Rwanda Plan Cost and Asylum System

Diana Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I will focus my remarks on the cost of the Rwanda plan, whether it is going to be effective and whether it is value for money. Nearly 18 months ago the Select Committee on Home Affairs stated in our report on channel crossings:

“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.”

We made those recommendations all those months ago in part because we learned that the then Home Secretary had been required to issue a ministerial direction to the Home Office permanent secretary to implement the Rwanda scheme as he felt there was insufficient evidence of deterrent to enable him to guarantee the policy’s value for money, which, as the accounting officer, he is responsible for, and to date he has not changed his view.

That issue and the use of public money for this controversial plan have been a source of contention for many from the get-go, which is why we believed transparency about the costs involved was vital for proper scrutiny and public trust in this policy, yet here we are with what limited information we do have about the scheme’s costs having dribbled out slowly and most recently accidentally via the International Monetary Fund’s board papers. That is despite questions about the costs being repeatedly put by myself and other Committees including the Public Accounts Committee over the last 18 months.

The most recent substantive update on costs came in a late-night letter from the permanent secretary to myself and the Chair of the PAC my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) following that inadvertent disclosure via IMF papers, and we learned that following the £140 million paid to Rwanda in ’22-’23 there has been an additional £100 million in April ’23 and a further £50 million would be paid in ’24-’25, but the deal with Rwanda is for five years and we are yet to discover what the Government have pledged to pay for the final two years of the scheme.

The justification, which I have heard again today, is about commercial sensitivity, yet apparently it is not so commercially sensitive that the costs cannot be disclosed retrospectively via the annual accounts. Clearly there is something here that does not add up and I know that the Chair of the PAC shares my view on this: that in other instances it has been possible to have regular updates on spending proposals and policies like this.

Question marks hang over not just the fixed cost of the scheme but the per-person costs of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda. We know the Government have pledged to pay Rwanda a certain amount for each asylum seeker sent there to have their claim processed, but again we do not know how much, although it is of interest that the Home Office estimate in the economic impact assessment of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 the cost of relocating a single individual asylum seeker to a third country at £169,000, which represents, we are told,

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

We understand that the cost of processing asylum claims here in the UK through the current migration system is around £12,000. As the Home Affairs Committee pointed out almost 18 months ago:

“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.”

[Katherine Fletcher]

Better get some then.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am going to carry on.

With a singular yet untested Rwanda scheme swallowing up so much Government time and resource it is vital that the Home Secretary is up front about the costs involved. This is about public money being paid to Rwanda by the UK on an issue of great concern to the British people; it is not private funds being exchanged between two companies, and as the Institute for Government points out,

“good scrutiny really can contribute to good government.”

Transparency is key to unlocking good public policy. It is therefore absolutely right that Parliament asks and gets detailed responses to questions concerning the cost of the Government’s Rwanda plan and administration of the asylum system. This is about Parliament being able to do its fundamental job of scrutiny, holding the Executive to account.

I do not have time to ask all the other questions I would like to raise which relate to the treaty that has been signed, the new appeals system, the right to legal advice for all asylum seekers sent to Rwanda, and whether additional moneys will be paid by the British Government for all of those, but I hope the Minister will come clean in his wind-up as to the exact costs of the scheme.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who addressed the motion tabled in the name of her Front Benchers and came to the meat of the issues in a succinct way. The arguments that she has put before the House are legitimate and merit close scrutiny by both her Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, and were the subject of a letter that she jointly sent with the Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), on 8 December. Putting my Select Committee Chair hat on, I associate myself with those remarks in the spirit of cross-party co-operation.

However, Opposition Front Benchers have stumbled into what is, frankly, a debate between the Select Committees and the Government. They have missed a trick on this motion. We are now used to Humble Addresses, as they became a fad and a fashion much beloved of the now Leader of the Opposition when he was shadow Brexit Secretary back in 2017-18. Those of us who were Members of that Parliament may not want to be reminded of those times. I certainly remember being on the Front Bench as Solicitor General during the great debate on contempt of Parliament that we well remember—I bear the scars on my back.

I could simply fold my arms and say that Humble Addresses are very 2019, and perhaps we have moved on, but I will not because a number of past Humble Address motions have related to disclosure not to the full House but direct to Select Committees. Here is the point that we might have reached some compromise on. Select Committees are more than capable, through the good offices of their Chairs and Clerks, to hold sensitive information in a confidential way, yet still provide the scrutiny and accountability that, clearly, Parliament is here for. It has been done in the past, and on this occasion my hon. and hon. and learned Friends on the Front Bench should actively consider whether commercially sensitive information can be shared in a sensible way with the appropriate Select Committees.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an interesting point. Both the Home Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have asked for information that we would hold confidentially, just to reassure ourselves about the value for money of these schemes. Sadly, we have been refused that information by the Home Office.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I know that a letter was sent to the permanent secretary. I could not find a reply—the Committee may not have had one—and I suggest that civil servants in the Home Office need to respond with expedition to the Committee to furnish them with information. That is how we could have proceeded. The Opposition Front Benchers have missed a trick by not couching their resolution in more specific terms, with the consent that I am sure would have been forthcoming from the respective Chairs of the Select Committees. But that is not the motion that we have before us.