Recommendations & Conclusions
16 items
2
Recommendation
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
In its haste to establish large accommodation sites, the Home Office made unacceptable and avoidable mistakes, and failed to protect value for money. The Home Office asserts that its need to deal with a “national emergency” meant it had to take quick decisions, and so it pressed ahead with setting …
Read more
In its haste to establish large accommodation sites, the Home Office made unacceptable and avoidable mistakes, and failed to protect value for money. The Home Office asserts that its need to deal with a “national emergency” meant it had to take quick decisions, and so it pressed ahead with setting up expensive large asylum accommodation sites without an adequate understanding of what would be required. The Home Office’s estimates of the set-up costs for the large former military sites fell far short of reality. It estimated that it would cost £5 million to ready each of the sites at Wethersfield and Scampton. But costs spiralled to £49 million at Wethersfield, and has cost £27 million so far at Scampton. It also failed to maximise competition in awarding its contracts by simply amending current contracts or using frameworks. Furthermore, these two previous RAF bases will now accommodate significantly fewer people than the Home Office envisioned. Fewer people on sites means a higher per person cost. These errors may ultimately cost the taxpayer £46 million more than if the Home Office had simply retained the use of hotels instead. It is essential that departments ensure that taxpayers’ money is protected, even when required to work quickly. Recommendation 2: As part of its Treasury Minute response, the Home Office should set out what it will do differently in the future so it ensures it undertakes sufficient due diligence at the outset of projects and protects taxpayers’ money when working at pace.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The Home Office has restructured the programme to deliver smaller sites, improved technical construction expertise for cost estimation, brought forward due diligence, and improved engagement with local authorities, with accounting officer assessments and business cases now completed for each site.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
3
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
We are not convinced the Home Office has put in place sufficient measures to safeguard those pending relocation while they wait to hear what will happen 6 Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership to them. The Home Office is not processing asylum claims for more than 50,000 people who have arrived …
Read more
We are not convinced the Home Office has put in place sufficient measures to safeguard those pending relocation while they wait to hear what will happen 6 Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership to them. The Home Office is not processing asylum claims for more than 50,000 people who have arrived in the UK via small boats and other irregular means and are deemed ‘inadmissible’ to the asylum system. Currently, the only viable option for many of them is to remove them to Rwanda, as other potential third-country partnerships would need significant lead times to be up and running. Meanwhile, these people remain in limbo – some people have now been waiting for over a year to be told what will happen to them. Many of them are living in temporary Home Office accommodation, where there have been numerous reports of self-harm and suicide. While the Home Office told us it incorporated safety measures into its contracts with providers, it could not provide information about any penalties for falling below standards, despite reports of significant safety failures on sites. Recommendation 3a: The Home Office should, before the end of July, write to the Committee to explain how it is ensuring the wellbeing of people pending relocation and what plans it has to provide clarity for their future. Recommendation 3b: The Home Office should also update the Committee quarterly on the number of people awaiting relocation and how many are being supported by the Home Office, including specifying how many have waited for more than one year. Recommendation 3c: The Home Office should also update the Committee quarterly on any penalties issued relating to safety matters (including health and welfare). The update should state for each penalty the size of the penalty, the reason for it, the location concerned, and the contractor to whom the penalty has been issued.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The Home Office commits to writing to the Committee quarterly, detailing the service credits (penalties) applied in each region for accommodation safety, habitability, and fitness for purpose KPIs.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
4
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
We are concerned that the Home Office has not engaged effectively with local authorities about the impact its work is having on local areas. The Home Office is making progress in its plans to reduce its use of hotels. By the end of March, it had exited 100 hotels, with …
Read more
