Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame has said he would return money to the UK if no asylum seekers are sent to his country under his deal with the government.

The UK has paid £240m to Rwanda, with a further £50m to come. So far, no asylum seekers have been sent to the country.

Asked why he was taking the money, Mr Kagame said: “It’s only going to be used if those people will come. If they don’t come, we can return the money.”

It comes as Rishi Sunak faces a crucial Commons vote on his Rwanda bill.

The prime minister claims his plan to deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda will be a deterrent to migrants seeking to travel across the Channel in small boats.

But Labour says it is an expensive “gimmick” that won’t work – and that they would scrap the policy if they win the general election.

Mr Sunak is also facing opposition from some of his own Tory MPs, who say the legislation is not tough enough and the government should be prepared to defy international law to get deportation flights off the ground.

MPs are due to vote on proposed changes to the legislation on Wednesday evening – and on whether the bill as a whole should progress to the next stage.

The government appears to be confident of winning the vote despite a major rebellion by right wing Tory MPs on Tuesday evening.

The BBC’s Economics Editor Faisal Islam grabbed a brief interview with Paul Kagame on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

The president did not clarify how much of the money he would return to the UK, or when. Asked about the current political and legal obstacles around the deal with his country, Mr Kagame said that it is “not Rwanda’s problem”. “Ask the UK, it is the UK’s problem, not Rwanda’s problem”, the President said.

Labour’s shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves welcomed Mr Kagame’s offer to refund the money and pledged to put it towards “processing asylum cases” and “cracking down on the criminal gangs that are at the heart of this.”

Speaking in Davos, she said: “That would be a much better use of the money and would have a much greater chance of success in controlling the small boat crossings that we absolutely need to do.”