Asylum and Migration

The Department is now seeking retrospective approval at the supplementary estimates stage, which goes against the principles of the estimates approval process. Given all the sophisticated modelling that it has at its disposal, I question why the Home Office was not in a position to make available at least a notional figure to put into its budget, which would have needed to increase if necessary. It is wrong that nothing was put in the budget at the start. On 1 February this year, the Home Secretary requested an emergency drawdown of £2.6 billion from the reserves, because the Department had run out of money before the supplementary estimates had been approved.

Further, the level of detail provided on asylum spending in the supplementary estimates is inadequate. A much more detailed breakdown of the asylum budget is required to fully understand the cost drivers and to hold the Department to account for the decisions it is taking. Sadly, that is not what we have been given. Expenditure on asylum has increased rapidly over the past two years. We know that levels of migration have increased due to the number of small boat crossings, the war in Ukraine and the Afghan resettlement schemes, and the departmental settlement in the 2021 spending review was insufficient to cope with the growing pressures. As such, the Department has made large claims on the reserves, as well as extending its use of the official development assistance budget.

Some pressures on the Home Office’s budget are beyond the Department’s immediate control, but others are not. For example, it is down to the Department to decide how it delivers accommodation for asylum seekers. The Home Affairs Committee is very concerned that the former chief inspector of borders and immigration has said that the Home Office did not appear to have an asylum accommodation strategy. Of course, the use of hotel accommodation is due to the backlog—or, as the Home Secretary corrected me at the Home Affairs Committee, the “queue”. It is apparently not a backlog anymore, but a queue. The queue has been allowed to develop because of the failure of the Home Office to invest in processing asylum claims in an efficient way over a number of years. That has resulted in a much larger bill for accommodation, which we are now having to deal with.

We know that the Home Office is currently spending £8 million a day on accommodating asylum seekers in hotels, which amounts to £2.9 billion a year. Despite the Home Office spending a huge amount, it is not predominantly the Department’s money, because the first 12 months of an asylum seeker’s accommodation is funded through the official development assistance budget. Between 2021-22 and 2023-24, Home Office usage of the ODA budget increased by 226%, from £981 million to £3.2 billion. That forced the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to cease all non-essential programmes, as spending was redirected domestically. The implications have been heavily criticised by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and the International Development Committee.

Also, the Illegal Migration Act, if implemented in full, will restrict the Home Office’s ability to use the official development assistance budget for asylum seekers, as migrants arriving irregularly will no longer be able to seek asylum.

What specifically is driving the capital budget increase in asylum costs? In the Home Office’s proposal, the capital departmental expenditure limit budget will go up to £1,399,800,000—an increase of £468.5 million. That is a more than 50% increase on the initial budget of £931.3 million. Is that due to the Prime Minister’s announcement in June 2023 that two other barges had been procured, in addition to the Bibby Stockholm—there is no explicit reference to that in the estimates memorandum —or is it for the additional detention facilities required under the Illegal Migration Act?

Secondly, why did the cost of processing an asylum claim go from £9,000 in 2019 to £21,000 in 2022-23? That is a real-terms increase of 109%.

Again, Home Office spending on the UK-Rwanda partnership is a familiar story. The Home Affairs Committee has finally been able to glean that large sums of money have been committed to this scheme, but largely via retrospective disclosures and an accidental leak in an International Monetary Fund board paper in Rwanda. The Committee has, once again, had to join forces with the Public Accounts Committee to ask the National Audit Office to find out the costings of the scheme. I reiterate that it is very unsatisfactory that when we have been holding our normal scrutiny sessions with Ministers and officials to try to get detail on spending and any further commitments, we have repeatedly been met with silence from Ministers and been told to wait until the accounts for the Department are published at the end of the financial year.

