I must announce that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Alison Thewliss. I will call Alison Thewliss during the debate to move the amendment. I now call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

The Home Office's refusal to disclose financial details prevents proper scrutiny, making it difficult for MPs to understand spending plans and hold the Department accountable. The asylum budget has increased rapidly due to various factors including small boat crossings and the war in Ukraine. ODA funding usage is heavily criticised, leading to reduced foreign aid programmes. The illegal migration act further complicates funding by restricting future use of ODA funds for asylum seekers. Johnson calls for a culture change at the Home Office to prioritise transparency and accountability.

Patel critiques the Home Office's handling of asylum accommodation costs, arguing that transparency is lacking. She points out issues with the barge Bibby Stockholm and RAF Wethersfield, noting that local authorities had to deal with unforeseen start-up costs and ongoing expenses. Patel also emphasises the need for proper implementation of reports on Border Force and border security, urging for better investment in technology at the border. She discusses the Rwanda partnership, expressing concern over its current state and questioning recent press coverage about it. Finally, she calls for a return to five-year spending reviews with fiscal transparency.

Agrees with Alison Thewliss's criticism of Home Office treatment of asylum seekers, referencing Wendy Williams' review on the Windrush scandal.

Supports Alison Thewliss and calls for quicker access to work rights for asylum seekers, arguing it would contribute positively to the economy and improve their living conditions.

Discussed the £480 million subsidy given to French police forces to intercept irregular migrants. He expressed frustration over the inefficacy of this approach despite advanced equipment provided by the UK, suggesting that a significant problem lies in France’s reluctance to detain and process people on their soil.

Interjected to question whether the £480 million spent on protecting French coasts is effective. Suggested that investment in improving conditions in source countries and safe, legal routes might be a better approach than spending money on ineffective measures like the Rwanda scheme.

Suggested that expecting France to cooperate fully in sealing off illegal immigration routes was problematic given their open-border policies within the EU. Highlighted the need for enforcement of re-entry bans under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

Focused on the cost and value for money of the Government’s Rwanda policy, questioning its efficacy as a deterrent. Mentioned that asylum claims in the UK were around 84,000 individuals annually, while the expected number to be sent to Rwanda is just 2,000 over four months and 10,000 over five years (2.5% of total). Criticised the £150,000 per person cost for relocation, integration, and asylum processing over five years, describing it as not cost-effective. Emphasised the need for a fair share system and human rights concerns in Rwanda.

Interventions or contributions from several members, but specific details are missing due to lack of transcript content.

Called for the remaining Back-Bench speakers to limit their speeches to around eight minutes each to accommodate everyone.

The Home Office estimates debate should be an important opportunity to scrutinise the £8 billion budget allocated for the Home Office, which includes vast sums dedicated to asylum and immigration. Patrick Grady criticises the current system as a hostile environment that prevents skilled individuals from contributing to UK society while allowing wealthy immigrants easy access. He highlights inefficiencies in visa processing and the high costs associated with the Rwanda deportation scheme, arguing it is inefficient and lacking in humanitarian approach. Grady also emphasises the need for Scotland to adopt a more welcoming immigration policy in an independent state.

Jeremy Corbyn intervenes to point out that even under the Rwanda deportation scheme, many asylum seekers will not be accommodated there. He calls for a more humanitarian approach towards individuals who are desperate and often victims of war.

The Home Office lacks transparency and accountability in its operations, particularly concerning the Atlas tool and the person centric data platform. The latter stores records of 177 million people and has cost over £400 million since 2014. Issues with 'merged identities' affect more than 76,000 individuals, leading to profound personal distress and difficulties accessing basic services. There is a systemic failure in data management and process transparency, raising questions about parliamentary accountability.

Mr. Kinnock criticised the Home Office for its £5.9 billion overspend last year, with two-thirds of that attributed to asylum costs amounting to a staggering £4.3 billion over 12 months. He further highlighted that the Illegal Migration Act 2023 cost an additional £1.2 billion and questioned the value of the Rwanda scheme at nearly £2 million per person. Mr. Kinnock also pointed out that Labour’s plan for a firm, fair, and well-managed asylum system includes clearing the backlog within one year by surging caseworkers and creating a new returns unit.

Acknowledged criticism from opposition MPs but defended the Government's transparency in dealing with the Home Affairs Committee, supported the Rwanda scheme as a moral and compassionate measure to address the ongoing fatalities in the Channel, disagreed with Labour's stance on allowing illegal migrants to work, praised the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border for his dedication.

Emphasised the lack of transparency from the Home Office as a key issue in the debate, called for accountability to the Home Affairs Committee and Parliament, expressed disappointment at the absence of Labour MPs who were attending other important events.

The speaker addressed procedural matters related to the timing and requirements for putting Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the estimates set down for consideration that day.