Rwanda Plan Cost and Asylum System — 9 Jan 2024 at 18:53

That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give direction to the Home Secretary that, no later than 16 January 2024, there be laid before this House:

“one or two symbolic flights off before the next election”,

“The heavy use of withdrawals to reduce the number of pending applications does make it look as though the backlog clearance was an exercise in number management more than anything else.”

“considerable delays in family reunion decision making at this time”

“applications are being considered outside of the 60 working day service standard”.

“just encourages more people to come”.

“to pursue smaller volumes initially, 500 instead of 1,500”

“3,000 instead of 5,000 in years two and three”.

“reluctant to fund so-called ‘Greek-style reception centres’, sites where migrants could be housed, rather than being put up in hotels which were said to be costing £3.5m a day at that point, the documents suggest. They say, the ‘Chancellor is refusing to fund any non-detained accommodation, eg Greek-style reception centres, because hotels are cheaper’.”

“Just return them. This is precisely the point. We must not allow the ECHR to stop us dealing with it.”

“looked at a system for processing appeals for failed asylum seekers in other safe countries but rejected it as impractical”,

“The Home Office must provide more detailed costings for its Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda, including estimates of the likely cost within the current financial year of relocations and probable costs of relocations during the full five years of the programme.”

“additional costs incurred relative to processing an individual through…the current migration system.”

“Migration, including irregular migration across the English Channel, is an issue on which no magical single solution is possible and on which detailed, evidence-driven, properly costed and fully tested policy initiatives are by far most likely to achieve sustainable incremental change.”

“good scrutiny really can contribute to good government.”

“This hasn’t been tried before in our country. It’s fair to say it is novel. I’ve been very clear that this is a novel scheme.”

“uncertain what level of deterrence impact it will have”,

“You should always ask probing questions. You should always approach things from a position of scepticism to ensure that you get value for money for taxpayers.”

“There are no monetised costs or benefits.”

“dependent on the deterrent effect achieved, there could be fewer individuals undertaking hazardous and unnecessary journeys”.

Debate in Parliament |