LONDON ̵1; The UK government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda could cost more than six figures per person if it ever gets off the ground.
A home office economic evaluation released on Monday night, revealed that the Rwandan plan – which was announced in the spring of 2022 but has not yet started a single flight amid a legal challenge – would cost an estimated £169,000 per migrant.
According to the government department’s own figures, it costs an estimated £63,000 more to relocate an asylum seeker than to keep them in the UK. The Home Office has pointed to a deterrent effect it believes the scheme will have on incoming people. to UK
The then Home Secretary Priti Patel signed the relocation agreement with Rwanda’s foreign minister last year as part of efforts to curb high levels of cross-Channel migration in small boats.
The plan has faced several court challenges over human rights concerns, and the first scheduled flight in June 2022 was blocked by a last-minute interim measure from the European Court of Human Rights. A key court ruling on the proposals is due on Thursday.
The bill has also faced political opposition, including from some liberal conservatives. one in The report was released on TuesdayTory MP and chair of the Women and Equality Committee, Caroline Knox, warned that children should not be deported to Rwanda because of the bill.
“The risk of harm to children far outweighs any perceived damage to the effectiveness of the government’s policy agenda,” Knox said.
Patel’s successor Suella Braverman and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have both supported the legislation. Sunak has made “stopping the boats” one of his political priorities and is currently driving through illegal immigration bill It reaffirms the government’s commitment to the Rwandan policy.
The Home Office’s assessment of the bill said there would be no cost if the policy successfully prevented a person from entering the UK illegally – which is a key aim of Sunak’s radical migration plan.
However, the assessment states that it is “uncertain” what level of deterrent effect the policy may have, as the bill is “novel and untested”.