobody is going to spend thousands of pounds to a people smuggler just to be detained and sent back to Rwanda.
Minister reply
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, although not necessarily his comments about Skegness. We have to ensure that the UK is not perceived to be a soft touch.
-
Question
The policy designed for political posturing is an expensive embarrassment. There are no estimates of savings or impact assessments on victims of modern slavery, nor any assessment of the likelihood that people will still come to UK shores but not claim asylum, ending up in criminality and slavery.
Minister reply
On the hon. Member’s penultimate point, we have gone to great lengths to ensure that individuals do not arrive on our shores without our knowledge. That happens in only a tiny number of cases because of the good work of our small boats operational command. We meet individuals and ensure that they are properly security checked before they flow into the system. The costs to the UK taxpayer of the current levels of asylum seekers are extremely high, with non-monetised costs such as the effect on housing shortage and public services. Border security is worth investing in.
-
Question
May I caution my right hon. Friend against the Gerald Ratner approach to Government policy? How long did it take on average to process an asylum seeker’s claim five years ago, how long does it take today, and why?
Minister reply
The time it takes to process asylum claims is too long due not just to management within Government but also the sheer number of people crossing every year. Every one of our opposite numbers in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy are struggling with backlogs of cases as much as we are or more so because the asylum systems across Europe are being placed under intolerable pressure by the number of people making these dangerous and unnecessary journeys.
-
Question
Instead of effective measures to tackle people smugglers, the Bill means that my Department will need more accommodation, leading to 100 staff facing redundancy at Stradey Park Hotel. What will the Department do to help those staff?
Minister reply
The best thing the hon. Member could do is support the Bill when it returns from the House of Lords to enable us to get flights off to Rwanda so that we imbue the system with deterrence. The impact assessment makes clear that if we do nothing, costs will spiral by £11 billion a year.
-
Question
Local residents are appalled at two local hotels being used for asylum seeker accommodation. We are spending £3.6 billion a year and that will rise to £11 billion in just three years, is it not the case that doing nothing is simply not an option?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; he and his constituents see every day the harm that doing nothing could cause, with the loss of more than one valued hotel in his constituency. We want to stop this once and for all, and the dividing line is between those who want to deal with the symptoms by tweaking the system and managing failure and those who want to transform the system.
-
Question
We are in the dying days of the Government ahead of a general election, because they always resort to dog-whistle rhetoric. Nobody on either side wants open borders but what we do not want is more unworkable propositions from the Government. The impact assessment shows that this Bill will not work.
Minister reply
The difference here is that if we do nothing, we will see British taxpayers spend billions of pounds. That is not on us; that is on the Labour party.
-
Question
May I extend my most sincere thanks to the Minister for his words today? Does he agree that the Labour and Lib Dem response of simply saying, “Oh, speed up the asylum system,” equates to saying, “Just let them all in”?
Minister reply
I could not agree more strongly with my hon. Friend; there is a naivety to the Labour party’s position. If Labour Members think that they can solve the problem just by granting people asylum quicker, doing a few more arrests and trying to reinvent the Dublin convention, they do not know what we are dealing with.
-
Question
The Minister is claiming that, without the Bill, the cost of the current system will rise to £11 billion. Is his calculation based on the idea that per-person accommodation costs will keep rising at the same pace as they have over the last few years?
Minister reply
I will always hold providers to account for the quality of service provided for taxpayers, but I am afraid that, like the shadow Home Secretary, she is missing the point. The more illegal migrants who come to the country, the greater the cost to the taxpayer.
-
Question
Residents in Stoke-on-Trent North are outraged to see hotels used, people losing their jobs, levelling-up projects undermined and hospitality sectors destroyed. This is a deterrent scheme because it will bring down the need for hotels and burden on the Home Office.
Minister reply
I do not know whether the shadow Home Secretary would scrap the scheme—I have heard all sorts of conflicting reports in that regard—but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that this a world-leading partnership. Time and again, I speak to Interior Ministers throughout Europe who look to it as an innovative approach.
