Buying votes

Tweet

 

Given what the government’s own economic impact assessment says about the plans to deport some asylum-seekers to Rwanda, it’s not really surprising that they should have tried to avoid, or delay, releasing the information. It was eventually made public after members of the House of Lords threatened to delay the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill unless they were given clear information about the impact of the bill’s provisions. The assessment contains a large number of assumptions and estimates, much of which appear to be little more than partially-informed guesswork, but the bottom line is that the economic impact of the proposals depends entirely on the extent to which they act as a deterrent and reduce the number of crossings. Initially, at least, deporting immigrants to Rwanda will cost more than processing them in the UK. On the specific issue of deterrence, the report itself notes that “The academic consensus is that there is little to no evidence suggesting changes in a destination country’s policies have an impact on deterring people from leaving their countries of origin or travelling without valid permission…” before going on to explain why the reasons adduced by academic research for that conclusion ‘may’ be wrong and then quoting examples from other countries which purport to demonstrate the truth of that which the academic consensus rejects. The extent to which those examples are valid comparisons is open to debate, to put it mildly. To call the conclusions dodgy in mathematical terms would be an understatement.

The main argument used by the government to plough ahead with the scheme regardless is that, as Braverman put it, “Our impact assessment shows that doing nothing is not an option”. Actually, I can’t find anything in the report that does say that in such specific terms, but it’s hardly news that she has read what she wants to in the document. What the document does say, very loudly and clearly, is that only two options have even been considered: the status quo and the new bill. Whilst saying that opponents are offering no alternative, they are glossing over the fact that neither are the government. They know that whether the policy acts as a deterrent or not is open to question to say the least, and that it will cost more than current policies unless and until that deterrent effect cuts in, but they have decided to implement it anyway.

Chris Mason, of the BBC, paraphrases one possible reason for that – “they think it's worth a try”. As a basis for an essentially cruel and inhumane policy, many will consider it rather less than adequate. But I wonder how serious they are about ‘stopping the boats’ anyway – if the policy wins them votes, it will have achieved its real aim. It isn’t only the people-smugglers who are using desperate people as pawns for their own benefit.