No 10 says Suella Braverman, not Rishi Sunak, signed off on extra £100m payment to Rwanda Downing Street has signalled that Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, was responsible for the decision to approve an extra £100m payment to Rwanda this year. At the lobby briefing this morning, asked who “signed off” the money, a No 10 spokesperson told journalists: The home secretary. It is an operational decision to release funding under the MoU [memorandum of understanding]. And asked if the payment was “signed off” by Rishi Sunak, the spokesperson replied: No. It’s part of the existing MoU [memorandum of understanding]. So it’s an operation decision for the home secretary to sign off. That’s the usual process. The MoU with Rwanda was agreed in April 2022, when Priti Patel was the home secretary and the Rwanda partnership was first announced. No 10 said today that the original MoU made it clear that payments would go to Rwanda in addition to the original £140m. Last night, in his letter to two select committee chairs, Sir Matthew Rycroft, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, said a further payment of £100m was made to Rwanda under the deal in April. As the BBC’s Chris Mason revealed this morning, No 10 and the Suella Braverman camp have been engaged in a briefing war, in effect blaming each other for the payment. (See 9.21am.) The No 10 spokesperson did not criticise Braverman over the payment, or even mention her by name. But Downing Street does not always answer government process questions with such clarity. Sunak sacked Braverman last month, and since then she has launched a series of bitter attacks on his record over immigration. It is widely assumed she wants to replace him as party leader. 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.) No individuals will receive a penalty from the Metropolitan police regarding a gathering in parliament in December 2020, the force has said. Senior Downing Street officials have flown to Delhi to kickstart talks over a multibillion-pound free trade agreement, with the government of Narendra Modi having indicated it is keen to finalise a deal in the next three months. 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. Humza Yousaf says court ruling allowing veto of gender recognition bill shows devolution "fundamentally flawed" Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s first minister, has said today’s court judgment saying the UK government was entitled to veto Scotland’s gender recognition (reform) bill shows the devolution settlement is “fundamentally flawed”. He gave his reaction in two posts on X. Today’s judgment confirms beyond doubt that devolution is fundamentally flawed. The Court has confirmed that legislation passed by a majority in Holyrood can be struck down by Westminster. The only way to guarantee we get true self-government is through independence. This is a dark day for devolution. Sovereignty should lie with the people of Scotland, not a Westminster Government we didn’t vote for with the ability to overrule our laws. We, of course, respect the Court’s judgment and will take time to consider its findings. Lord Davies (Lab) suggests the government does not want the asylum claim backlog cleared quickly – because so many would be approved. Sharpe says that is an interesting theory – but the government is clearing the backlog, he says. Hilary Armstrong (Lab) says that, although Sharpe is saying the deterrent effect of the Rwanda policy is already working, because small boat crossings are down by a third, the PM has said that is due to the deal with Albania. Sharpe says the Albania deal is part of government policy on this. Sharpe says none of the money provided to Rwanda so far has come from the aid budget. Rwanda deal costs so far only amount to 30 days of spending on hotels for asylum seekers in UK, peers told Sharpe says payments made to Rwanda so far represent about 30 days of the amount being spent putting up asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. He says if the plan succeeds, as he thinks it will, it will be good value for the taxpayers. UPDATE: Sharpe said: The simple fact of the matter is the daily cost of hotels for migrants is now £8 million. The cost of the UK’s asylum system has roughly doubled in the last year and it now stands at nearly £4bn. So the payments made so far to Rwanda represent about 30 days of hotel costs. Criminal smuggling gangs are continuing to turn a profit using small boats. We have to bring an end to this and when this plan succeeds, as I think it will, I think British taxpayers will acknowledge it actually represents good value for money. Lady Hayter (Lab) asks if the deal allows for money to be clawed back. Sharpe says he does not know. Lord Collins, the shadow deputy leader of the Lords, says the new Rwanda treaty has changed the nature of the scheme. He says ministers should disclose costs. Sharpe says the permanent secretary at the Home Office has disclosed extra payments in his letter to the two select committee chairs. The total spend so far is £240m, he says. Minister answers urgent question in Lords on payments to Rwanda In the House of Lords Lord Sharpe, a Home Office minister, is answering a private notice question (the Lords equivalent of an urgent question) on payments to Rwanda. He says no extra money was provided to Rwanda to go with the new treaty. And he says the precise costs for the deportation scheme will depend on how many people go to Rwanda. He says sums payments under the economic partnership will be disclosed in the Home Office’s annual accounts. Dowden says government is "four-square" behind Israel as it tackles threat from Hamas Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, has said the government is “four-square” behind Israel in its efforts to remove the threat of Hamas. Speaking alongside the chief rabbi, Ephraim Mervis, at a vigil in Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, Dowden said: I stand before you, not just as the deputy prime minister, nor as the member for Hertsmere, but also as a proud friend of Israel and a supporter of our Jewish community. I want to say to you that the government stands four-square behind the central missions of Israel, of the Israel Defense Forces, of the Israeli government, namely, number one, to secure the release of every one of these hostages, and we will stand four-square until that is delivered. But not only that, we must ensure that this cannot happen again, and that means, however difficult it is, we have to remove the threat of Hamas to stop it being able to do this to Israel again, and we stand four-square behind Israel in that mission as well. Archbishop of Canterbury calls for abolition of two-child cap on benefit payments In the House of Lords this morning peers have been debating Love