My Lords, perhaps the Minister can help us here. Is not it the case that, without removal agreements, the Bill is likely to make the current situation worse in terms of costs to the Exchequer? As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said, if people are not able to work, and they are not allowed the right to remain but cannot be removed, they will have to be looked after by the state. The difficulty that the Minister has is that, without an impact assessment, there are all sorts of organisations that are filling that vacuum. The vacuum was filled at the weekend—and the estimated additional costs of this Bill were £3 billion to £6 billion in additional accommodation needed to detain those people who could not be removed.
3.45 pm
Can the Minister explain how international agreements to resolve the global migration issue are likely to be entered into when other countries see the UK appearing to adopt a policy of preventing all but a handful of asylum seekers claiming refugee status in the United
Kingdom? I accept that the Government are hoping that the Bill will act as a deterrent. I wonder whether the Minister has seen the Times today and the article titled:
“Rishi Sunak’s migration plan ‘based on demented assumptions’”.
According to the Times, Home Office research last year concluded that there was “no evidence” that hostile policies changed the behaviour of migrants. Can the Minister confirm or deny that they are accurate quotes from Home Office research?