Let us be clear: the failure to respond to our requests is not because anyone behind the scenes has judged the value-for-money test of this policy to be so overwhelmingly watertight that disclosures to Parliament are completely unnecessary, unsatisfactory as that would be. On the contrary, the permanent secretary required a ministerial direction in April 2022 to start implementation of the Rwanda partnership, because he judged that there was insufficient evidence of the deterrent effect that had been suggested, and therefore of the scheme being value for money. That ministerial direction has not been revoked, and it is in force today, with even more money being committed to this scheme. As the Institute for Government points out, permanent secretaries have a duty to seek a ministerial direction if they think a spending proposal breaches the value-for-money criteria—that is,

“if something else, or doing nothing, would be cheaper and better”.

That makes it even more important that Parliament can scrutinise this scheme and have the full costs available.

Less than two weeks ago, we learned, via the National Audit Office investigation that the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and I had sought, that the UK Government have committed to making payments to cover asylum processing and operational costs, and an integration package, for each individual relocated to Rwanda, and that these payments can last for five years and total £150,874 per person. Ministers had previously indicated that the per-person payments in the Rwanda scheme would be similar to the per-person cost of processing claims in the UK. Asked at the Home Affairs Committee what the UK processing cost was, the then Minister responsible for illegal migration said that it was £12,000, although we now know that it is £21,000.

Here is what else we have learned: the Home Office has committed to pay the Rwandan Government £370 million under the economic transformation and integration fund. It will also pay an additional £20,000 per individual relocated, and a further £120 million once 300 people have been relocated. That is in addition to the £150,874 per person for asylum processing and operational costs. On top of that, we also have the direct costs incurred by the Home Office in managing and overseeing the scheme and transporting people to Rwanda. As of February 2024, the Home Office had incurred costs of £20 million, which it expects to rise to £28 million by the end of 2023-24. The Home Office estimates that it will incur further costs of approximately £1 million per year in staff costs and £11,000 per individual for flight costs. It would be helpful if the Minister could let the House know whether he now has an airline available to remove people to Rwanda, because that is another question to which we have not been able to get an answer.

The Home Office will also incur costs to escort individuals to Rwanda, including training costs of £12.6 million in 2024-2025 and £1 million per year thereafter in fixed costs, plus further escorting costs that are dependent on the number of flights required. That does not include the wider costs of implementing the Illegal Migration Act 2023, such as the cost of providing sufficient detention facilities to hold people before they are relocated. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain what arrangements are in place for that; that is linked to my question on capital costs.

Will the Minister comment on whether it was a mistake not to make the full set of costs I have just listed known to Members of this House, especially given that Members were legislating on this policy but did not have the information available on cost to make a judgment on value for money? Why did it require an investigation by the National Audit Office to get basic, factual information? Does the Minister think that the permanent secretary is wrong in his assessment that there is insufficient evidence

“to demonstrate that the policy will have a deterrent effect significant enough”

to justify its cost? Is the Minister also able to assist the House on the number of people who will be sent to Rwanda under the Illegal Migration Act after the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill is enacted?

In recent days, it has appeared that the Government will offer asylum seekers whose applications are unsuccessful £3,000 to relocate to Rwanda voluntarily, alongside those forcibly removed under the scheme, and that they too will be entitled to support for five years.

As the wonderful figures in the Treasury’s supplementary estimates demonstrate, the Home Office has a wide range of responsibilities, including vital work around counter-terrorism activities, keeping our streets safe, supporting the police uplift programme, and the work around violence reduction units, which were announced by the Chancellor last week. A lot of the investment that has gone into tackling domestic violence against women and girls, and the lead that the Department has taken on modern day slavery, are critical. That is now business as usual and absolutely important.

The documents mention the responsibilities around issuing visas and passports, and the income and revenue that comes in from that to sustain the system. Then we have control of our borders, immigration and asylum matters. At the heart of these activities must be transparency. Ministers and budget holders must always put transparency and value for money at the forefront of their actions. My mantra was very well known in every Government Department in which I served: we must follow the money, people, activities and outcomes and be fiscally responsible.

As this debate has shown, thanks to the introductory remarks from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, we must have transparency. It is right that there is accountability and transparency around our key policy decisions, but having seen the figures in the supplementary estimates covering the Home Office, including more than £4 billion of additional funding for resourced staff, asylum support and resettlement and accommodation, a number of issues have been raised, which I know the Minister will seek to address in his response.