We are concerned that the Home Office has not engaged effectively with local authorities about the impact its work is having on local areas. The Home Office is making progress in its plans to reduce its use of hotels. By the end of March, it had exited 100 hotels, with around 300 still in use. But it still could not say when it intends to stop using hotels altogether. The Home Office’s actions to reduce its reliance on hotels risk having unintended consequences such as driving up rental costs, increasing homelessness and putting unacceptable pressure on local councils. There are also substantial additional costs for local areas where the Home Office develops alternative accommodation such as large sites. West Lindsey District Council, in which the site at Scampton resides, estimates that it and its neighbouring councils have faced additional costs of nearly £0.5 million as a result of needing to employ additional staff and updating infrastructure. We are pleased to hear the Home Office is now sharing more data with local authorities about the asylum seekers in their communities and that it has put in place dedicated liaison officers. Recommendation 4: The Home Office should, within three months, write to us setting out what it will do to better understand the impact its asylum policies are having in local areas and how its liaison officers will help resolve the litany of problems raised with us by councils.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The Home Office will establish a working group with the Local Government Association and local authority leads to address issues. It is also building tools, such as a weekly Discontinuation Prediction Tool and a future Place Based Visibility Tool, to share data with local authorities …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
1
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
On the basis of two reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Home Office about its partnership with the Government of Rwanda and its plans to accommodate people seeking asylum.1
Government response AI summary
The government confirms the funds paid to Rwanda as part of the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) and states that the partnership has now ended, with no removals to Rwanda to take place under the MEDP.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
11
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
We asked the Home Office how it proposed to report any additional costs to Parliament so that they could be scrutinised. The Accounting Officer told us that he was committed to transparency and reiterated that the costs of the partnership will be set out annually in the annual report and …
Read more
We asked the Home Office how it proposed to report any additional costs to Parliament so that they could be scrutinised. The Accounting Officer told us that he was committed to transparency and reiterated that the costs of the partnership will be set out annually in the annual report and accounts although, on some occasions, the department will bring costs earlier to the Committee. In January 2024, HM Treasury published advice to Accounting Officers on parliamentary communications. This stated that accounting officers should consider sharing information on a timelier and/or more frequent basis for matters with a high degree of parliamentary interest. Where Ministers instruct an accounting officer that the public interest is best served by keeping information confidential (for example if disclosure would undermine the government’s position in commercial negotiations), it may be appropriate for the accounting officer and the Minister to agree whether there 12 Qq 68, 77–78, 80–82 13 Qq 83, 92 14 Qq 127–128; Committee of Public Accounts, The Emergency Services Network, Sixty Fourth Report of Session 2022–23, HC 1006, 14 July 2023, paras 1 and 5 15 Qq 93, 95–97 16 Qq 98–103 17 Qq 102–104; Letter from Matthew Rycroft, Permanent Secretary, Home Office, to Dame Meg Hillier DBE MP and Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson DBE MP, Chairs, Public Accounts Committee and Home Affairs Committee - Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership, dated 25 April 2024 Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership 11 is the option of sharing the information with the relevant parliamentary committee(s) on a confidential basis and so facilitate scrutiny while maintaining the public interest concerned.18 Making realistic assessments of value for money
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees and states it has already provided cost information for the Rwanda partnership, detailing specific payments made, and confirms that the Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda is ending, meaning no further removals or costs will be incurred under this partnership.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
12
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
The Home Office has established four large accommodation sites – the Bibby Stockholm vessel in Dorset, former RAF bases in Wethersfield, Essex and Scampton, Lincolnshire, and former student accommodation in Huddersfield. The Home Office estimated that, by the end of March 2024, it had spent £230 million on the sites, …
Read more
The Home Office has established four large accommodation sites – the Bibby Stockholm vessel in Dorset, former RAF bases in Wethersfield, Essex and Scampton, Lincolnshire, and former student accommodation in Huddersfield. The Home Office estimated that, by the end of March 2024, it had spent £230 million on the sites, and it expected the Large Sites Programme to cost £1.2 billion over the life of the sites. Two of the sites (Wethersfield and the Bibby Stockholm vessel) were in use at the time of the session and housing approximately 900 asylum seekers. In total, the Home Office expected these four large sites to accommodate more than 4,500 asylum seekers when fully up and running. It planned there would be 3,700 across the two former RAF bases, approximately 500 aboard the Bibby Stockholm vessel and around 600 in the former student accommodation in Huddersfield. At our evidence session the Home Office told us that it expected to accommodate a maximum of 400 people on board the Bibby Stockholm vessel by June 2024, and that each of the former RAF bases would now accommodate 800 people.19
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government has restructured the large sites programme to deliver smaller sites, improved cost profiling and technical expertise, and now completes value for money assessments for each site earlier to reduce cost and commercial risk.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
13
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
We were concerned by the Home Office’s assessment of the set-up costs to convert the two former RAF bases to accommodation. At the outset, the Home Office estimated that such costs would be £5 million for each site, but the costs increased to £49 million at Wethersfield and £27 million …
Read more
We were concerned by the Home Office’s assessment of the set-up costs to convert the two former RAF bases to accommodation. At the outset, the Home Office estimated that such costs would be £5 million for each site, but the costs increased to £49 million at Wethersfield and £27 million so far at Scampton. We asked the Home Office how it got its estimates so wrong. It told us it was dealing with a “national emergency” and that it considered that it “should be doing what our colleagues during Covid had done”. It explained that it had decided to “press on quickly” to increase its stock of accommodation and to take a “novel and creative” approach to setting up the sites. The Home Office acknowledged there was “a very significant optimism bias” in its estimates and some unforeseen costs, but repeatedly stated that the Home Office was working “at pace”.20 The Home Office listed some of the unforeseen costs that arose, such as gas and electrical requirements, and fire requirements, remedial works, improving security and installing CCTV. We questioned why these elements had not been foreseen. The Home Office stressed again that the government needed to find accommodation that was not previously available because it was spending too much on hotels. It told us that it only carried out non- intrusive surveys and pre due-diligence checks before purchasing the sites. We reflected that if a similar sort of assessment were produced in the private sector, such shortfalls might have resulted in negligence claims. The Home Office acknowledged its mistakes, and said that it did not have the right expertise on the programme at the time, and that some of the problems were “definitely avoidable at the time”. It said it had now recruited very experienced programme directors and sought more external advice.21
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees and states measures have been implemented to address weaknesses in cost estimation and project delivery, including restructuring the programme, improving technical construction expertise, ensuring value for money assessments and business cases for sites, and conducting earlier due diligence.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
15
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
We asked the Home Office whether it was still satisfied that it was getting value for money, given the costs of the accommodation and the fact that capacity was much lower than anticipated. The Home Office’s latest assessment of value for money from January 2024 suggests that, in total, large …
Read more
We asked the Home Office whether it was still satisfied that it was getting value for money, given the costs of the accommodation and the fact that capacity was much lower than anticipated. The Home Office’s latest assessment of value for money from January 2024 suggests that, in total, large accommodation sites will cost £46 million more than the hotels they are intended to replace. The Home Office told us that it was confident that when all the sunk costs were excluded it was still cheaper to continue with the large sites, and considered that it was correct to exclude sunk costs as projections should only be forward looking.25 However, it acknowledged that for the site at Scampton, it would not have gone ahead in the way that it did if it had known more about the site at the outset. It said that the large number of people it anticipated having on the site was driving up the costs because it would have needed additional modular accommodation, and it had recently been in discussions with the local authority about reducing the number of people at the site to “hundreds rather than thousands”. It said that it was planning to reduce the capacity at the two former RAF bases due to cost, operational capacity and safety. They would now each hold around 800 people, which the National Audit Office reported would reduce the value for money of Wethersfield by £54 million. The Accounting Officer told us that he updates the value for money assessments every three months, and will keep that under review.26 22 Q 206; C&AG’s Report, Asylum accommodation, Figure 11 23 Public Accounts Committee, Competition in public procurement, Sixth report of Session 2023–24, HC 385, December 2023 24 Q 210; C&AG’s Report, Asylum accommodation, para 4.6 25 Qq 179–180; C&AG’s Report, Asylum accommodation, Figure 7 26 Qq 182–183, 202; C&AG’s Report, Asylum accommodation, para 3.9 Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership 13 2 Making plans work for others Ensuring the well-being of those it inten
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government has restructured the large sites programme to deliver smaller sites, improved cost profiling and technical expertise, and now completes value for money assessments for each site earlier to reduce cost and commercial risk.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
