Government scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda will cost £169,000 per person, Home Office says – UK politics live

• The Home Office has published an economic impact of its illegal migration bill that says sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would cost £169,000 per person and would only save the taxpayer money if 37% of small boat arrivals were deterred. (See 5.09pm.) The report also shows how uncertain the government is about whether the policy will work. These are from Danny Shaw, the former BBC home affairs correspondent.

The economic impact assessment for the illegal migration bill says that, in order to obtain value for money for the taxpayer (ie, for the financial savings to be higher than the financial losses), sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would have to have the effect of deterring at least 37% of people coming on small boats.

The document includes a chart showing that, if the average time asylum claimants spend in accommodation waiting for their claim to be processed were to go up from four years to five years, the “break-even” deterrence rate would go down to 23% (because asylum seekers not deterred would become more expensive).

But if the government were to get the average time spent waiting in accommodation down to just three years, the deterrence rate needed for the overall policy to be cost-effective would be 52%.

Rishi Sunak is committed to reducing the asylum backlog. This analysis suggests that, in doing so, the government would make it harder for the Rwanda policy to be cost effective.

In its press release marking the publication of the economic impact assessment into the illegal migration bill, the Home Office says the document shows that the taxpayer would save £106,000 for every migrant arriving in the UK illegally deterred by the legislation.

It says the saving would be the same if, instead of being deterred from arriving, a migrant were sent to a third country.

That figure is based on assumptions that 85% of arrivals need accommodation, accommodation costs £85 per person per night, and arrivals need accommodation for four years while asylum claims are processed.

The £106,000 notional saving is lower than the notional cost of deporting an asylum seeker to Rwanda (£169,000 – see 5.09pm), but the Home Office says that, allowing for the pace at which accommodation costs are increasing, the estimated saving per migrant deterred rises to £165,000.

This figure is much more convenient for the Home Office because it almost matches the £169,000 per head deportation figure, and largely counters the claim that, instead of sending people to Rwanda, it would be cheaper to let them stay.

The £106,000/£165,000 figures only cover accommodation costs. The economic impact assessment says there are other costs from having migrants in the country, and it says the average working-age adult costs the state £11,912 per year because they use government services.

The document also argues that deterring illegal immigration would also bring other benefits not captured in these financial numbers, such as a reduction in migrant deaths, a reduction in illegal people smuggling, and a reduction in the number of unaccompanied child migrants going into care.

Keir Starmer has said Labour views a free trade deal with India as “only the first step” towards building a wider “strategic partnership” with the country to bolster climate and global security, PA Media reports. PA says:

The Labour leader said the UK must “step out of the shadows in its mind” in seeking to deepen bilateral ties with the modern republic.

Speaking at the India Global Forum’s annual UK-India Week event in central London, which brings together politicians and business chiefs from both countries, Starmer said “resetting” the relationship with India would involve acknowledging shared values like “democracy of aspiration” between the two nations.

“We share that ambition [of a free trade deal] but also a new strategic partnership for global security, for climate security, for economic security,” he said.

“In this increasingly volatile world, on the collective security of defence cooperation between our two nations, absolutely, but also working together to support other nations which might come under external pressure.”

He added: “The trade deal which I hope we can negotiate … we see that only as the first step in a strategic partnership that goes way beyond just the trade.”

The Home Office has published the economic impact assessment for its illegal migration bill. It shows the government thinks it will cost £169,000 per person to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

In a written ministerial statement announcing the publication of the impact assessment, Suella Braverman, the home secretary, says that these costs must be considered alongside the benefits of irregular immigration being discouraged. She says:

The economic impact assessment clearly shows that doing nothing is not an option, as the volumes and costs associated with illegal migration and the asylum system have risen significantly over recent years, driven by the rise in small boat arrivals. This increase of pressure on the UK asylum system, public sector spending, public service and accommodation capacity, and local communities, is unsustainable. That is why we are changing our laws and taking action to stop the boats.