I will, if I may, mention something that has been touched on already, which is asylum accommodation. It is obvious that that is not working. Serious questions need to be asked of the Department in relation to ministerial directions and decisions over, at least, the past 14 months. Again, that goes to my point about public expenditure and transparency—and I will come on to Rwanda shortly. Many of the proposals link in with the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—I know that the Chair of the Select Committee mentioned the Illegal Migration Act 2023 as it now is.

When I was in the Home Office, we developed the new plan for immigration, which provided a clear policy on not just asylum accommodation, but reform of the entire system. That enabled us to break down the ultimate cost and be quite transparent about that when planning for future accommodation needs. We were working to establish Greek-style reception centres and to increase detained sites. We wanted not even to use hotels, but to have Government-funded accommodation, which would have assisted the Government in processing claims quickly and promptly. Clearly, that is the crux of the matter, as the Chair of the Select Committee has pointed out, with processing claims going up by more than 100%. Serious questions need to be asked. Why, for example, was the digital level of processing asylum claims that would have taken place in these centres not forthcoming? Why did that information not materialise? That was only one aspect of what should have been the new plan for immigration. Implementing these serious measures would have led to financial transparency and, quite frankly, accountability around public spending.

It would also have had a deterrent effect on those trying to enter the UK through dangerous and illegal routes, reducing the pull factor by having accommodation that is about not just moving from one hotel to another, but processing claims in these centres and having cost-effective solutions. The development of the site at Linton-on-Ouse is one example. That site should have been up and running by October 2022 and would now be in use, supporting the efforts to tackle illegal migration by accommodating more than 1,500 people, addressing some of those wider issues that the Government at the time sought to address. There were, of course, start-up costs involved, but they are all now blended into the estimates, the supplementary estimates and the £4 billion of additional spending being retrospectively sought. As a result of abandoning the plans, the Home Office has, again, fallen behind where it should have been on establishing a robust network of detention sites, proper accommodation facilities, proper processing plans, and transparency and digitalisation, which would have led to fundamental reform of the asylum accommodation system.

Instead, this time last year, what did we have? The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee touched on the infamous barge, Bibby Stockholm, and its set-up costs. In my district of Braintree, we have RAF Wethersfield and all the established problems there, the additional start-up costs, and all the supplementary costs of dealing with problems that were not even anticipated at the outset. Some of those problems were ones that I had raised, such as ill health outbreaks, additional resourcing for policing, and costs that the local council has to pick up, including the county council. When those decisions were made, concerns were raised about the suitability of the locations. It is incredibly disappointing that Ministers at the time were incredibly tin-eared about all this, and not transparent on the funding or the decision making.

My local authorities had to work with me to get the information out of the Home Office. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee will know, none of the information was readily available to the Committee, which is simply not acceptable. I am conscious that my colleagues on the Front Bench are having to pick up a lot of this, because they were not Ministers in the Department at the time. It is incredibly unfair. The money in the supplementary estimates is retrospective, but there is an opportunity to be much more transparent, demonstrate that the Department has learned lessons from frankly the most appalling processes and the ministerial indifference in the Home Office over the past 12 months or so, and improve the situation.

That is incredibly important, particularly while we are still dealing with many issues at Wethersfield, which is supposed to reach a full capacity of about 1,700 people. Currently onsite we have around one third of that level, but we have a lot of issues, which again cost money. The Home Office will bear the brunt of that through the various local authorities that are having to deal with this—Braintree District Council and Essex County Council in particular. The issues include onsite medical facilities, access to primary care, mental health, reasonable accommodation, the cost of transport, and all the various associated costs. We now have an issue around class Q, the special development order that has been issued, and what that means for the long-term costs to the Department and for running the site. Again, nothing has been published, leaving my Braintree residents in the dark, along with Parliament, frankly, on the wider cost implications.