16
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
The Illegal Migration Bill was first introduced to Parliament in March 2023, and since this time the Home Office has not been processing claims for the majority of people arriving in small boats and through other irregular means. We remarked that at the time of our evidence session, individuals could …
Read more
The Illegal Migration Bill was first introduced to Parliament in March 2023, and since this time the Home Office has not been processing claims for the majority of people arriving in small boats and through other irregular means. We remarked that at the time of our evidence session, individuals could not apply for asylum and the Home Secretary was not yet obliged to remove them, so they were effectively left in limbo. The Home Office said it was correct and that at the time they were pending relocation. During the evidence session the Home Office told us that the inadmissibility, once commenced, will apply to people who have arrived after 7 March 2023. This meant that some people had been waiting for more than one year to hear if they will be relocated to Rwanda or another third country, when available. In subsequent correspondence, the Home Office confirmed that the duty to remove people to Rwanda or another country would apply to individuals who arrived from 20 July 2023.27
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it agrees and has implemented the recommendation, outlining existing processes for safeguarding, welfare, accommodation standards, and health checks for individuals whose cases are under consideration, but does not address the issue of individuals being left 'in limbo' due to processing delays.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
18
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
The Home Office is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of people in its care, whether they are claiming asylum or pending relocation. But the National Audit Office reported that, in January 2024, the Home Office was still developing specific measures to assess how well providers were keeping residents safe …
Read more
The Home Office is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of people in its care, whether they are claiming asylum or pending relocation. But the National Audit Office reported that, in January 2024, the Home Office was still developing specific measures to assess how well providers were keeping residents safe in large sites. When we asked the Home Office about the safety of asylum seekers at large sites, it told us that there were benefits from the perspective of the asylum seeker of being in a large site rather than a hotel, such as dedicated healthcare provision and because they could have their asylum interviews there. We questioned what the Home Office was doing to address the particular issue of suicide or self-harm for those in its care. The Home Office outlined 27 Qq 62–64; Letter from Matthew Rycroft, Permanent Secretary, Home Office, to Dame Meg Hillier DBE MP and Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson DBE MP, Chairs, Public Accounts Committee and Home Affairs Committee - Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership, dated 25 April 2024 28 Qq 28, 29; C&AG’s Report, Asylum Accommodation, para 1.4; Independent Commission for Aid Impact follow- up: UK aid to refugees in the UK, 10 April 2024 29 Letter from Matthew Rycroft, Permanent Secretary, Home Office, to Dame Meg Hillier DBE MP and Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson DBE MP, Chairs, Public Accounts Committee and Home Affairs Committee - Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership, dated 25 April 2024 14 Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership that it undertakes screening to check suitability for room-sharing and that if tensions arise there were “signposted ways” for people to take up their concerns. It did not outline what these ways were, but it said that there was a migrant helpline available to all asylum seekers. The National Audit Office reported that decisions on who shares rooms in large sites were based primarily around people speaking the same language, and that there had been 283 incidents relating to s
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it agrees and has implemented the recommendation, detailing existing procedures for safeguarding, welfare, health checks, and ensuring safe accommodation for asylum seekers, but does not specifically commit to developing new measures to assess provider performance on safety or to clarify how concerns …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
19
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
The Home Office told us that health and welfare of migrants was “baked into” the way that it runs the sites and the contracts with suppliers. It said there were clear key performance indicators (KPIs) on accommodation being safe and habitable and that the providers have welfare teams on site. …
Read more
The Home Office told us that health and welfare of migrants was “baked into” the way that it runs the sites and the contracts with suppliers. It said there were clear key performance indicators (KPIs) on accommodation being safe and habitable and that the providers have welfare teams on site. However, the National Audit Office reported that the contracts do not specify penalties if requirements to safeguard people are not met. The Home Office told us that there were regular contract management meetings where the KPIs are scrutinised. However, when we asked whether any financial penalties had been invoked in relation to a number of significant incidents—such as the legionella bacteria on board of the Bibby Stockholm vessel and the detection of infectious diseases at Wethersfield—the Home Office was not able to tell us if this had been the case.31 Working in partnership with local authorities