In 2022/23, the current system cost the UK an estimated £3.6bn in asylum support costs alone and we are spending £6m a day on hotel accommodations. Unless we take action to stop the boats, these and other costs will continue to rise …

The economic impact assessment forecasts a monetised benefit of over £100,000 for every illegal migrant deterred by the bill. The impact assessment also considers non monetised benefits that would result from stopping the boats, including: fewer individuals undertaking hazardous and unnecessary journeys crossing the Channel; reduced pressures on public services and housing markets; and other wider asylum system benefits from fewer migrants being supported in the system.

She also says that, at current spending levels, the bill would need to deter 37% of arrivals to save money for the taxpayer. But if costs continued to rise, then by the end of 2026 a much lower deterrence rate would be cost effective, she says.

The economic impact assessment estimates that – at current spending levels – the bill would need to deter 37% of arrivals to enable cost savings for the taxpayer. However, the costs of accommodating illegal migrants have increased dramatically since 2020. If these trends continue, by the end of 2026 the Home Office would be spending over £11bn a year (or over £32, a day) on asylum support. In such a scenario, the bill would only need to deter 2% of arrivals for the policy to enable cost savings for the taxpayer.

In the Commons James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, is now making a statement about the events in Russia over the weekend.

One of the first MPs to ask a question was Liz Truss, the former prime minister. Truss said there should be no letup in support for Ukraine, and she said its admission to Nato should be fast tracked. She also said there should be no talk of deals with Russia, or of sanctions being lifted, until the “war criminals” had been held to account.

In reply, Cleverly said Truss was making “incredibly important” points. He said Ukraine’s record in the war showed why it should “ultimately” be a member of Nato. The war had “truncated” the period it should have to wait, he said. He said other allies thought the same.

Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, responded to Hunt. She said that the government plan was inadequate because it was voluntary for lenders. Labour would require them to offer extra help to borrowers, she said.

UPDATE: Reeves said:

Our plan [see 4.05pm] would have provided real help, but government have provided just a bad cover version. While many banks and building societies are doing the right thing by their customers, a voluntary set of measures is just not good enough.

The chancellor today said that the voluntary measures would cover 85% of the mortgage market. But what is his answer for the more than one million families who are missing out because their lender hasn’t signed up to this scheme? Tough luck.

Just how bad does it have to get before the chancellor recognises that mandatory action is needed to provide meaningful assistance?

Reeves also criticised Hunt for ignoring the plight of renters.

Where is the plan for renters who the chancellor didn’t even mention in his statement today, many of whom are paying higher rents because the mortgage costs of their landlords have gone up?

Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, is giving a statement to MPs about his “mortage charter”. He says that lenders responsible for 85% of lending have signed the charter, which is being published today.

The key measures were announced on Friday, after Hunt’s meeting with bank bosses.

There will be no repossessions within 12 months of the first missed payment, Hunt says.

And customers having trouble paying their mortgages will be able to switch to an interest-only mortgage for six months, or to extend their mortage term so they can reduce their monthly payments.

The UK’s post-Brexit border strategy risks further pushing up food prices, according to a stark warning from representatives of Britain’s fresh produce industry. Joanna Partridge has the story here.

Sharon Graham, general secretary of the Unite union, says that, by scheduling a meeting with regulators on Wednesday (see 12.44pm), the chancellor has in effect admitted that the UK is facing a “profiteering crisis”. But he is not doing enough about it, she said in a statement.

Here we have a tacit acknowledgement from the chancellor that Britain is in the grip of a profiteering crisis. But to be honest, we need to go way beyond talking shops with regulators before we can be convinced the chancellor is serious about tackling Britain’s epidemic of profiteering.

Tinkering at the edges is just not enough. Unite’s own research has shown that if domestic energy had been in public ownership at the time the crisis hit we could have saved every household £1,800 and cut inflation by 4%. Tinkering at the edges, and talking shops about the crisis are just not enough.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson made a point of stressing that there are rules against “profiteering” – although he also said he was not saying supermarkets were doing this. (See 12.44pm.)