The costs associated with illegal migration are clearly staggering, as has been exposed. This may speak to the recent publication of a report by the former chief inspector of borders and immigration, David Neal. Other reports, which the Department not only commissioned but sought to publish, would have led to a much more robust approach around Border Force, agreements with France, and how the Home Office conducted its business. They could have led to some serious reform, good prudent fiscal management, and importantly, proper investment in technology at the border. I suspect that some of that was touched on by David Neal. Alexander Downer conducted a review of Border Force, and gave an excellent report. I do not know whether the Home Affairs Committee even saw it; it seems to have been buried. I know for a fact that it included some very serious and good recommendations, which would have led to fundamental reform at the border. I suspect that David Neal would have agreed with some of the measures.

The Department has been silent on this. I do not think that there has been any progress or implementation of any of the recommendations. Basic things such as better engagement with industry, developing better technologies and taking a more long-term strategic approach to border security are what was planned at the Home Office. It is somewhat unfair to demand that those on the Front Bench explain what happened, but the House should know, because at the end of the day those reports were commissioned to invest in a digital border and in long-term measures that would make our border much more secure and efficient, and to tackle issues such as illegal migration and documentation being disposed of when people entered our country, as well as all the wider challenges that the Minister is familiar with. That touched on the work with France and the funding we gave France, which since my departure has increased to more than £500 million. Again, the public should know and hear much more about the value for money and, more importantly, the outcomes, because those sums are unprecedented.

Also, how is increasing use of surveillance at the border being leveraged to go after the criminal gangs? What about more activity on patrol and in law enforcement along the French coast? I should add that the French coastline is very difficult, given how large it is and how difficult it is to police. I pay tribute to everyone who works in that area, but again, so far this year the number of Channel-crossing arrivals has passed more than 3,500, which is higher than at the same point last year. When half a billion pounds is being spent, it is important that the public and the House see a level of transparency with what is going on.

I will touch on the Rwanda partnership, which is important, and there will be a debate in the House on Monday, when the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill comes back before us. I say that the partnership is important, because I negotiated the original one, but I came to the House and at the outset set out the original costings of £120 million. It was a migration and economic development partnership. Clearly, the principle of the Rwanda partnership as it now stands has moved miles from the original. That is deeply concerning. There has been zero transparency. As the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, what on earth has gone on with the partnership over the past 12 months, other than more cash being funnelled into it and to the Government of Rwanda?

I will say something about the Government of Rwanda but, on the original partnership, which was world leading, other countries in Europe are still to this day—as I know from conversations that I am having—looking at the model and may follow it. Various European countries have taken an interest because of wider migration issues across Europe and because of destabilisation in the world. However, I add that there has been far too much criticism of the country and Government of Rwanda, and much of that has been ill-informed, misleading and inaccurate. The country has experienced significant economic growth, rising living standards this century—with 1 million more people lifted out of poverty in their country—and increasing life expectancy, so it is important that we do not malign Rwanda.

Rwanda joined the Commonwealth in 2009. It has worked with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to support more than 130,000 refugees. It is a country that is committed to playing a leadership role on the African continent and to make a contribution to tackling one of the biggest challenges that they and we face—I say “they” about those on the African continent—which is mass migration. I pay tribute to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, Vincent Biruta, and to the High Commissioner in London, because they were outstanding in their engagement with our Government, including me and others. It is important that we make this partnership work.

I am sceptical, I have to say, about what we have read in the press this week—I think that is the best way to put it—on how the partnership will work. That brings me to the issue that has been touched on already: we have to be practical. The Home Office is an operational Department, and day-to-day operational costs are inevitably high. Given the voluntary returns, removals and reception centres—which we do not have now—and the cost of running detained facilities with the required support staff, it is right to negotiate the contracts properly and transparently. Everyone needs to have the right kind of scrutiny.

I say that because something might go wrong, not just with the contracts but when incidents happen—they have happened in the past. The Home Office might have legal action taken against it, such as on the handling of a voluntary return or removal of a migrant. The challenges are enormous, and the reputational—

Ditto on the reception and accommodation centres. At the time, the costs were envisaged to be £120 million, including for start-up. Processing costs would then have come into it through digitalisation of asylum cases. It is inexcusable that the needle has not been moved on that. It is no longer acceptable for people to just discard such plans, as a result of the revolving door, and say, “Actually, we don’t need these; we can have newer plans.” All that does is kick the can down the road and increase Government expenditure. We are now in the unprecedented situation of the Home Secretary of the day retrospectively trying to get approval for more than £4 billion of public spending for asylum accommodation.

