UK

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailThe spiralling costs of Rishi Sunak’s controversial plans to house asylum seekers on RAF sites and in a “prison-like” barge have been laid bare in a damning report that found that the scheme will be significantly more expensive than paying for hotels – despite the sites housing far fewer migrants than planned.The Home Office initially said that developing the four sites – including the Bibby Stockholm barge, two RAF sites, and former student accommodation in Huddersfield – would save taxpayers £94m.But Whitehall’s official watchdog says the prime minister’s plan is expected to cost £46m more than the current system – which sees migrants put up in hotels while their claims are being processed – and £1.2bn overall over the next decade.The National Audit Office (NAO) said the Home Office will have spent at least £230m developing the four major projects by the end of March – despite just two of the sites being open and providing accommodation for only 900 people.The damning report, published on Wednesday, follows a warning last week from former home secretary Dame Priti Patel that the government’s asylum accommodation system is in need of reform and that there are “serious questions” to be asked of her former department.The Bibby Stockholm barge is one of the two sites that are able to house asylum seekers at presentThe review said the government had spent more money unnecessarily and increased risk by pushing the projects forward too quickly, adding that the Home Office had pursued the policy despite “repeated” assessments that it “could not be delivered as planned”.Labour said the NAO’s findings were “staggering”, accusing the prime minister of “taking the Tories’ chaos and failure in the asylum system to a new level”.Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper added: “On top of the £8m a day on hotel rooms, the government is now paying tens of millions of pounds in set-up costs for new sites in Wethersfield and Scampton, which are still not in use, and millions more for sites that will never be used.”Charities said the report exposed “bad policies being implemented badly at huge financial cost”, and claimed that the accommodation sites were creating additional “fear and trauma” for asylum seekers.NAO boss Gareth Davies said: “The pace at which the government pursued its plans led to increased risks, and it now expects large sites to cost more than using hotel accommodation.”According to the findings, the Home Office originally estimated that the set-up costs at the former RAF bases would be £5m each, but they increased to £49m for Wethersfield and £27m for Scampton.So far only Wethersfield – which has a capacity of 1,700 – and the Bibby Stockholm, which has space for around 500 men, are housing asylum seekers.But the two sites were housing just under half the number of migrants the Home Office expected them to accommodate at the end of January, with 576 living at Wethersfield and 321 on the Bibby Stockholm at that point.An aerial view of the asylum accommodation centre at MDP Wethersfield in Essex, a 335-hectare airfield owned by the Ministry of Defence, where the Home Office has begun to house adult male migrantsThe government is currently facing legal action over the conditions at Wethersfield, which has been condemned as a de facto detention centre and not suitable for long-term accommodation. The Independent has previously revealed that nearly 100 asylum seekers, including suspected victims of torture and human trafficking, were moved out of the RAF base after the Home Office admitted the accommodation was unsuitable for them. According to the NAO report, the Home Office is “now considering reducing the maximum number of people it accommodates” at Wethersfield, but has not confirmed the new number.The department expects Scampton to start housing asylum seekers from April, with Huddersfield following in May, it added.The NAO also found that:The Home Office rated its own performance as “red” as it recognised the challenges of the work, repeatedly revising accommodation targets “downwards”The department “prioritised awarding contracts quickly, and modifying existing contracts over fully competitive tenders”, with “overly ambitious accommodation timetables” leading to “increased procurement risks”Emergency planning rules were used so that sites could be found, and so that work could begin quickly before speaking to affected communities about the plans, in order to “reduce the risk of local opposition affecting negotiations”. In January, the Home Office was “still working with providers to develop specific measures assessing residents’ safety at large sites”The Home Office is “resetting” its programme and developing a “longer-term accommodation strategy”, which will see it reduce the number of spaces it intends to provide at such sites amid proposals to “identify smaller sites accommodating between 200-700 people”There are “uncertainties” about how the Illegal Migration Act is being implemented, making it harder for the Home Office to assess what asylum accommodation it needs. The report said the law changes will make it “more difficult to assess how much and what type of accommodation the Home Office will need” as it does not know how effective the deterrent will be or how it will affect the amount and type of accommodation requiredThe costs for Wethersfield, the Bibby Stockholm and Scampton are £777.2m for 2023-2027. Costs for a new site at Huddersfield are £358.4m for the period until 2033 – taking the total costs in the next decade up to £1.2bn. On Monday, it emerged that Home Office minister Tom Pursglove had confirmed in a letter to Gainsborough Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh that the “regular occupancy” at RAF Scampton would be a maximum of 800 asylum seekers instead of the original 2,000 men destined for the site, which has been beset by legal challenges.Ms Cooper said: “This report is staggering. The British taxpayer is already paying out eye-watering sums on asylum hotels, and now it turns out the sites they promised would save money are costing the taxpayer even more. Rishi Sunak has taken the Tories’ chaos and failure in the asylum system to a new level.”Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper says Rishi Sunak’s plan has ‘failed on every level’ Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon said: “There would be no need to spend exorbitant sums of money on housing people in barges, military bases or hotels if cases were dealt with in a timely manner.”A Home Office spokesperson said that the use of asylum hotels is “unacceptable”, adding that the department had acted to “reduce the impact on local communities by moving asylum seekers onto barges and former military sites”. They added: “The cost of hotels will fall – and we are now closing dozens of asylum hotels every month to return them to communities … While the NAO’s figures include set-up costs, it is currently better value for money for the taxpayer to continue with these sites than to use hotels.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailMore than one in ten teachers believe grades need to be reformulated to take into account the assumed use of artificial intelligence , a survey has found.Nearly two in three (63%) teachers think artificial intelligence (AI) is “too unreliable and not well-equipped” to assess pupils’ work or to help with lesson planning, according to a poll.The rise of generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini, has sparked concerns about cheating among pupils in the education sector.The poll, of 1,012 UK teachers, suggests that 13% think a new grading system for exams should be formulated which “assumes the use of AI”.AI is probably going to force more change than previous tools because teachers will quickly realise the futility of setting certain tasksDavid Weller, University of ExeterDavid Weller, learning & development manager (digital skills) at the University of Exeter, said: “AI is probably going to force more change than previous tools because teachers will quickly realise the futility of setting certain tasks.The survey, carried out by YouGov online in November, asked teachers how the Department for Education (DfE) could incorporate AI into the curriculum.More than half (54%) said students should be taught the ethical implications of AI, while 38% said pupils should be given a foundational understanding of how AI works through coding and computer science lessons.Only 19% said they did not think AI should not be incorporated into the curriculum by the DfE.The survey, commissioned by international examination board Trinity College London, suggests that 29% of teachers think schools should ban students from using AI in the classroom.Notably, the research indicates that a quarter of teachers are already incorporating AI into their instruction, signalling a readiness for change, provided these tools meet their exacting standardsErez Tocker, Trinity College LondonErez Tocker, chief executive of Trinity College London, said teachers’ scepticism towards AI tools “underscores not a rejection but a call for precision and reliability.”He added: “Notably, the research indicates that a quarter of teachers are already incorporating AI into their instruction, signalling a readiness for change, provided these tools meet their exacting standards.”David Weller, learning and development manager (digital skills) at the University of Exeter, said: “AI is probably going to force more change than previous tools because teachers will quickly realise the futility of setting certain tasks.“Much as the calculator made setting homework for simple arithmetic redundant, so teachers will have to come up with more interesting ways to set homework that doesn’t rely on lower order skills such as memorisation and regurgitating facts.”A DfE spokesperson said: “Artificial intelligence has the power to transform education. However, for that potential to be realised, we need to understand both its opportunities and risks, which is why we have launched an extensive exploratory research on the uses of AI in education to develop policy on this emerging technology.“The DfE’s first-ever hackathon on AI in education, and an investment of up to £2 million in Oak National Academy, are helping us to develop tools which aim to save teachers’ time so they can focus on what they do best – teaching and supporting their pupils.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailA former police chief has said he did not report his wife’s stolen credit card, because the thief spent less than she did.With a deadpan delivery, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate left the chamber unsure whether he was joking or not as he recalled the incident in the House of Lords.The non-affiliated peer said: “My wife, on one of her rare visits to London, had her credit card stolen.“And I monitored the use of the card and I have to say I didn’t report it to the police, because the thief was spending less than she was.”Peers across the House erupted into laughter at his comment.Treasury minister Baroness Vere of Norbiton responded: “I think, in these circumstances, one should always report these matters to the police.”Lord Mackenzie is a former chief superintendent in Durham and was also the president of the Police Superintendents Association for three years. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailWatch live as Jeremy Hunt answers questions on the economy from MPs in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 March.It comes after the chancellor announced the spring Budget on 6 March, which included a national insurance cut, fuel and alcohol duty freezes, the abolishment of the non-dom tax status, and guaranteed pay rates to childcare providers for the next two years, among other measures.Mr Hunt attempted to rally support for his languishing party – which has dropped to a 45-year low – with the £10bn cut to national insurance, but the Budget watchdog warned the average worker will still be hundreds of pounds worse off overall.By repeating his previous cut to the tax in his autumn statement, the chancellor said the two reductions would together save workers an average of £900 a year.Mr Hunt has claimed the cuts taken together would lead an extra 200,000 people to join the workforce.However, a report from the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) calculated the typical worker on a £35,000 salary will be £383 worse off over this year and the next due to stealth tax rises.At 3pm, Mr Hunt will appear at the Economic Affairs Committee for an annual scrutiny session. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailRishi Sunak is facing a fresh headache when the Rwanda deportation bill returns to the House of Lords, with peers set to impose a fresh defeat on the prime minister.The Safety of Rwanda bill will return to the upper chamber on Wednesday, with peers expected to seek to amend the legislation yet again.It comes after the PM avoided a rebellion over his flagship plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda on Monday, with MPs overturning all attempts by the House of Lords to change his deportation legislation.It meant Mr Sunak maintained his hope of flights to Kigali taking off this spring, but further delays by peers could still frustrate the PM’s plans.The Prime Minister said he was still committed to the timeline (Yui Mok/PA)The government saw off 10 amendments from peers to the Safety of Rwanda bill, after a minister had accused the Lords of trying to “wreck” the legislation.But the parliamentary showdown over the flagship Bill will continue on Wednesday, when peers will again seek to press for changes in a process known as “ping-pong”.Labour is poised to back around five amendments to the bill, which if passed could see passage of the legislation delayed for weeks.Former Labour lord chancellor Charlie Falconer said it is time to “rally all our troops” to defeat the Rwanda Bill and to try to hold out “for as long as possible.”The Labour peer said Tories who rarely appear in the upper chamber would be “bussed in” to back the government.But Lord Falconer told Times Radio: “”I think we’ve got to rally all our troops tomorrow to try to defeat it. I suspect we may well defeat many of these pronged back amendments from the Commons tomorrow.”A win for us is holding out for as long as possible. Holding on to the next election may not be achievable, but what may be achievable is that it takes so long that the government can’t get any of its flights to Rwanda.”The latest Lords amendments, aimed at adding additional safeguards for asylum seekers to the PM’s hardline legislation, will be published on Tuesday before being voted on on Wednesday.If further amendments are passed in the upper chamber it could delay the next round of ping pong until mid-April, when parliament returns from Easter recess.Stephen Kinnock said amendments to the Rwanda bill made it ‘marginally less absurd’ The prime minister said on Monday that “everyone is trying to block” the Rwanda bill from being enacted.Mr Sunak said: “I am still committed to the timeline that I set out previously, which is that we aim to get a flight off in the spring.“It’s important that we get the Rwanda scheme up and running because we need to have a deterrent.“We need to make it clear that if you come here illegally, you won’t be able to stay and we will be able to remove you. That is the only way to properly solve the issue of illegal migration.”One of the amendments previously backed by peers but overturned by MPs would have prevented Afghan heroes who supported British troops from being deported to Rwanda.Other amendments overturned included an attempt by peers to ensure the bill complied with domestic and international law, and a requirement that parliament could not declare Rwanda a safe country until the treaty with its promised safeguards was fully implemented.Labour’s shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock said the changes put forward made the bill “marginally less absurd”.The plan, which aims to send asylum seekers on a one way flight to Rwanda, was dealt a blow when it was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court last November. The Safety of Rwanda bill seeks to rule it a “safe” country in British law, blocking asylum seekers from being aple to appeal deportations. It will cost taxpayers more than £500m, according to a report by the National Audit Office, which found that the cost per individual asylum seeker deported could be £1.92m. Labour has described the plan as a “national scandal”. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailRishi Sunak has rejected a plan to stop Afghan heroes who supported British troops from being deported to Rwanda.MPs on Monday night overturned all 10 amendments to the Safety of Rwanda Bill by the House of Lords, including one that would have exempted anyone who supported British armed forces in an “exposed or meaningful manner” from being deported to the east African country.Some 312 MPs voted against the Lords amendment, with 255 voting in favour, giving the government a majority of 57.The other amendments overturned included an attempt by peers to ensure the bill complied with domestic and international law, and a requirement that parliament could not declare Rwanda a safe country until the treaty with its promised safeguards was fully implemented.Ahead of the votes, the prime minister was told it was a “moral imperative” that Afghan heroes who supported British troops should not be deported to Rwanda.Shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock said it “beggars belief” that the PM was considering putting Afghan heroes on deportation flights.Stephen Kinnock said it is a ‘moral imperative’ for the government to ensure Afghan heroes are not put on Rwanda deportation flights “We owe a debt of gratitude to those who have supported our defence, diplomacy and development abroad, not least in Afghanistan,” Mr Kinnock said.The call to help those who supported UK forces came after a series of reports by The Independent that highlighted the plight of Afghan heroes facing deportation to Rwanda after feeling forced to take dangerous routes to the UK.Earlier on Monday, MPs debated the 10 amendments peers attached to Mr Sunak’s flagship immigration policy, which was designed to allow ministers to deport those who arrive in the UK via irregular routes, such as on small boats, to Rwanda.After an earlier bid to deport asylum seekers to Kigali was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, Mr Sunak sought to rule Rwanda a safe country in British law and the vote passed.The bill will now go back to the House of Lords as the two houses try to find common ground on the way forward.The Independent has reported on the plight of Aghan heroes threatened with deportation to RwandaPeers will then be able to pass fresh amendments, but the government will again try to strip them out in a process known as ping pong.Mr Kinnock said on Monday: “It beggars belief that the government would even consider sending this cohort of heroes who are fleeing the Taliban to Rwanda.