Robert Jenrick has claimed the “damage to society will continue to grow” unless ministers act “decisively” to deter small boat crossings, amid concerns over proposed reforms.
The immigration minister defended the Illegal Migration Bill and its accompanying economic impact assessment, which he said showed the “true cost of doing nothing” could amount to more than £11 billion a year by the end of 2026.
The Home Office’s own estimates also suggest that ministers could spend £169,000 on every asylum seeker forcibly removed to a third country, such as Rwanda.
The cost for one person in the asylum system for just one night has gone up five-fold in four years.— Labour's Yvette Cooper
But Labour branded the impact assessment “garbage” and said it failed to take into account other proposals, including speeding up the asylum system, in a bid to make savings.
A total of 45,755 people were detected to have made the perilous journey across the Channel in small boats last year.
The Illegal Migration Bill is currently making its way through Parliament and it aims to prevent people from claiming asylum in the UK if they arrive through unauthorised means.
The Government also hopes the changes will ensure detained people are promptly removed, either to their home country or a third country.
Mr Jenrick, responding to an urgent question, told the House of Commons: “The impact assessment published yesterday makes clear that inaction is simply not an option.
“The volumes and costs associated with illegal migration have risen exponentially, driven by small boat arrivals. Unless we act decisively to stop the boats, the cost to the taxpayer and the damage to society will continue to grow.
“The asylum system currently costs £3.6 billion a year and £6 million a day in hotel accommodation. That is not the true cost of doing nothing.
“As this impact assessment shows, the cost of accommodating illegal migrants has increased dramatically since 2020 and if these trends continue the Home Office would be spending over £11 billion a year, or £32 million a day, on asylum support by the end of 2026. In such a scenario, the Bill would only need to deliver a 2% deterrence in arrivals to enable cost savings.”
Mr Jenrick said £11 billion is an “extraordinary amount of money”, adding: “Nearly 10 times the amount of money the taxpayer spent on the asylum system as recently as 2021, and anyone opposing this Bill needs to explain how they would pay those costs; given the Labour Party’s opposition to this Bill, it represents another £11 billion blackhole in their fiscal plans.”
It’s worrying when the Home Office themselves can’t be certain that these figures are accurate.— Conservative MP Caroline Nokes
For Labour, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: “I was going to ask if the immigration minister had seriously signed-off this garbage of an impact assessment that no self-respecting minister could possibly think was serious, but actually the nonsense he has just said is even worse and even less coherent.”
Ms Cooper added: “It does provide evidence of the scale of Conservative failure, the cost for one person in the asylum system for just one night has gone up five-fold in four years.
“That is just the cost of Tory mismanagement; it’s gone up faster than mortgages, energy bills, it’s even gone up faster than the price of cheese.”
Conservative MP Caroline Nokes, who chairs the Women and Equalities Select Committee, said the plan to move asylum seekers to Rwanda is “very difficult to justify”.
When asked if she thought the figure was value for money, Ms Nokes told Sky News: “No, I don’t think it does and I have always been concerned that the Rwanda scheme is not only very difficult to justify why we should be sending asylum seekers to Rwanda to be processed within the Rwandan asylum system, when actually we should have better systems here.
“But the value for money question is a perfectly valid and legitimate one.
“And it’s worrying when the Home Office themselves can’t be certain that these figures are accurate, and they’re more predicated on the Rwandan scheme acting more as a deterrent and, to date, we’ve not seen it act as a deterrent.”
Labour former minister Sir Stephen Timms said the estimated £169,000 cost of sending a migrant to a third country was “eye-wateringly large”, telling the Commons: “He is wanting to spend that money in order to treat people with great cruelty. How can that be justified?”
Mr Jenrick insisted this was a “gross figure not a net figure.”
He added: “That figure does not relate to the Rwandan partnership.
“It is an indicative figure based on the Syrian resettlement scheme.
“We chose not to publish the commercially sensitive nature of our relationship with Rwanda.
“I think that is for good reason, because countries, partners, working together in good faith should not publish details that we said we wouldn’t.”
