The interior minister said Denmark could be among those replicating the British government’s “plan” after signing an agreement to transport asylum seekers believed to have arrived illegally in Britain 6,000 miles away in East Africa. Her comments came after ITV News revealed exclusively that Ms Patel had to sign the new proposal because the senior civil servant in her department was not convinced the policy would be effective enough to provide value for money. The policy could only proceed in a “ministerial direction” – which is used when the permanent secretary (in this case Matthew Rycroft) has specific concerns, which means asking the minister to sign the spending proposal. In this case, there was not enough evidence to prove the main purpose of the policy – that sending asylum seekers to Rwanda would prevent others from trying to make dangerous boat crossings, says Anushka Asthana, deputy political editor at ITV News.
The Interior Ministry initially declined to comment on the exclusive ITV News show, but on Friday confirmed that a ministerial directive had been used. A source told ITV News: “The asylum system costs the taxpayer more than 1,5 1.5 billion a year – the highest amount in two decades, and we spend ,7 4.7 million on hotels a day among those who have arrived illegally and through resettlement programs. “Home office workers are clear that preventing illegal entry will create significant savings. However, such a deterrent effect cannot be quantified with certainty. “They argued that it would be wrong to let the lack of accurate modeling delay a policy aimed at reducing illegal immigration, saving lives and overthrowing the smuggling gang business model.” Ministerial instructions are rare and this was only the second development of power in the Ministry of Interior in the last 30 years. Listen to the ITV News podcast What You Need To Know for analysis of the biggest news Understandably, in a letter to Patel asking for direction, Mr Rycroft said he was pleased the policy had continued and that deterring people would bring potential savings – but that the details of the deterrence were uncertain. ITV News revealed on Thursday that there are tensions between Interior Ministry officials, with fears of resignations. A source described the atmosphere as “terrible” and said some people felt “desperate” about politics. The revelation comes as the UN refugee agency has warned that the Rwanda Pact violates international law. As part of a plan to restrict migrants crossing the Channel in small boats, those believed to have entered Britain illegally through January 1 could be sent to Rwanda where they will be allowed to apply for asylum in the African country. Defending the plan, Justice and Immigration Minister Tom Persglov said there was a “moral imperative” to defeat the “tough” business model of human traffickers who make money from immigrants who want to cross the English Channel. Priti Patel and Rwandan Foreign Minister Vincent Biruta sign a partnership on immigration and economic development. Credit: PA He also argued that the scheme would save taxpayers money “in the long run”, although he acknowledged that the short-term cost would be equivalent to what the UK pays to accommodate and process asylum seekers at home – around 5 5m a day . Ms Patel agreed on a 120 120m financial deal while in Kigali on Thursday and is expected to pay for each evacuation, with reports stating that every immigrant sent to Rwanda is expected to bring in 20 20,000 to .000 30,000 to British taxpayers. Speaking to reporters, he said the plan was likely to be imitated by others, including countries in Europe. “There is no doubt now that the model we have presented, I am convinced it is world class and world first, and will be used as a design in the future, there is no doubt about that,” said Patel. “I will not be surprised if other countries start coming directly to us after that as well.” The interior minister said Copenhagen was also in talks with Rwanda, adding that the Council of Europe “has also basically stated that it is interested in working with us”. The Rwandan agreement has received international criticism, with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) saying it “strongly condemns” the approach taken by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Patel. Gillian Triggs, Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, called it a “grave violation of international and refugee law” and called it “unacceptable.” Speaking to the BBC, the Australian also questioned whether it would act as a long-term deterrent, given Israel’s attempt to do something similar in Rwanda with Eritrean and Sudanese refugees who saw refugees “leaving the country and starting the process from the begining”. The Interior Ministry denied that his approach was a violation of the refugee agreements. A spokesman said: “Under this agreement, Rwanda will process its claims under the UN Refugee Convention, national and international human rights law, and ensure that they are protected from inhuman and degrading treatment or return. in the place from which they originally escaped. “There is nothing in the UN Refugee Convention that prevents them from being evacuated to a safe country.”