“Britain’s commitment towards these loyal-to-Britain Afghans is felt most strongly by our own armed forces.“But this government has continually shirked its responsibilities towards Afghans, including by leaving thousands of those with the right to be in the UK stranded in Pakistan for more than a year.“Little wonder that they have resorted to making these desperate journeys across the channel.”During the debate, Conservative former minister Sir John Hayes questioned whether peers were “clueless or careless” about what is happening with immigration.“Any attempts to wreck this bill is an open-door policy to let human traffickers traffic people illegally into our country, to upset our local communities and ultimately, unfortunately, more people will die if this bill doesn’t go through because of the loss of life in the Channel,” he told the Commons. Prior to the votes, Labour said it planned to back all 10 Lords amendments in the Commons, claiming they made the bill “marginally less absurd”.Home office minister Michael Tomlinson defended the government’s plans Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson earlier said the government “greatly values” those who supported Britain’s armed forces overseas. “That is why there are legal routes for them to come to the United Kingdom,” he added.Mr Tomlinson said the illegal migration act passed by parliament last year lets the home secretary specify some people as not eligible for removal. He added: “The government recognises the commitment and the responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who showed courage by serving alongside us and we will not let them down.”He also insisted there was nothing in the Rwanda bill which conflicted with the UK government’s international obligations.Mr Tomlinson told the Commons: “This bill is an essential element of our wider strategy to protect our borders and stop the boats to prevent the tragic loss of lives at sea caused by dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings across the Channel.”On amendment one, which sought to ensure the bill complies with domestic and international law, Mr Tomlinson said: “I don’t accept that the provisions of the bill undermine the rule of law, and the government takes its responsibilities and its international obligations incredibly seriously.“And there’s nothing in the bill that requires any act or omission which conflicts with our international obligations.”He added: “This bill is based on both Rwanda’s and the United Kingdom’s compliance with international law in the form of a treaty, which itself recognises and reflects the international legal obligations of both the United Kingdom and also of Rwanda.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailWatch as MPs vote on changes made in the House of Lords to the government’s Rwanda bill on Monday 18 March. Rishi Sunak said he still hopes to get a flight carrying asylum seekers to Rwanda off the ground this spring as he braced for a parliamentary showdown over the scheme.MPs are expected to reject changes made by the Lords to the Rwanda legislation, setting up a battle with peers which could delay the Bill’s passage until after Easter.Downing Street said the government believed it had “the right Bill” and “it remains our plan to get it through as quickly as possible”.When the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill was in the Lords, peers rewrote it with a total of 10 changes which watered down the legislation.With a Tory majority in the House of Commons, the government will seek to reverse the defeats from the Lords, sending the Bill back to the upper chamber on Wednesday – a process known as ping-pong. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailA Labour MP has apologised for an “outburst” after he was heard swearing in the Commons chamber.Clive Lewis could be heard loudly saying “s***” before he walked out of the room, as MPs voted on the Government’s Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.But the Norwich South MP later said it happened after he received a message which “caused me some consternation and surprise” and was not directed at any particular individual.Deputy Speaker Sir Roger Gale had told the chamber: “I’m informed that a Member swore at one of the doorkeepers this evening who on my instructions lock the doors.“If that person is identified the consequences will be very severe.”MPs have a time limit to vote during a division and doorkeepers are instructed to lock the doors to the voting lobby once this elapses.But Mr Lewis later made a point of order to say: “I’d like to put on record if I could my apologies to the chamber, to members and members of staff, for an earlier outburst I had.“If I could very quickly explain, I received a message which caused me some consternation and surprise to which I made an outburst in general at no-one specifically.“If I could do it again I’d probably have said something like ‘my giddy aunt’, rather what did come out of my mouth, and for that I apologise.“But just to clear the air and put on record the fact that it was directed at no-one in particular.”Sir Roger replied: “I appreciate the honourable gentleman’s candour in identifying himself and the fullness of the nature of his apology, which is accepted.” More