Rwanda Plan Cost and Asylum System

Called on the Government to reveal facts about the Rwanda asylum policy including payments made or scheduled under the Economic Transformation and Integration Fund (£400 million), per person costs of relocating individuals to Rwanda (£200,000 estimated cost per person), internal breakdowns of non-substantive asylum decisions (35,119 cases). Emphasised that the scheme is failing taxpayers due to high costs and lack of efficacy.

Intervened by pointing out that the money spent on the Rwanda scheme could have employed 6,000 caseworkers in the Home Office over 18 months.

Asked whether the Labour party has any moral or ethical opposition to processing asylum seekers in third countries.

Agreed with Yvette Cooper's argument, adding that the lack of clarity over the Rwanda plan is happening at a time when border security has been weakened and asylum decision making has collapsed. Highlighted the importance of getting control of borders and Home Office systems.

Asked about the problems with the Rwanda scheme and suggested that Britain should help people in Calais rather than spending money on a failed Rwandan scheme.

Suggested that instead of spending money on the Rwanda scheme, Britain should be helping people from Afghanistan who are living in desperate conditions in Europe. He also questioned the benefits of the Rwanda scheme.

Asked what Labour would do with individuals coming from countries where it is practically impossible to return them due to their governments' refusal to accept them back or facing human rights violations in their home countries.

Suggested that there was no credible plan for illegal migration under the Labour party, but also criticised the current government's plans as unworkable. She emphasised the need to address the dire conditions in asylum hotels.

Highlighted the government’s efforts in reducing small boat arrivals and improving efficiency across the system. He stressed that hotel accommodations for asylum seekers are expensive and unsustainable, hence efforts to close such hotels. He also defended the Rwanda scheme as a strategy to deter illegal migration.

Questioned the Minister about the rising costs of asylum hotel use and pointed out that despite the Prime Minister's promise, there has been no reduction in such accommodations. She also raised concerns about transparency regarding the Rwanda scheme’s costs.

Asked if Labour councillors in Peterborough oppose turning an asylum accommodation hotel back into a part of a regeneration project.

Described the strategy as being about dissuading and deterring people from crossing illegally, not just about Rwanda but also addressing broader illegal migration challenges.

Questioned the effectiveness of recent immigration acts and accused the government of allowing Rwanda to dictate UK immigration policy contrary to claims of taking back control of borders.

Noted that while hotels are closing, people are being moved to houses in multiple occupation, raising questions about the effectiveness of this approach.

Suggested that previous Labour governments did not solve the problem of illegal immigration and do not have a plan for current issues like boat crossings.

Challenged the Minister on whether he is ashamed of the worsening situation since 2010 despite government policies.

The SNP opposes the principle of offshoring asylum seekers to Rwanda, describing it as state-sponsored people trafficking. It emphasises that most refugees stay in neighbouring countries and that small boats are a last resort for those who cannot access safe and legal routes. The speaker criticises the UK Government's incompetence in managing the asylum system, leading to backlogs and inefficiencies. She highlights financial costs of the Rwanda plan (£8 million per day) and its moral implications. Additionally, she questions Labour’s stance on offshoring, suggesting that they may have considered similar measures in the past.

Mr Loughton criticises the Opposition for undermining and attacking government policies on illegal migration, noting that they have voted against such measures 86 times. He argues that the Rwanda scheme is a practical solution to deter illegal immigration despite its flaws, emphasising the cost-effectiveness compared to alternatives like hotel accommodation. Mr Loughton calls out Labour's lack of viable alternatives, pointing out inconsistencies in their stance on offshoring schemes and criticises them for being opaque about the costs and effectiveness of their own proposals.

The MP focuses on the cost of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, noting that while the Government has pledged a certain amount per individual, the exact figures remain undisclosed. She points out the Home Office estimate of £169,000 for relocating an individual compared to around £12,000 for processing claims in the UK, highlighting the lack of evidence and testing for the Rwanda scheme.

The Opposition has missed an opportunity to frame the debate in more specific terms, focusing on sharing commercially sensitive information with Select Committees. He acknowledges that past Humble Address motions have related to disclosure of such information to Select Committees confidentially. The Government’s approach to reducing small boats crossing from France is through bilateral agreements and working with Albania for success. There are significant challenges like processing asylum claims in third countries, which the current scheme with Rwanda differs from as it outsources application determination entirely to Rwanda.

Intervened stating that both the Home Affairs Committee and Public Accounts Committee have been refused information by the Home Office, despite their request for confidential access to assess value for money.

As deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, he reassured that the Committee has access to sensitive information in a private reading room capacity and thus there is no reason why they should not hold this information.

Critiqued the £400 million Rwanda scheme, describing it as a gamble and an ineffective policy. Stressed that the current Government’s approach lacks credibility given their previous failures in stopping small boats crossing from France. Highlighted inconsistencies between statements made by the Prime Minister and the reality of the situation.

Syms argues that the Government has a plan and strategy to deal with illegal immigration via rubber boats, criticising the Opposition for opposing these plans without offering alternatives. He emphasises the need for country-to-country agreements and highlights Rwanda's willingness to host asylum seekers as part of its agenda.

Ali criticises the Government's approach, noting a growing backlog in asylum applications and the cost inefficiency of hotel accommodation. He expresses concern over the legality of deporting people to Rwanda under international law and highlights that asylum seekers have the right to apply for asylum in the UK. Ali argues the scheme is unworkable and a repudiation of international obligations.

Daly supports the Government's policy, asserting it acts as a deterrent and citing evidence from discussions with asylum seekers in Calais. He questions the Labour party's stance on offshore processing and points to international precedents that support such measures, arguing that the Opposition lacks a coherent policy alternative.

Fletcher counters by emphasising the moral case for action against criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable individuals. She claims that people are coerced into dangerous journeys across the channel, which is what the Rwanda scheme seeks to stop. She highlights actions being taken such as treaty negotiations and sorting out accommodation and backlogs in partnership with France and Albania.

Jones thanks organisations for their work with refugees and asylum seekers, criticising the Government's lack of transparency regarding costs. She highlights the financial strain on taxpayers while the cost of living crisis hits hardest in Newport West and Wales. Jones notes that the current overall backlog is almost 100,000 cases, costing £8 million daily, and raises concerns about missing individuals potentially part of an underground economy.

Ms Edwards emphasises the importance of recognising that many asylum seekers are fleeing harsh conditions but criticises the Government's chaotic approach, particularly the unworkable Rwanda plan. She highlights concerns in her constituency regarding the Holiday Inn being used to house asylum seekers and the financial burden this imposes on taxpayers (£8 million per day). She calls for a proper plan to address the backlog of 100,000 cases and stresses the need for quicker processing of applications and recruitment of Home Office caseworkers. Ms Edwards also advocates Labour’s plan to strengthen border security, clear the asylum backlog, and end hotel use by employing more staff and tackling criminal gangs through cross-border police units.

Mr Shanks criticises the lack of transparency around the costs of the Rwanda plan and questions its effectiveness. He points out that the Home Office’s own assessment does not monetise any benefits or costs, indicating doubt about the scheme's success. Mr Shanks highlights the moral cost of passing laws without evidence and the potential for diminishing Britain's global standing. He calls for financial transparency from the Government regarding future funding to Rwanda and stresses that the plan fails to address the root causes of illegal crossings and exploitation by criminal gangs.

Welcomes the opportunity to wind up the debate, criticises the motion as a process debate rather than substance, questions Labour's lack of alternative policy. Emphasises the financial and human costs of illegal migration and highlights that small boat crossings are down by 36%. Supports the Rwanda policy for its deterrent effect on dangerous journeys.