I am sure this question will be answered next week.
Home Office ordered to give full cost of Rwanda deportation plan | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian
From PMQs
Migration has trebled on the Prime Minister’s watch, and all he can do is make up numbers about the Labour party. It is really pitiful. I am not actually sure the Prime Minister can have read this thing. Article 4 says the scheme is capped at Rwanda’s capacity—that is 100. Article 5 says Rwanda can turn them away if it wants. Article 19 says we actually have to take refugees from Rwanda. How much did this “fantastic” deal cost us?
His reply
As the Home Secretary was crystal clear about, there is no incremental money. [Interruption.] There is no incremental money that has been provided.
Keir Starmer
He clearly hasn’t read it. Annex A says that, on top of the £140 million he has already showered on Rwanda, when we send people there under this treaty, we will have to pay for their accommodation and upkeep for five years
"Sunak himself is facing questions over whether he misled MPs about the costs of the scheme, when he said on Wednesday that there had been “no incremental money that has been provided”.
Downing Street said he did not misinform parliament, as an £100m in extra funding for the country was part of a parallel economic development scheme.
Asked if Sunak had been inaccurate, his deputy spokesperson said this was not the case as there were “two different strands” of funding – to process asylum seekers and a wider aid budget – and that the prime minister had been referring to the first."