-
Question
Will the Minister apologise for the delay in producing the impact assessment? Will he explain why Scandinavian countries have reduced asylum applications while we cannot?
Minister reply
Apologies are not necessary, as good progress is being made to eliminate the legacy asylum backlog. The number of caseworkers is rising and productivity is increasing. However, the issue remains due to high numbers crossing the border.
-
Question
Where are the statements about faster process leading to more people coming across in the impact assessment?
Minister reply
The Labour Party's policy is naive and focuses only on symptoms, not addressing root causes such as deterrence, which includes the Rwanda policy and the Illegal Migration Bill.
-
Question
Will the Minister send a signal that people entering illegally will be removed to Rwanda?
Minister reply
Yes, we want to build a system where genuine asylum seekers are welcome and those who enter illegally will be returned home or to safe third countries like Rwanda.
-
Question
Will the Minister meet to discuss rehousing 237 people from Afghan hotels with five months' notice?
Minister reply
The Minister is willing to discuss but disagrees that the situation is unacceptable. He encourages local authorities to help individuals into sustainable accommodation.
-
Question
Will the Government uphold British court decisions above those of the European Court of Human Rights?
Minister reply
The Illegal Migration Bill brings forward significant changes and is in accordance with international law obligations, aiming to tackle illegal migration.
-
Question
Will the Minister hear genuine stories from asylum seekers and refugees about why they fled their home countries?
Minister reply
The Minister would be happy to speak but criticises the SNP's approach, stating it is rhetorical without reality.
-
Question
What are the alternative costs of ongoing illegal migration?
Minister reply
Maintaining a system without taking robust steps like the Rwanda policy is likely to be extremely expensive, impacting social housing, public services, and integration.
-
Question
How can the Minister justify spending £169,000 on the Rwanda scheme?
Minister reply
The figure is indicative based on the Syrian resettlement scheme. The partnership with Rwanda is commercially sensitive and necessary to address rising numbers crossing the Channel.
-
Question
My right hon. Friend is asked if he will confirm that everything possible is being done to ensure flights to Rwanda can commence immediately once the Court of Appeal has made its decision.
Minister reply
The minister affirms that deterrence, both domestically and internationally through initiatives like the Rwanda policy, is crucial. He states that weekly meetings with the Home Secretary and Prime Minister are held to prepare for implementing the policy as soon as legally possible.
-
Question
The Government promised not to increase asylum seekers in the north-east but confirmed a large barge will be sited on the Tees. Is this true?
Minister reply
The minister expresses surprise at the MP’s approach, noting his previous opposition to measures tackling illegal migration. He mentions that other countries like Ireland and Scotland are also exploring similar accommodation solutions.
-
Question
The Minister spoke about border security investment but mentioned Border Force strikes in April over pay and conditions. Further, the impact assessment is criticised as a political tool rather than serious migration policy.
Minister reply
The minister counters that the UK has brought more than 500,000 people to the country on humanitarian visas, showing its commitment. He argues that pressure from small boats crossing from safe places like France hinders aid for those in dire need.
-
Question
The Rwanda scheme is criticised as expensive and cruel; does the Minister agree there's a more humane and financially prudent alternative, such as allowing asylum seekers to work?
Minister reply
The minister rejects the idea of allowing asylum seekers to work. He states that under the Illegal Migration Bill, individuals will be processed swiftly for return or relocation to safe third countries.
-
Question
Does the Minister accept the Government’s incompetence and flawed Home Office plans?
Minister reply
The minister asserts that the approach being taken is one of the most robust in the western world.
-
Question
Recognising the illegal migration issue, does the Minister agree the economic impact assessment does not paint an accurate picture due to reliance on foreign workers?
Minister reply
The minister distinguishes between those who enter legally and those who break into the country illegally. He argues that no other country would tolerate such breaches of law.