THE CONTROVERSIAL immigration plans being drawn up by the UK Government could cost nearly £3bn a year, according to a new analysis.
The Nationality and Borders Bill, which could see asylum seekers and refugees criminalised for trying to seek refuge in the UK, will cost the taxpayer around £2.7bn a year – double what the current system costs.
A report by Together With Refugees, a coalition whose members include the British Red Cross and the Refugee Council, states that the additional spending will be needed to pay for five new elements of the asylum system, as contained within the Bill.
The Home Office has branded the findings ‘pure speculation’.
The new legislation has generated controversy for a number of reasons, including the proposal to send asylum seekers to offshore ‘processing centres’ while their applications to stay in the UK are assessed.
People could also be criminalised for travelling to the UK if they do not do so by one of the Home Office’s predetermined resettlement routes, in a bid to deter people from making dangerous Channel crossings in small boats.
In December, the High Court ruled that the UK Government was wrong to claim that other routes were illegal, while the UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, said the measures were not compatible with the UN Refugee convention.
Despite this, Priti Patel is still intent on implementing the legislation.
The analysis published today has estimated the cost of the Bill based on similar polices elsewhere. It states that it would cost around £717.6m a year to set up and run large accommodation centres; £1.44bn a year to run offshore processing centres and £432m a year to imprison people who travel to the UK via other routes that are not predetermined.
It also estimates it would cost a further £117.4m a year to remove people seeking asylum, and £1.5m on administration and checks for people who are granted temporary asylum and who would be subject to checks every two and a half years.
Sabir Zazai, CEO of the Scottish Refigee Council and a refugee himself, said the amount of money needed for the “cruel and unworkable” Bill was “astonishing”.
He said: “Having fled their homes in fear and struggled to find safety, these measures would leave women, children and men facing further hardship in prison, isolated in another country indefinitely, separated from family and facing insecurity and indecision.
“My life was in danger from the Taliban when I fled Afghanistan to make a long and frightening journey to safety, eventually arriving in the UK in the back of a lorry.
“This Bill would make me a criminal and put me at risk of significant further hardship.
"MPs of all parties must be ready to stand up to challenge the Bill with all their might when it returns to the House of Commons in the coming weeks.”
Stuart McDonald, SNP MP and member of the Home Affairs select committee, said the research “shows, in stark terms, what many MPs have long feared about the huge cost to the taxpayer of implementing the extreme proposals in the Nationality and Borders Bill - on top of its terrible human costs for those feeling war and persecution.”
A Home Office spokesman said: “While lives are being lost in the Channel, we will look at all options available to us.
“Our broken asylum system costs the taxpayer an unacceptable £4.7m a day on hotels, which is why urgent reform is needed,” they added.
“Our New Plan for Immigration will fix the broken asylum system so that we spend less time and money on those abusing the system, enabling us to focus on helping those in genuine need.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel