Rwanda Policy Could Cost Britain up to £3.9 Billion, Says Think Tank

British Home Secretary James Cleverly arrives in Kigali, Rwanda, on Dec. 5, 2023. PA

The government’s policy of sending illegal immigrants who cross the English Channel to Rwanda could eventually cost up to £3.9 billion, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) think tank.

The IPPR—which was founded in 1988 by Clive Hollick and John Eatwell, who are both Labour peers—says it could cost as much as £228,000 per person sent to Rwanda.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has promised to push the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill through Parliament and have the first flights to the east African country taking off before the next general election.

Labour has promised to scrap the policy if it wins the election, which must take place before January 2025.

In analysis published on Monday called “Costing the Rwanda Plan,” the IPPR said it could cost between £1.1 billion and £3.9 billion to implement the policy in full.

‘Exceptionally Poor Value for Money’

The report’s author said the lower estimate depended on every asylum seeker leaving Rwanda as soon as they arrived, while the higher estimate relied on them staying there for at least five years.

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,” he added.

Mr. Morris said, “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,” he added.

As part of the Rwanda deal, the UK has to pay up-front fixed costs of £370 million, followed by a further £120 million once 300 people are relocated to Rwanda plus £20,000 for each person relocated as part of the Economic Transformation and Integration Fund.

The IPPR said the Rwanda policy would only “break even” if at least 77 percent of illegal immigrants were deterred from crossing the Channel.

Earlier this month Mr. Sunak insisted the Rwanda policy is a “worthwhile investment” after the National Audit Office (NAO) revealed the plan could cost almost £2 million for each of the first 300 illegal immigrants sent to the country.

The pilot gives a thumbs up on the steps of the Rwanda deportation flight EC-LZO Boeing 767 at Boscombe Down Air Base, England, on June 14, 2022. The Court of Appeal the day before rejected a legal bid to stop a Home Office flight taking asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda. Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

The NAO’s report said the Home Office would pay £370 million to the Rwandan government, even if no immigrants arrive in Kigali.

On top of that it will pay £20,000 for every immigrant and £120 million after the first 300 people are relocated.

Sunak Says Current Situation ‘Unsustainable’

Asked about the report, Mr. Sunak said: “The current situation is unsustainable and unfair. Taxpayers are already forking out millions of pounds a day to house illegal migrants in hotels across the country, that’s not right. That why I made stopping the boats one of my priorities.”

In January, Home Secretary James Cleverly admitted to MPs up to 33,085 illegal immigrants who were already in Britain but whose applications for asylum were “inadmissible” could conceivably be sent to Rwanda.

The Home Affairs Committee grilled Mr. Cleverly and two Home Office officials about the status of the 33,085 immigrants, who are on bail and living in hotels or in other temporary accommodation.

Conservative MP Tim Loughton said, “They have no legal status in this country under the terms of the Illegal Migration Act—other than those who have criminal records that require them to be detained in a secure facility—they are at large in the UK, and could turn out to be missing on a greater scale than Mr. [Simon] Ridley could account for in November.”

Mr. Cleverly replied: “I don’t agree with the word missing. I think that word implies something which doesn’t reflect the circumstances.”