Labour victory signals demise of Rwanda plan but at what cost?

Described by critics as an “Alice in Wonderland adventure that was both absurd and inhumane”, Sir Keir Starmer’s party vowed to scrap the policy plagued by problems “on day one” if elected.

But the financial implications of walking away from the deal, the total bill to the taxpayer so far, as well as the view of the Rwandan government to the change in leadership, are as yet unknown. Not to mention what the alternative plan to curb migrant Channel crossings will be.

It all comes as fresh High Court legal challenges against elements of the policy are still under way, amid sustained concerns about the east African nation’s human rights record.

In a judgment handed down on Friday in one of the cases, brought by the FDA union representing senior civil servants, the High Court ruled guidance from Conservative ministers which told officials to ignore any directions from the European Court of Human Rights and carry out Rwanda removals was lawful.

Rishi Sunak vowed to get flights off the ground in July after his Safety of Rwanda Act became law in April. But, having called the General Election, conceded these would only take place if he was re-instated in Downing Street as Prime Minister.

Government lawyers then told a judge the first flights were being planned for July 24 – some two years after they were initially meant to go ahead.

In April 2022 then prime minister Boris Johnson vowed to send thousands of asylum seekers to Rwanda as the home secretary at the time, Priti Patel, signed what she called a “world-first” deal with Kigali.

The very first flight attempt in June that year was grounded just minutes before take-off after a ruling by a judge at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Since then there has been repeated efforts by the government to revive the plan with law changes, a fresh treaty and flurry of promises of scrutiny to allay concerns about the efficiency and ethics of the plan.

Over the years ministers and senior officials insisted their determination to get flights off the ground as soon as possible.

Three home secretaries – Ms Patel, Suella Braverman and James Cleverly – embarked on high profile visits to the country to seal and promote the deal at hundreds of thousands of pounds of expense to the taxpayer. But not one single asylum seeker has been deported under the scheme.

There were five migrants who voluntarily agreed to leave the UK and head to Rwanda in an arrangement separate to the plan – in return for being offered £3,000 each.

The outgoing government was often accused of secrecy over payments agreed for the policy.

But an investigation by Whitehall’s spending watchdog found the cost of the troubled scheme could soar to half a billion pounds, plus hundreds of thousands more for each person deported, if implemented.

The previous government repeatedly refused to say how much more money, on top of the £290 million already confirmed, the UK had agreed to pay Rwanda under the deal. The National Audit Office report revealed millions more in spending including £11,000 for each migrant’s plane ticket.

Facing further questions about the scheme, the Home Office’s permanent secretary Sir Matthew Rycroft indicated officials were seeking a drop in migrant Channel crossings of about 10,000 people in order to be able to consider the Rwanda scheme value for money.

Dan Hobbs, the department’s director general for migration and borders, also told MPs in post at the time the plan was “never intended” to be at a “significantly lower cost to the UK” and it was about “having a quality scheme that delivered for the individuals and gave a five-year package of support”, with higher costs at the start due to setting up the programme.

The Conservatives and government officials consistently argued the scheme was never intended to be used to send all asylum seekers arriving in the UK to Rwanda but to act as a deterrent to curb the dangerous migrant Channel crossings.

Earlier this year Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame suggested British taxpayers’ money could be repaid if the deal failed.

Spokeswoman for his administration Yolande Makolo later said the country had “no obligation” to return any of the funds paid but if the UK requested a refund “we will consider this”.

But she made clear this would only apply to a portion of funds which were specifically allocated to pay for support for migrants, with the remaining cash put towards boosting the east African nation’s economy as part of the Migration and Economic Development Partnership.

Meanwhile an exchange between the Home Office’s top civil servant and MPs revealed Rwanda could walk away from its multi-million pound deal with the UK and keep the money “without accepting a single asylum seeker”.

Sir Matthew told MPs sitting on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) at the time there was a “break clause” included in the memorandum of understanding the UK and Rwanda signed in April 2022 to seal the deal, which allows either government to walk away from it with three months’ notice.

He confirmed that if the UK instigates the break clause, Rwanda keeps the money already paid.

If Rwanda ends the agreement, Sir Matthew said the country’s government would have to repay the money “proportionately”.

Home Office officials also said the funding given by the UK to Rwanda was not intended to be returned.

The price tag to the taxpayer of sending ministers and officials to Rwanda reportedly stands at more than £400,000, with chartering a private jet for Mr Cleverly’s one-day visit in December to sign a new treaty alone costing more than £165,000.

Last year figures obtained under freedom of information laws revealed, the Home Office had already spent more than £2.1million fighting legal challenges to the plan. And the total bill is likely to be significantly higher as a handful of court cases over the policy continue.

The cost of the Border Force operation to detain asylum seekers in preparation for the first flights to take off, which involved hundreds of officers, has not been disclosed and the total number of those held in immigration removal centre was never revealed by the Home Office.

Since the series of raids around the country in April scores of people, reportedly as many as 200, who were due to be deported have been released on bail by immigration judges because there is no longer a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable time scale.

The change in Government is now likely to see a string of other bail applications from lawyers of any remaining detainees with a strong case to argue for their release.