Ex-Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg says sending asylum seekers to Ascension Island would cost £1m EACH

• Ex-business secretary says costs ‘went up and up’ when plans last considered

Plans to send asylum seekers to Ascension Island were previously dismissed because it was estimated to cost £1million per person sent there, according to an ex-Cabinet minister.

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg revealed proposals to send migrants to the remote volcanic island in the south Atlantic were ‘thought to be impossibly expensive’ when he was in government.

The ex-business secretary and former leader of the House of Commons, who served in both Boris Johnson’s and Liz Truss’s administrations, said costs ‘just went up and up and up and up’ when he was involved in past discussions.

It comes after a Home Office minister yesterday confirmed a scheme to send asylum seekers to Ascension Island could be reconsidered as part of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s pledge to ‘stop the boats’.

The revival of the plans has sparked tensions in Whitehall, with the Ministry of Defence reportedly pushing back amid claims the RAF – which jointly operates the only airport on Ascension with the US Space Force – would want ‘nothing to do with it’.

In plans first revealed in 2020, ex-home secretary Dame Priti Patel reportedly ordered officials to explore plans for building an asylum processing centre on the Ascension, which is more than 4,000 miles from the UK.

The British Overseas Territory, which is used as a staging post to supply and defend the Falkland Islands, has an RAF base and a population of fewer than 1,000.

Moving asylum seekers there and keeping them supplied was said to represent a considerable logistical challenge, with the idea apparently dropped.

Speaking to GB News, Sir Jacob said: ‘I was involved in some of the discussions looking at this whilst I was a member of the government and unfortunately it would cost at least a million pounds per person you sent there to do it.

‘You’ve got to send out Portakabin residences for your builders, then you’ve got builders who have to live there whilst they’re doing the building, then you have to build the premises for the migrants to live in, then you’ve got to persuade people that they want to go and live on Ascension Island for long periods to run the centre.

‘And the costs just went up and up and up and up. And that’s why when I was involved in the discussions, it was just thought to be impossibly expensive to do.’

Yesterday, Home Office minister Sarah Dines said ‘times change’ and the Channel migrant crisis had become ‘urgent’ as she was quizzed about why the Ascension plan was being reconsidered.

She confirmed the Government was looking at ‘additional measures’ alongside the much-delayed plan to sent asylum seekers to Rwanda, which is currently being held up by legal challenges.

The PM’s official spokesman refused to comment on ‘speculation’ surrounding the use of Ascension, although No10 dismissed suggestions the plans were being ‘actively’ discussed with the British Overseas Territory.

The Times reported that proposals to fly asylum seekers to Ascension would be resisted by both the Ministry of Defence and the United States.

A source told the newspaper: ‘The second a migrant steps on to an RAF plane they are the legal responsibility of the RAF.

‘Given all the demands they have on them, why are they going to take it on, especially when these people will be unwilling to go?’

A government official, who worked on the feasibility study for assessing Ascension Island previously, added that the US wouldn’t have ‘asylum seekers on or near its very sensitive base’ on the island.

Currently the only way to access Ascension is on RAF flights. Home Office deportation flights are usually operated by private charter planes because they are significantly cheaper than paying for RAF aircraft.