Ministers are deliberately hiding the soaring cost of the Rwanda deportation programme from the public, the head of an influential parliamentary watchdog has told the Guardian, as insiders expect a new deal with the African country to be signed off within days.
Dame Diana Johnson, the chair of the home affairs select committee, said the government had shown a “total disregard” for parliament’s right to scrutinise key immigration policies after a senior civil servant said any extra costs on top of the £140m already paid to Rwanda would not be revealed until the summer.
Home Office minister James Cleverly is expected to fly to Kigali early this week to sign a deal with the Rwandan government to circumvent a High Court ruling that the scheme is illegal.
Emergency legislation to declare the central African country safe and curb legal challenges to the policy could also be put before parliament.
The Sunday Times reported that the UK government would provide a further £15 million on top of the £140 million – a claim dismissed as ‘speculation’ by health minister Victoria Atkins.
On Wednesday, Home Office permanent secretary Matthew Rycroft told the select committee that any additional costs would be revealed in the department’s annual update in the summer. “Ministers have decided that the way to update Parliament is annually, rather than through a running commentary,” Rycroft said.
Johnson, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull, said on Sunday that the apparent leak to the Sunday Times, days after the refusal to disclose the figures to parliament, was “totally unacceptable”. She plans to raise the lack of policy transparency with immigration minister Robert Jenrick on Wednesday afternoon when he appears before the committee.
“Last Wednesday, the Home Affairs Select Committee was told that any additional spending on the Rwanda programme, on top of the £140 million already spent, would not be published or laid before Parliament until next summer.
“This was clearly a ministerial decision, and information could be made available if they wished. This approach makes effective in-year scrutiny of the department and its policies impossible. It is totally unacceptable that journalists are now being given this £15m figure. It shows a total disregard for the vital role that select committees play in holding government to account,” she said.
A source close to the Home Secretary said: “We do not recognise the figure that has been published or how it was arrived at. To be clear, the Rwandans did not ask for extra money to sign a treaty, nor was money offered to secure a treaty”.
The committee could ask the National Audit Office to carry out a brief investigation into the Rwanda programme or recall Rycroft to answer further questions, it is understood.
Sunak’s flagship immigration policy was dealt a severe blow last month after the UK’s highest court found there was a real risk that deported refugees would have their claims wrongly assessed or be returned to their country of origin to face persecution.
Since then, Cleverly’s senior officials have been working on a new deal with the Rwandan government to address the court’s key criticisms.
It is understood that the deal will include additional payments, described as contributions towards training and additional staff costs.
A Home Office spokesman said: “All costs will be reported as part of the Home Office’s annual reports and accounts in the usual way.”
It comes amid heated discussions in government about how far the new legislation should go to avoid future legal challenges.
Hard right Conservative backbench MPs have claimed that the legislation will fail unless it also overrides the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Meanwhile, centre-left MPs have warned that dozens of MPs could rebel if the government withdraws from international conventions and joins pariah states such as Russia and Belarus.
No 10 is considering two options. The first, known as the semi-skimmed option, would only exclude the UK Human Rights Act from asylum claims. But this would not prevent challenges by individual migrants, sources said.
The second, the ‘full-fat’ option, would remove the right of judicial review and include ‘notwithstanding clauses’ that would allow ministers to ignore the ECHR and other international treaties in the area of asylum. It is understood that ministers are moving towards a ‘middle ground’ between the two options, which will not be finalised until the treaty is signed.
Insiders say that Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, has been overseeing the legislation, while Jenrick has had a ‘minor role’. She is often described as reluctant to withdraw the UK from international treaties, while Jenrick has adopted many of the hardline policies of Suella Braverman, the former Home Secretary who was sacked last month.
Refugee charities have said they fail to see how the legislation will prevent legal challenges. They say the Supreme Court ruling was a comprehensive and damning indictment of the Rwandan government’s asylum system, and that legislation cannot take away an individual’s right to launch a legal challenge.
The Rwanda proposal is seen as key to fulfilling Rishi Sunak’s pledge to “stop the boats” before a general election, which could be called as early as May.
Home Office figures show that 519 people braved freezing December temperatures to land on England’s south coast on Saturday, arriving in 11 boats. Nearly 29,000 migrants have arrived by this route this year, surpassing the 28,526 recorded in 2021.