Matters, a report on families and households by a commission set up by the archbishops of Canterbury and York. Opening the debate, Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, warned that the new family visa rules announced this week would have a “negative impact” on married and family relationships. He said: The government is rightly concerned with bringing down the legal migration figures and I’m not, you’ll be relieved to know, going into the politics of that. But there is a cost to be paid in terms of the negative impact this will have on married and family relationships for those who live and work and contribute to our life together, particularly in social care … The state is useful to the family, the family is indispensable to the state. A lack of strong families undermines our whole society. Government needs families to work. They must not set a series of hurdles for them to jump over. He also called for the removal of the two-child cap on benefit payments. He said: The End Child Poverty campaign estimates removing the two-child limit will lift a quarter of a million children out of poverty. The moral case is beyond any question, yet the unfair penalty applied to additional children affects their educational outcomes, mental and physical health, their likelihood to require public support from public services later on. It is not a good policy. Will the government and the opposition, should they become the government at some point, consider removing the two-child limit and addressing other systems and policy choices which keep family in poverty? In normal circumstances it would not be surprising to hear a Conservative MP expressing support for the party leader, but with backbenchers muttering about a leadership challenge, Rishi Sunak will be glad of all the support he can get and so the Jonathan Gullis interview on Sky News a few minutes ago will probably go down well. Gullis is one of the rightwingers pushing most strongly for a tougher Rwanda deportation policy. But, when asked if he would continue to support Sunak, he replied: The prime minister will retain my confidence and I believe he should lead us into the next general election and that is unequivocal. He also declined an invitation to criticise the extra £100m given to Rwanda, saying that he was not aware of the details of the negotiation with Rwanda and that he thought the deportation scheme would eventually prove value for money. Scottish court rules UK government veto of gender recognition bill lawful Here is Libby Brooks’ story about the court of sessions judgment saying the UK government’s veto of Scotland’s gender recognition reform bill was lawful. No 10 has restated Rishi Sunak’s claim that his new Rwanda bill will only allow a very small number of people to challenge deportation orders – despite a report claiming lawyers have warned ministers that that is not the case. (See 10.33am.) Asked about the Times story, and echoing the line used by the legal migration minister Tom Pursglove this morning, a No 10 spokesperson said: We expect that [the number of those] able to provide compelling evidence about specific individual risks will be vanishingly narrow and that’s why we believe that this is the best approach to get flights swiftly off the ground. The spokesperson also refused to say whether Pursglove’s comments about amendments to the bill this morning (see 10.03am) meant the government was willing to accept changes to its approach. Asked if ministers would compromise on the legislation, the spokesperson said: There will be the usual processes and debate next week. I wouldn’t pre-empt that process. But we’ll be setting out why we believe our approach is the best and swiftest way to get flights off the ground. No 10 confirms it will publish "pack of evidence" next week to support its case Rwanda is safe Ministers will publish a “pack of evidence” about conditions in Rwanda on Tuesday to support its case that it is a safe country for asylum seekers, Downing Street said this morning. At the lobby briefing, a No 10 spokesperson said there would be evidence that “underpins and explains the work that we’ve been doing with Rwanda” published to coincide with the second reading of the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill. The main provision of the bill says that ministers, immigration officials and courts “must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”. Last night, during a press conference in Washington, David Cameron, the foreign secretary, said he had seen the evidence and found it persuasive. He said: A bill has been published and will be introduced to the House of Commons and a pack of evidence about the true nature of what happens in Rwanda is being put together. I’ve seen that myself and I think it’s very convincing and will overcome the arguments put in the supreme court. The Scottish government has lost its legal challenge at the court of session in Edinburgh against the UK government’s decision to use the Scotland Act to block the Scottish parliament’s gender recognition (reform) bill. This is from the BBC’s James Cook. No 10 says Suella Braverman, not Rishi Sunak, signed off on extra £100m payment to Rwanda Downing Street has signalled that Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, was responsible for the decision to approve an extra £100m payment to Rwanda this year. At the lobby briefing this morning, asked who “signed off” the money, a No 10 spokesperson told journalists: The home secretary. It is an operational decision to release funding under the MoU [memorandum of understanding]. And asked if the payment was “signed off” by Rishi Sunak, the spokesperson replied: No. It’s part of the existing MoU [memorandum of understanding]. So it’s an operation decision for the home secretary to sign off. That’s the usual process. The MoU with Rwanda was agreed in April 2022, when Priti Patel was the home secretary and the Rwanda partnership was first announced. No 10 said today that the original MoU made it clear that payments would go to Rwanda in addition to the original £140m. Last night, in his letter to two select committee chairs, Sir Matthew Rycroft, the permanent secretary at the Home Office, said a further payment of £100m was made to Rwanda under the deal in April. As the BBC’s Chris Mason revealed this morning, No 10 and the Suella Braverman camp have been engaged in a briefing war, in effect blaming each other for the payment. (See 9.21am.) The No 10 spokesperson did not criticise Braverman over the payment, or even mention her by name. But Downing Street does not always answer government process questions with such clarity. Sunak sacked Braverman last month, and since then she has launched a series of bitter attacks on his record over immigration. It is widely assumed she wants to replace him as party leader.