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.
Hello world!
Pic of the week: Sunset at margate beach
The first day’s journey was through the pink fields
The first day’s journey was through the pink fields
The first day’s journey was through the pink fields