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees that contracts include mechanisms for service credits for failing to meet KPIs on accommodation safety and habitability, and commits to providing the Committee with quarterly reports detailing these service credits applied in each region, starting October 2024.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
20
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
Since 2020, the Home Office has increasingly used hotels to accommodate people seeking asylum, as demand for accommodation increased and there was an insufficient supply of alternative accommodation. In October 2023, the Home Office announced that it intended to stop using some of its 400 asylum hotels in the coming …
Read more
Since 2020, the Home Office has increasingly used hotels to accommodate people seeking asylum, as demand for accommodation increased and there was an insufficient supply of alternative accommodation. In October 2023, the Home Office announced that it intended to stop using some of its 400 asylum hotels in the coming months.32 The Home Office told us that there were currently around 40,000 asylum seekers in hotels, but that it had stopped using more than 100 hotels. We asked the Home Office whether this was the result of more cases being processed, and the extent to which large sites had contributed to this. It told us that there were a number of reasons it had been able to exit hotels. It explained that fewer people had arrived in 2023 than in the previous year, and that it had made “all the decisions” on the legacy backlog that enabled people who were granted asylum to leave accommodation. It also told us that it had identified a further 11,500 beds within the current hotel estate through “Operation Maximise”, which involved people sharing rooms. We asked the Home Office when it would stop using hotels in people’s communities to accommodate asylum seekers, but the Home Office told us that, although it would continue to close more hotels, it was “very difficult to put a time on that, because of the uncertainties”.33
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government will establish a working group with the Local Government Association and local authority leads to address issues related to asylum casework and move-on, and commits to sharing regular, timely data and management information through tools like the Discontinuation Prediction Tool and the forthcoming …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
21
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
We have heard reports, including from our own constituencies, that some hotels have been left in derelict conditions following the Home Office exiting them. We received written evidence from London Councils which told us that there were concerns across the London boroughs about the standards of accommodation, including (but not …
Read more
We have heard reports, including from our own constituencies, that some hotels have been left in derelict conditions following the Home Office exiting them. We received written evidence from London Councils which told us that there were concerns across the London boroughs about the standards of accommodation, including (but not limited to) concerns about poor light and ventilation, poor food quality, leaks and fire safety. We therefore asked the Home Office what consideration it had given to managing the impact on local communities, when taking over, and then leaving hotels. The Home Office told us that there were wider disbenefits to local areas of having hotels out of use, but that these 30 Qq 229–230, 240; C&AG’s report, Asylum Accommodation, paras 4.11, 4.14 31 Qq 232–233, C&AG’s Report, Asylum Accommodation, Figure 10, para 4.11 32 C&AG’s Report, Asylum accommodation, Figure 2, para 2.2 33 Qq 215–217; 220–221; C&AG’s Report, Asylum accommodation, para 2.4 Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership 15 were very hard to quantify although it had “work under way to continue to assess that”. We suggested that it was risking placing a burden on local communities to return hotels to their former standards. The Home Office told us that whilst it had liaison officers working directly with every local authority, it “did not have a pot of money to regenerate hotels”.34
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees and will establish a working group with local authorities to address issues related to "Move On" from asylum accommodation and will implement tools for sharing regular, timely data to help local authorities plan for smoother transitions and anticipate demand on their services.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
22
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
The National Audit Office reported that the increase in asylum decisions had placed greater pressure on local authorities to support refugees in finding accommodation, and increased the risk of homelessness and rough sleeping.35 We received written evidence from the London Councils, which told us that there were 311 refugees sleeping …
Read more
