New analysis by IPPR reveals the true
costs of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda to be in the
billions.
As part of the Rwanda deal, the UK has
to pay up-front fixed costs of £370m, followed by a further £120m
once 300 people are relocated to Rwanda plus £20,000 for each
person relocated as part of the Economic Transformation and
Integration Fund (ETIF).
In addition to this, the UK must pay
up to £150,874 per person relocated, to cover the costs of asylum
processing and integration, as well as an extra £500 for
healthcare.
The precise costs will vary depending
on how many people relocated to Rwanda end up leaving the country
within five years. For each person who leaves, the UK is expected
to contribute an extra £10,000 to facilitate their departure but
otherwise stops their ongoing
payments.
There are already an estimated 20,000
people who have arrived irregularly in the UK since the Illegal
Migration Act was passed, and which, if the Act was implemented
in full, would need to be sent to a third country, like Rwanda.
IPPR estimates the total payments to Rwanda for removing this
cohort would range between £1.1bn and £3.9bn. It would cost
£1.1bn even if every asylum seeker left Rwanda straight away,
while it would cost £3.9bn if all stayed for at least five
years.
Moreover, the UK taxpayer has to pay
further operational fees, including staffing costs, legal costs
and escorting costs.
In total, the cost of sending one
asylum seeker to Rwanda could be as much as £228,000 – based on
an assumed quarterly departure rate from Rwanda of 0.5 per cent.
This compares to the cost of around £53,000 to house an asylum
seeker in UK accommodation for two years while their application
is being processed.
Even if the Rwanda scheme successfully
acts as a deterrent, it would require a large majority of asylum
seekers (up to 77 per cent) to be deterred for the cost of the
Rwanda scheme to just break even, a highly unlikely
outcome.
Marley Morris, IPPR associate
director for migration, trade and communities,
said:
“Aside from the ethical, legal and
practical objections, the Rwanda scheme is exceptionally poor
value for money. For it to break even, it will need to show a
strong deterrent effect, for which there is no compelling
evidence. Under the government’s plans, billions could be sent to
Rwanda to remove people who have already arrived irregularly
since the Illegal Migration Act was passed. The only winner from
this scheme appears to be the Rwandan government itself, which
has already secured hundreds of millions without doing much at
all.”
ENDS
NOTES TO
EDITORS