Downing Street has confirmed that it is going to ask regulators to consider what they can do to ensure any savings producers make get passed on to customers.

At the lobby briefing, asked about Jeremy Hunt’s meeting with regulators on Wednesday, the prime minister’s spokesperson said the chancellor wanted to discuss what actions the regulators are taking, what more could be done to work together, and are there any potential barriers to them going further.

The spokesperson said there was “no legal requirement” for supermarkets to pass on savings. But he went on:

There are rules around things like profiteering – I’m not suggesting that’s the case here.

Equally I think we would of course want supermarkets and others to rightly pass on the savings they are making with the fall in global energy costs. I think that’s what the public would expect and they will vote with their feet if that’s not the case.

The spokesperson also said that, with interest rates going up, the government wanted to ensure that savers benefited. He said:

We absolutely expect banks to pass through higher rates to savers, as they are for mortgage holders, and we’re working closely with the FCA [Financial Conduct Authority] who we know are monitoring it closely.

It’s not only the right thing to do but it also has the potential to reduce inflation because people are encouraged to save rather than spend.

Labour would prioritise devolution over abolishing the House of Lords, Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow leader of the Commons, has told the i in an interview.

She described devolution, in the form of giving new powers to mayors and local authorities, as the priority constitutional reform “which will need to happen early on”. Keir Starmer has said these decentralisation measures will be in a “take back control” bill in Labour’s first king’s speech.

Debbonaire also said Lords reform might initially focus on removing the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

At the end of last year Labour published a report from the Commission on the UK’s Future, chaired by the former PM Gordon Brown, proposing various constitutional reforms, including abolition of the Lords and devolution of power away from Westminster.

Starmer said he was committed to the recommendations. But he also stressed the importance of consultation, fuelling suspicions that abolition of the Lords (which is unpopular with Labour peers, and which previous Labour government has failed to achieve) may end up being ditched.

In her interview, Debbonaire said the devolution plans would take priority. She explained:

Constitutional legislation takes time and it drains energy. We’ve got a lot to do to fix a country where nothing works from getting a passport to fixing potholes.

I do think the constitutional stuff which will need to happen early on is devolution because one of the ways we are going to deal with some of those problems is by devolving power to people who know what’s going on and have skin in the game …

To be honest I would prefer we got on with the concrete business of trying to repair the country first – but Keir is committed to constitutional reform, it’s very much his thing, he’s backed what Gordon has said, and that is what we will do. But whether that comes in the first year, the second year, I don’t know at the moment.

Debbonaire also said the “easiest” aspect of Lords reform would be removing the 92 hereditary peers remaining in the Commons. She said:

I think the easiest thing on which there is the most consensus among the public and probably even their lordships is that hereditary principle [there are still 92 hereditary peers] is unsustainable.

The 92 hereditaries were allowed to stay as part of a concession to peers offered by the last Labour government when it passed the House of Lords Act in 1999, which got rid of all other hereditary peers. In theory this was supposed to be a temporary arrangement that would only remain in place until full Lords reform was implemented. But further reform never happened.

In his clip for broadcasters, Rishi Sunak reaffirmed his determination to take “responsible” decisions on public sector pay, even if that disappointed staff. He said:

I think everyone can see the economic context that we’re in, with inflation higher than we’d like it, and it’s important that in that context the government makes the right and responsible decisions on things like public sector pay …

People need to recognise the economic context we’re in and I’m going to make the decisions that are the right ones for the country. That’s not always easy. People may not like that, but those are the right things for everybody, that we get a grip of inflation, and that means the government not excessively borrowing too much money and being responsible with public sector pay settlements. That’s what I’m going to do.

When it was put to Sunak that public sector pay was not pushing inflation up, he replied:

Government borrowing is something that will make inflation worse. So the government has to make priorities and decisions about where best to target our resources.