The National Audit Office reported that the increase in asylum decisions had placed greater pressure on local authorities to support refugees in finding accommodation, and increased the risk of homelessness and rough sleeping.35 We received written evidence from the London Councils, which told us that there were 311 refugees sleeping rough across London in January 2023, after leaving Home Office accommodation.36 The Local Government Association also reported significant rises in homelessness for those leaving asylum accommodation.37 Furthermore, we received reports of councils facing significant cost burdens in relation to the interactions with the Home Office. In its written evidence to us, West Lindsey District Council, the council within which the large site at Scampton resides, told us that it, and its neighbouring councils, had spent more than 1,500 staff hours in meetings with the Home Office, and additionally had spent nearly £0.5 million in staff and other expenses to manage the Home Office’s requirements.38
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government will establish a working group with the Local Government Association and local authority leads to address issues related to asylum casework and move-on, and commits to sharing regular, timely data and management information through tools like the Discontinuation Prediction Tool and the forthcoming …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
23
Recommendation
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
The Home Office told us that it was not “cloth-eared” to the issues that local authorities faced, and that it included the challenges facing local authorities as part of its assessment of which hotels to close and in what order, but could not take responsibility for the whole housing market. …
Read more
The Home Office told us that it was not “cloth-eared” to the issues that local authorities faced, and that it included the challenges facing local authorities as part of its assessment of which hotels to close and in what order, but could not take responsibility for the whole housing market. It said it was now liaising directly with local authorities “in a way that perhaps in the early days we [the Home Office] were not”. It explained that local authorities now have a “place-based visibility tool” where they can see all the accommodation occupied.39 There are also liaison officers working with all local authorities to understand the challenges in local areas. In its written evidence the London Councils told us that progress had been made in sharing intelligence on standards of accommodation, and the National Audit Office reported that the Home Office has started to share more data with local authorities so they have greater sight of the pipeline of refugees they may need to accommodate in the future. However, both London Councils and the Local Government Association told us there still remain significant concerns, and that they were keen to work with the government to develop a more robust cross-system approach to minimise impacts on local housing and homelessness services and reduce the risks of destitution.40 34 Qq 224–227; UKR0010, Written evidence submitted by London Councils, 15 April 2024, page 4 35 C&AG’s Report. Asylum Accommodation, para 2.9 36 UKR0010, page 4 37 UKR0007, Written evidence submitted by The Local Government Association, 15 April 2024, section 3.2 38 UKR0005, Written evidence submitted by The West Lindsey District Council, City of Lincoln Council and Lincolnshire County Council, 15 April 2024 39 Q 226 40 UKR0007, section 3.2; UKR0010; C&AG’s report, Asylum accommodation para 2.9 16 Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership 3 Measuring success and accountability to Parliament Measuring the success of the Rwanda partnership
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees and states the recommendation is implemented, committing to establish a working group with local authorities, share regular data via existing and new tools like the Discontinuation Prediction Tool, and build and share a Place Based Visibility Tool once plans are confirmed.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
27
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Accepted
The National Audit Office found that the Home Office had established arrangements to test whether the partnership was working and to oversee payments. We asked whether payments would stop if an individual left Rwanda, and how the Home Office would know if this had happened. The Home Office explained that …
Read more
The National Audit Office found that the Home Office had established arrangements to test whether the partnership was working and to oversee payments. We asked whether payments would stop if an individual left Rwanda, and how the Home Office would know if this had happened. The Home Office explained that under the terms of its agreement, the Rwandan government would be required to provide detailed information on a regular basis, including reporting individuals’ on-going residence in Rwanda. We asked the Home Office how it was ensuring that the necessary safeguards were in place to protect taxpayers’ money spent on the scheme. The Home Office also told us that it had established two monitoring committees and had staff in Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, in readiness for the transfer of individuals. We also asked how the Home Office would ensure that the Rwandan government spent the money provided on services for those that are relocated from the UK. It explained that the Rwandan Government will be required to provide reports to the monitoring committees to ensure that money provided under the agreement is spent on providing the agreed services.47 The Accounting Officer’s responsibilities to Parliament
Show less
Government response AI summary
The Home Office has already set out the funds paid to the Government of Rwanda and confirmed it will be ending the Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda, so there will be no removals to Rwanda under the MEDP.
Read full response →
HM Treasury