Whether on a partnership with Rwanda, cross-border work with the French authorities, implementation of provisions in our legislation, or delivery of accommodation centres, I can say that plans were in place—absolutely. We must get back on track. This debate should send out two messages—to the Home Office, yes, but also for future spending reviews. We have had this period of annual spending reviews, but we must go back to five-year SR periods, with proper fiscal transparency, led by the Treasury, and Ministers must be held to account on public expenditure. We must go back to the core principle of following money, people and outcomes.

“People seeking asylum do not have access to sufficient money, kitchen facilities or food to meet their needs, are provided with food that does not meet food hygiene or nutritional standards, in some cases resulting in hospitalisation. Experiences of food were broadly experienced as degrading and dehumanising, especially for mothers unable to feed their children adequately.”

That desperately poor and deeply harmful experience is being provided by Home Office contractors, who have seen their profits soar. Clearsprings and Stay Belvedere Hotels Ltd, for example, have made a combined profit of over £113 million, and Serco and Mears are also profiting handsomely from those lucrative contracts. The UK Government often claim that they want to support displaced people closer to the place from which they have fled, yet the supplementary estimates reveal that they are now quite brazenly pochling the official development assistance budget to the tune of £3.2 million, a staggering 389.6% increase just from the sum in the main estimates. That money is supposed to help the world’s most vulnerable—to support countries and help them flourish. Instead, it is simply boosting the profits of companies that are demonstrably not even providing the very basics of humanity.

Facilities such as the Bibby Stockholm, Napier barracks, Wethersfield and Scampton are being presented as some kind of alternative to hotels, but in many cases they cost just as much if not more, and are no better run. Hotels cost so much because of the delays that the Home Office is presiding over: people left waiting, not just for months but for years at a time, without a decision. The former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), had the cheek to say on Sky News that this was quite deliberate; the Government do not want to speed the process up, because that would make the UK too attractive. They are presiding over their own failure quite deliberately and purposefully, so if the Minister says today that it is terrible that we are spending so much money on hotels, I would ask him to speed up those applications and let people get on with their lives.

The Bibby Stockholm barge is estimated to cost taxpayers £41,000 a day or £15 million a year. With around 300 asylum seekers being housed on that barge, that equates to a cost of about £205 per day per person, the same as an overnight stay in a four-star hotel. Thrown into an indefinite stay in a shared room on an industrial barge moored in an operational port, however, you get the bonus of legionella bacteria in the water supply, as well as anxiety, depression, respiratory illness, infectious diseases and, unfortunately, seeing some of your fellow inmates committing suicide.

I have not had much of an opportunity to speak about the Home Affairs Committee’s visit to the Bibby Stockholm, but I will take this opportunity to put on record the sadness, confusion and frustration of those on board. Those men felt that they were being punished for some unknown misdemeanour—unable to get any peace and quiet, living in impossibly close proximity to people for months at a time, with no certainty as to when that will end, and their health needs not being properly assessed. The vessel was not intended to be lived on 24/7, and despite the tabloid rhetoric, none of those I met on that boat had come on small boats. Some had been international students, forced to claim asylum when the political situation in their home countries deteriorated. One told me:

“The longer you are in here, you turn into a person you don’t know”.

How incredibly sad it is that the UK Government see fit to treat people in that way.

The detention estate has been growing arms and legs over the past few years, and the estimates provided by the Home Office suggest that the trend is only set to continue. The cost of detaining someone for one day is estimated at about £113 per person. Expanding the detention estate at Campsfield House and Haslar immigration removal centres is expected to come in at about £260 million. Ludicrously, the Home Office has made quite a deliberate choice to pursue these more expensive and more punitive options, despite having clear evidence from the pilots of alternatives to detention, which it itself commissioned, that were found to be significantly cheaper, more effective and with much better health outcomes for those in that system.

