Tories vote to maintain Rwanda prices secret as Labour asks what they’re hiding

Cowardly Tories have voted to maintain the price of the Rwanda deportation scheme secret – with Rishi Sunak accused of trying like a “dodgy salesman PM”.

In a scathing broadside, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper urged ministers to lastly set the document straight over claims they’ve promised £400million to the African nation. On high of this, she estimated it might price taxpayers an additional £200,000 for each individual despatched there.

Facing MPs within the Commons, Migration Minister Tom Pursglove refused to contradict the figures. Ms Cooper instructed 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 towards a Labour movement calling for the mission’s prices and key paperwork to be launched. Ms Cooper questioned why the Government had printed the price of a £63million settlement with France however refused to disclose the price of the Rwanda deal. Meanwhile Dame Diana Johnson, who chairs the influential Home Affairs Select Committee, stated the Government refusal recommended there’s “something that doesn’t add up”.

Ms Cooper identified that papers leaked to the BBC revealed that Mr Sunak, when he was Chancellor, had “huge doubts” about whether or not the mission would work. She additionally cited stories that the PM needed to be persuaded to not scrap it through the Tory management race in 2022.

“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 stated. “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” earlier than taunting Rishi Sunak’s high workforce: “If ministers disagree with what I just said, then what is there to hide? Just show us the facts.” And she stated: “All this looks like more smoke and mirrors from a dodgy salesman PM.”

So far the Government has been compelled to confess that £290million has been pledged to Rwanda, of which £240million has already been paid. These figures had been let slip by officers within the African nation – in any other case they’d have been saved secret.

But ministers refuse to say how far more they’ve agreed to pay in 2025 and 2026 – though it’s believed there shall be £50 million funds in every of those years. The UK can even pay a payment per individual despatched there – though the Government refuses to say how a lot that is. Last summer time an estimate printed by the Home Office recommended it could possibly be £169,000.

Dame Diana stated it was “absolutely right” for the fee to be revealed with the intention to scrutinise the mission. She stated: “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 stated: “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.”