Critics question the logic of housing asylum seekers in a small village after previous policies rejected similar rural locations

Priti Patel has faced accusations of “double standards” regarding her department’s plans to establish an asylum reception centre in Linton-on-Ouse, a small rural village in Yorkshire. The plan has reignited concerns over inconsistencies in her handling of asylum accommodation policies.

The Home Secretary recently revealed plans to repurpose a former RAF site in Linton-on-Ouse to house up to 1,500 asylum seekers. However, critics have highlighted that this contradicts Patel’s own guidance from 2020, when asylum seekers were removed from a hotel in her constituency due to concerns that it was too rural and lacked adequate services.

Kevin Hollinrake, Conservative MP for the area, has expressed strong opposition to the plans, emphasising the lack of public services in the village. “Linton has a population of just 1,200 and is 10 miles from the nearest town. It has very limited access to GP and health services,” Hollinrake wrote to Patel. “This is not an appropriate place to house asylum seekers.”

Charities and local officials have also raised concerns about the decision. Linton-on-Ouse Parish Council has criticised the lack of prior consultation with residents and local leaders. Council Chair Marc Goddard stated that residents were “disappointed and concerned” about the centre’s potential impact and questioned whether the government had properly assessed the site’s suitability.

Maddie Harris of Humans for Rights Network accused Patel of hypocrisy, noting that the decision directly contradicts her previous statement that asylum seekers should be placed in major urban centres. Harris also drew comparisons to the controversial Napier Barracks in Folkestone, where asylum seekers have reportedly endured poor living conditions, lack of mental health support, and chronic overcrowding.

Similarly, Sophie McCann from Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) UK and Jon Featonby of the British Red Cross highlighted that military barracks are wholly inappropriate for accommodating vulnerable individuals fleeing violence and persecution.

Despite the mounting criticism, a Home Office spokesperson maintained that the centre would prioritise screening for asylum seekers and engage with the local community to ensure its operation is safe and secure. Nevertheless, concerns persist about whether large, militarised sites will replicate the issues seen at Napier Barracks.

The controversy underscores the ongoing debate about the UK’s approach to asylum accommodation and the balance between operational policies and ethical responsibility.

The Prime Minister stands firm amid accusations from Sir Keir Starmer during heated Commons debate

Boris Johnson has dismissed demands to apologise for his remarks about the Archbishop of Canterbury and the BBC during a tense Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday.

Reports from The Telegraph suggest that during a meeting with Conservative MPs on Tuesday night, Johnson allegedly criticised both the BBC and Justin Welby, claiming they were “less vociferous” about the war in Ukraine compared to their opposition to the UK’s immigration agreement with Rwanda. This sparked a sharp response from Sir Keir Starmer, who accused the Prime Minister of “attacking the institutions that underpin our great country.”

Starmer pressed further, accusing Johnson of “slandering decent people” privately while failing to confront the same accusations publicly. “Would the Prime Minister like to take this opportunity to apologise for slandering the Archbishop and the Church of England?” he asked. Johnson, however, did not issue an apology, instead defending his government’s efforts to combat human trafficking across the English Channel and noting that the idea of resettling asylum seekers in Rwanda dates back to David Blunkett’s proposal in 2004.

The plan has drawn criticism from Archbishop Welby, who has described it as “opposite to the nature of God.” Questions around its legality also persist, with Priti Patel having to override opposition from Home Office civil servants through a ministerial directive. Lambeth Palace has reinforced that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have strongly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and will continue to oppose the Rwanda plan on moral and ethical grounds.

When questioned about whether he had criticised BBC coverage of the Ukraine war during his closed-door meeting with Tory MPs, Johnson vehemently denied the claim. “I said nothing of the kind,” he told Starmer, asserting his admiration for the work of journalists, especially those reporting on Ukraine. “They do an outstanding job,” he added. “I think he must be out of his tiny mind to suggest otherwise. There are people behind me who will confirm that.”

Senior Tories voice opposition to costly policy as Patel presses forward with controversial scheme

A senior Home Office civil servant has voiced objections to the government’s highly controversial plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing, prompting Priti Patel to issue a “ministerial direction” to push the proposal forward despite the concerns.

The £20,000–£30,000 per person scheme, unveiled by Boris Johnson and Patel, has sparked outrage from charities and criticism from several MPs, including former cabinet ministers David Davis and Andrew Mitchell. While some Conservative backbenchers have expressed support, Mitchell described the plan as “immoral,” “impractical,” and “astronomically costly.”

The Independent has learned that Patel instructed the Home Office to proceed with the policy despite objections raised by the department’s permanent secretary. Under the rules set by the Institute for Government (IfG), civil servants must seek a ministerial direction when they believe a proposal violates legal or financial guidelines.

The Home Office has defended the policy, arguing that the UK asylum system is costing taxpayers over £1.5 billion annually, the highest amount in two decades. A source within the department highlighted that the government currently spends £4.7 million per day on housing asylum seekers in hotels and that the Rwanda plan could help reduce these costs in the long term.

However, the proposal has faced intense scrutiny. Davis, a senior Tory MP, voiced concerns over its feasibility, pointing out potential legal issues, such as the risk of asylum seekers contracting diseases like malaria in Rwanda. He warned that the plan might “unravel quickly” and questioned whether the government had fully thought through the practical implications.

Mitchell, also a former cabinet minister, labelled the plan “impractical” and “incredibly expensive.” He remarked that it might be cheaper to house asylum seekers in the Ritz Hotel in London rather than send them to Rwanda. Mitchell further criticised the plan for lacking widespread support, with churches and civil society groups condemning it.

The United Nations’ high commissioner for refugees, Filippo Grandi, also condemned the UK’s decision, claiming it would undermine the global practice of asylum and shift the UK’s responsibilities to Rwanda.

In response, immigration minister Tom Pursglove defended the proposal, emphasising that the goal is to provide migrants with the opportunity for a prosperous life in Rwanda while disrupting the human trafficking networks. He acknowledged the initial costs of setting up the scheme but argued that it would ultimately save money by reducing reliance on costly hotel accommodation.

Pursglove explained that the government’s £120 million initial payment to Rwanda would mirror current expenditure, but long-term savings would result from a more controlled and sustainable system. “We are spending £5 million per day on housing people in hotels. This is not sustainable, and we need to get it under control,” he said.