It is no secret that the SNP thinks the Rwanda scheme is irredeemably awful. It is unworkable, conspicuous punishment. The Supreme Court has found the scheme to be unlawful. On top of all that, it is of course eye- wateringly expensive. I would like to thank the National Audit Office for its report setting out the known sums so clearly. I find it quite wild that the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), came here today to criticise the ball that she herself started rolling. I guess it has not worked out the way she expected, but I could not really see what she thought would be so great about the scheme in the first place.

The UK’s Rwanda scheme has cost about £220 million so far under the UK-Rwanda partnership, not including the UK Government’s legal costs for defending the plan in the courts. The Home Affairs Committee finally received evidence in November last year that, in addition to the money already sent, additional payments will be made to the Government of Rwanda each year. Quite unbelievably, some of this was only uncovered because somebody in Rwanda let it slip to the International Monetary Fund; it was not through due diligence to our own Parliament or the parliamentary Committees that are supposed to scrutinise these things, but because of a slip in some other documentation.

There is a direct cost of £20 million to the Home Office, which the National Audit Office says is expected to rise to £28 million by the end of 2023-24. There will be £1 million a year in staff costs, £11,000 in flight costs per individual and the as yet unknown costs of escorting individuals to Rwanda. There is also the bounty to Rwanda for the delivery of the first 300 asylum seekers, which is a further one-off £120 million. Whether or not Members believe 300 will actually be sent, the fact is that this is within the documentation.

The National Audit Office report sets out a further payment schedule for each person removed to Rwanda up to a total of £150,874 each. Again, it is entirely unclear how much this will all add up to in the end, because it depends on somebody staying put once they have got to Rwanda, which nobody can guarantee. The NAO says that the numbers are “inherently uncertain”; I would say that that is putting it mildly. Of course, this does not save any money. The UK Government’s own figures estimate that moving an asylum seeker to Rwanda would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK to be processed, so it is no wonder the permanent secretary would not sign it off without ministerial direction.

I do not seek to malign Rwanda or its Government, but we hear a curious dichotomy from Government Members, whereby Rwanda is safe enough that the legislation can pass, but sufficiently scary to serve as a deterrent to those desperate enough to risk their lives crossing the channel in a flimsy inflatable. It cannot be both scary and safe at the same time; it cannot be a deterrent and something that is perfectly reasonable. Those two things cannot exist together.

Bizarrely, we have heard the news just today from Lizzie Dearden at The Independent that the Home Office is so desperate to fill up these flights that it is offering those who have been unsuccessful in their asylum claims £3,000 to go to Rwanda. This is wild stuff, and again it has not been brought to this House as a proposal and has not received any further scrutiny.

What an absolute guddle this system is. The Home Office is now under investigation, I understand, by the Information Commissioner due to its utter incompetence and inability to process cases properly. The Home Office has pulled off the astonishing feat of creating an asylum system that is simultaneously slow, expensive, shoddy and in some cases unlawful besides. This wastefulness is a pattern of behaviour from a Department that appears to regard those who come to our shores as somehow less than human.

In a cost of living crisis, the Rwanda scheme is a bottomless pit for public funds. The UK Government under either the Tories or Labour cannot find the money for an essentials guarantee, to scrap the two-child limit or for cost of living support for people struggling every day, yet when it comes to dog-whistle politics there is a big blank cheque.

There are limitations on what we as MPs can do about this. The estimates and budgetary processes are entirely inadequate for the purpose, particularly in light of the fact that this is a Department prone to secrecy and misdirection. My SNP colleagues and I have tabled an amendment to reduce the resources for use for current purposes relating to immigration and asylum by £740,850,000. That pertains to our best estimate of how much the supplementary estimate would have to be reduced by to defund the Rwanda plan, the Bibby Stockholm and Wethersfield, Scampton, Campsfield and Haslar immigration removal centres. It is a small part of what the Home Office has wasted on schemes that have absolutely no merit and that cause more harm than they ever will good. I commend our amendment to the House.