The Home Office’s Defense:
Sir Matthew Rycroft, the permanent secretary of the Home Office, faced a challenging session before senior MPs from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Home Affairs Committee (HAC).
The focus was on the increased cost of the Rwanda migration plan, which has surged by an additional £150 million, bringing the total commitment to £290 million. Despite the substantial financial commitment, not a single asylum seeker has been sent to Rwanda.
Secrecy and Commercial Considerations:
During the grilling, Sir Matthew was pressed on the rising costs, but he refrained from disclosing potential future increases, citing ‘commercial’ considerations.
This lack of transparency triggered anger among MPs, particularly after Sir Matthew’s failure to provide clear answers in previous appearances before the committees.
Late-Night Revelation and Commercial Sensitivity:
The frustration escalated when Sir Matthew, in a late-night letter published on the Home Office website, disclosed the additional £150 million.
Dame Meg Hillier, the chair of the PAC, questioned the secrecy surrounding the figure, to which Sir Matthew attributed the confidentiality to the information being ‘commercially sensitive.’
International Monetary Fund Disclosure:
Sir Matthew explained that he only revealed the figure in response to an International Monetary Fund document exposing a £100 million payment from Britain to Rwanda.
This revelation had become public knowledge, prompting Sir Matthew to acknowledge the previously confidential information.
Financial Commitments and Ministerial Directions:
The payments to Kigali, under a ‘ministerial direction,’ have totaled £220 million, with an additional £50 million expected in 2024-25. Sir Matthew hinted at the likelihood of further payments in the fourth and fifth years of the five-year deal but declined to disclose the specific amounts.
Legal Challenges and Break Clauses:
Legal challenges have hindered the implementation of the migration scheme, preventing the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Sir Matthew highlighted the financial implications, stating that Britain would be liable for a ‘per person’ cost for accommodation in Rwanda if deportations were to occur.
He also outlined the existence of a pre-agreed ‘break clause,’ allowing both parties to exit the deal, but with potential consequences for the money already received by Rwanda.
Uncertain Future and Potential Retention of Funds:
In response to questions about Rwanda keeping the money without receiving asylum seekers, Sir Matthew indicated that the circumstances would determine such an outcome.
He acknowledged the complexity of the situation, emphasizing that if Britain activated the break clause, Rwanda would, “broadly speaking,” retain the funds.