Afternoon summary
The Home Office has been ordered to give parliament the “full and frank” costings of the scheme to deport migrants to Rwanda, after admitting projected initial spending had doubled to almost £300m. Matthew Rycroft, the permanent secretary of the Home Office, has been asked to attend the public accounts committee on Monday to explain the situation, after the initial costs of the scheme rose from £140m to £290m. The committee issued its summons to Rycroft after No 10 stressed that it was Suella Braverman, who was sacked as home secretary last month, who signed off an extra £100m payment to Rwanda earlier this year, not Rishi Sunak. (See 12.08pm.)
Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s first minister, has said a court ruling saying the UK government was entitled to veto the Scottish parliament’s gender recognition (reform) bill shows devolution is “fundamentally flawed”. (See 2.49pm.)
Updated
Home Office says Rwanda payments still being made under 'ministerial direction' because of doubts about value for money
In the House of Lords earlier two Labour peers, Lady Taylor of Bolton and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked the Home Office minister Lord Sharpe if the new payments to Rwanda revealed last night were being made under letters of direction – the process whereby senior civil servants can register that they are not sure a particular policy is value for money, and ministers have to say in writing it must happen anyway. Sharpe said he did not know the answer, but would reply in writing.
In fact, the Home Office revealed the answer last night. In his letter Sir Matthew Rycroft, the permanent secretary, said all payments to Rwanda, including the £100m one this year and the £50m one scheduled for next year, “are covered by the ministerial direction of 16th April 2022”.
Rycroft was referring to the ministerial direction originally issued to enable the scheme to go ahead in the first place. Priti Patel, the then home secretary, had to issue one after Rycroft said he was not convinced the policy was cost effective. In his letter at the time Rycroft said:
I recognise that, despite the high cost of this policy, there are potentially significant savings to be realised from deterring people entering the UK illegally. Value for money of the policy is dependent on it being effective as a deterrent. Evidence of a deterrent effect is highly uncertain and cannot be quantified with sufficient certainty to provide me with the necessary level of assurance over value for money.
I do not believe sufficient evidence can be obtained to demonstrate that the policy will have a deterrent effect significant enough to make the policy value for money. This does not mean that the MEDP [migration and economic development partnership] cannot have the appropriate deterrent effect; just that there is not sufficient evidence for me to conclude that it will.
Updated
