In a letter issued over the weekend, Matthew Rycroft, the department’s permanent secretary, said that because there was no evidence available to justify the plan, he could not be sure it would provide value for money to the taxpayer. The letter’s publication coincided with Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who used his Easter sermon to say the principle behind the plan “can not stand the judgment of God.” Home Secretary Pretty Patel justified Rwanda’s proposal on the grounds that the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats hoping to seek asylum in the UK had risen sharply and that the prospect of being sent to Rwanda would act as a deterrent. , stopping the smuggling of people. He also argued that the cost of the program would be a “drop in the ocean” compared to the long-term costs that allow small canal crossings to continue to rise. But in his letter, Rycroft said he could not be sure that this argument was correct. He told Patel: “The value for money of a policy depends on its effectiveness as a deterrent. The proof of a deterrent effect is extremely uncertain and cannot be quantified with sufficient certainty to provide me with the necessary level of certainty about the value for money. “ Rycroft wrote to tell Patel that he would need to issue a ministerial directive for the policy to move forward. This is a rare procedure used when civil servants can not justify a policy for sound public spending reasons and decide to voice their concerns so that ministers have to make a formal, political decision to circumvent them. In his letter, Rycroft stressed that he did not say that politics would not act as a deterrent – simply that it was impossible to know either way. “I do not believe that sufficient evidence can be obtained to prove that the policy will have a deterrent effect that is significant enough to make the political value for money,” he said. “It does not mean that [the policy] it can not have the appropriate deterrent effect; it is simply that there is not enough evidence to conclude that it will happen. “ Over the weekend, the Home Office also released the text of Patel’s response to Rycroft, in which it confirmed that it was issuing a ministerial order. He said the asylum system already cost the government 1,5 1.5 billion a year and, while acknowledging that the deterrent effect of Rwanda’s policy could not be accurately modeled, “we are convinced that this policy is our best chance to produce this the result”. . He also said that it would be “unwise” to allow the absence of measurable and dynamic models; to delay the implementation of a policy that we believe will reduce illegal immigration, save lives and ultimately break the business model of smuggling gangs. Britain has promised to pay Rwanda an initial sum of 120 120 million to start the program. He will also pay an amount for each person who resettles in the country, although these details have not been disclosed. The Home Office is launching a 100 100,000 social media campaign that tells potential asylum seekers, in their own language, that the policy that could send them to Rwanda if they cross the Channel in a small boat is already in place. “Against the nature of God”: British archbishops criticize Rwanda asylum plan – video In his sermon on Sunday, Welby said there were “serious ethical questions” about the proposal. “The details are about politics and politicians. “The beginning must withstand the judgment of God and it cannot,” he said. “It can not bear the burden of our national responsibility as a country shaped by Christian values, because subcontracting our responsibilities, even to a country that seeks to do well like Rwanda, is contrary to the nature of God. , who took responsibility for our failures “. In response, Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen accused Welby of “a little naiveté”, telling Sky News that he did not believe the archbishop’s views were “in line with the country’s views”.
