40,000 migrants living in limbo in the UK, Home Office says

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

About 40,000 migrants living in limbo in the UK are inadmissible to the asylum system, Home Office officials said, without putting a number on how many could eventually be sent to Rwanda.

The comments came as MPs voted to overturn amendments made by the House of Lords to the government’s flagship legislation aimed at sending asylum seekers to the central African country.

Speaking to MPs on the House of Commons public accounts committee on Monday, the Home Office officials confirmed that any migrant who had entered the UK after March 7 last year would be barred from claiming asylum and be potentially liable for removal.

The officials said the 40,000 migrants include some 33,000 people who had arrived in the UK without prior permission by the end of 2023, and a further 6,200 who had come this year.

“They are pending relocation,” said Simon Ridley, the second permanent secretary at the Home Office, adding that, as long as they remained in the UK and potentially destitute, they would be supported with accommodation and subsistence.

Ridley’s comments appeared to confirm the fears of experts and charities who warned that the government’s illegal migration act — passed last July and backdated to March — would place tens of thousands of people in a state of uncertainty, supported by the state but with no means of rebuilding their lives.

That act bars anyone who enters the UK without prior permission from claiming asylum.

It also made it a legal obligation for the home secretary to detain and remove them either to their countries of origin, if safe to do so under international law, or to a safe third country.

The government’s Rwanda asylum bill is another part of the government’s overhaul of the immigration system, which Rishi Sunak hopes will deter migrants from coming to the UK in small boats over the Channel.

MPs voted on Monday to strip the bill of seven amendments introduced by peers — including those which sought to ensure “due regard” for international and domestic law.

The voting marked what is expected to be one of the final phases of parliamentary “ping pong”, with the bill shuttling between the House of Commons and the Lords.

The bill will return to the Lords on Tuesday, where peers are once again due to reject the government’s changes. However, the ping pong is likely to come to an end on Wednesday, with peers expected to defer to the will of the Commons.

The legislation was introduced by the government after the Supreme Court ruled last year that the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful.

Sunak is hoping that the bill’s completion of its parliamentary stages this week could enable the first UK flights carrying migrants to Rwanda to take off within weeks.

However, the government faces further logistical and legal challenges, and it is unclear whether more than a few hundred asylum seekers will initially be sent to Kigali.

Sir Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary at the Home Office, who also gave evidence to the public accounts committee, did not put a figure on how many people might be sent to Kigali this year.

He said the numbers had “no cap” and “the cohorts on the first flight” would include some of those who had arrived by irregular means since last year.  

Rycroft said it would only be possible to assess whether the scheme offered value for money once it had become operational.

As part of its agreement with Rwanda, the UK has already spent £220mn on development aid for the African country.

Officials confirmed the UK government could expect to spend upwards of £541mn over five years on the plan even if only 300 asylum seekers were sent.

Labour MP Dame Diana Johnson pointed out that Home Office estimates for redeveloping two former RAF stations to house asylum seekers — Wethersfield in Essex and Scampton in Lincolnshire — had leapt from £5mn each to £49mn and £27mn, respectively.

“We did get the figures so, so wrong,” said Rycroft. “We were operating at pace. There was a national emergency. There was a sense we should be doing on this issue what our colleagues on Covid had done in terms of pace of procurement.”