Tories vote to keep Rwanda costs secret as Labour asks what they're hiding
Cowardly Tories have voted to keep the cost of the Rwanda deportation scheme secret - with Rishi Sunak accused of looking like a "dodgy salesman PM".
In a scathing broadside, Labour's Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper urged ministers to finally set the record straight over claims they've promised £400million to the African nation. On top of this, she estimated it could cost taxpayers an extra £200,000 for every person sent there.
Facing MPs in the Commons, Migration Minister Tom Pursglove refused to contradict the figures. Ms Cooper told him: "Taxpayers have a right to know how much of their money this Government has promised to the Rwandan Government in exchange frankly for a series of press releases."
But MPs voted by 304 to 228 against a Labour motion calling for the project's costs and key documents to be released. Ms Cooper questioned why the Government had published the cost of a £63million agreement with France but refused to reveal the cost of the Rwanda deal. Meanwhile Dame Diana Johnson, who chairs the influential Home Affairs Select Committee, said the Government refusal suggested there's "something that doesn't add up".
Ms Cooper pointed out that papers leaked to the BBC revealed that Mr Sunak, when he was Chancellor, had "huge doubts" about whether the project would work. She also cited reports that the PM had to be persuaded not to scrap it during the Tory leadership race in 2022.
Teachers, civil servants and train drivers walk out in biggest strike in decade
"The Prime Minister is still going ahead with a scheme he doesn't believe in, doesn't think will work, knows is extortionately expensive because he is too weak not to," she said. "You can see it in his face that he doesn't support it, he doesn't really believe it, he's just desperately hoping for - in the words of the former immigration minister - one or two symbolic flights off before the next election, even if everyone ends up being sent back again, even if the whole thing collapses after that, even if it costs a total fortune because he's not planning to tell anyone before the election what the total costs are."
And she added: "Because, in the end, the only deterrence it appears the Prime Minister actually believes in is deterring his backbenchers from getting rid of him because it's weak, weak, weak, and yet the taxpayer is paying the price. It is a totally farcical situation."
Ms Cooper described the Rwanda deal as an "incredibly expensive sham" before taunting Rishi Sunak's top team: "If ministers disagree with what I just said, then what is there to hide? Just show us the facts." And she said: "All this looks like more smoke and mirrors from a dodgy salesman PM."
So far the Government has been forced to admit that £290million has been pledged to Rwanda, of which £240million has already been paid. These figures were let slip by officials in the African nation - otherwise they would have been kept secret.
But ministers refuse to say how much more they have agreed to pay in 2025 and 2026 - although it is believed there will be £50 million payments in each of these years. The UK will also pay a fee per person sent there - although the Government refuses to say how much this is. Last summer an estimate published by the Home Office suggested it could be £169,000.
Dame Diana said it was "absolutely right" for the cost to be revealed in order to scrutinise the project. She said: "Clearly there's something there that doesn't add up. In other instances, it's been possible to have regular updates on spending on policies like this."
Mr Pursglove said: "The creation and implementation of a noble approach such as this comes with an expected cost, to date £240 million has been paid to Rwanda and those figures have been provided to Parliament."
He added: "We will continue to report in the annual report and accounts in the way that is perfectly normal, perfectly reasonable, perfectly respectable, about the costs moving forward. It's right that there's additional funding to reflect the cost in the future. The total cost of the partnership will depend on the number of people relocated, timing of when it occurs and outcomes of individual cases."
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
