Recommendations & Conclusions
4 items
8
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Not Addressed
The Home Office confirmed that the agreement with Rwanda was designed to start relocations quickly and then scale up to significant volumes of people. We asked about the Home Office’s ability to manage the practical implications of relocating people, and the capacity of Rwanda to accept and accommodate them. The …
Read more
The Home Office confirmed that the agreement with Rwanda was designed to start relocations quickly and then scale up to significant volumes of people. We asked about the Home Office’s ability to manage the practical implications of relocating people, and the capacity of Rwanda to accept and accommodate them. The Home Office explained it had modelled the number of people Rwanda could take and by when but there were “too many variables” and it would provide no further detail on the number and timing of relocations. We therefore asked how many people the accommodation in Rwanda can take. The Home 5 Qq 45–49, 106; C&AG’s Report, UK-Rwanda partnership, paras 7, 8, 2.1 6 C&AG’s Report, UK-Rwanda partnership, para 1.4; HM Government, Press Release: PM Statement on Safety of Rwanda Bill, 23 April 2024 7 Qq 42–43, 89 8 Qq 51, 52, 58–60 9 Q 52–53, 55–58, 62 10 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; Home Office, Statistics relating to Illegal Migration: data tables to 21 April 2024, 22 April 2024 11 Qq 134–138 10 Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership Office told us that it had invested in building up Rwanda’s capacity and capability, and that it knew that Rwanda was able to provide and organise enough accommodation for the number of people that it planned to relocate.12
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it agrees and has implemented the recommendation, but the response details past costs and confirms the ending of the Rwanda partnership, entirely failing to address the committee's observations and questions regarding Rwanda's capacity to accommodate relocated individuals.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
9
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Not Addressed
The Home Office acknowledged that there were many constraints that it would have to take into account when running the programme of relocations, and told us that it had developed plans and contingency options. It told us that its operational plans depended on the “flow” of relocations, but did not …
Read more
The Home Office acknowledged that there were many constraints that it would have to take into account when running the programme of relocations, and told us that it had developed plans and contingency options. It told us that its operational plans depended on the “flow” of relocations, but did not think it appropriate to provide detail on its operational planning.13 We asked whether the Home Office knew the location of those it wanted to remove, given that it did not have a good track record in this area. The Home Office told us that it had addresses for each of the individuals and that they were subject to regular reporting arrangements. We have previously examined the Home Office’s delivery of major programmes and raised concerns about over-optimism and the absence of plans, for example the Emergency Services Network.14
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it agrees and has implemented the recommendation, but the response details past costs and confirms the ending of the Rwanda partnership, completely failing to address the committee's concerns about detailed operational planning and contingencies for relocations.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
14
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Not Addressed
We asked the Home Office why it had not submitted to competition five of the contracts relating to the new sites, worth £243 million of the £253 million it had spent through contracts. The Home Office told us that it used framework agreements for some 18 Q 159; HM Treasury, …
Read more
We asked the Home Office why it had not submitted to competition five of the contracts relating to the new sites, worth £243 million of the £253 million it had spent through contracts. The Home Office told us that it used framework agreements for some 18 Q 159; HM Treasury, Dear Accounting Officer Letter – Parliamentary Communications, 16 January 2024 19 Qq 179, 203; C&AG’s Report, Asylum accommodation, Figure 5 and Figure 6 20 Qq 166–167; C&AG’s Report, Asylum accommodation, Figure 7 21 Qq 170–173, 177, 198, 202 12 Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership contracts, which would have had a competition for the initial framework. It again justified this approach because there was an “emergency” and it needed to operate as quickly as possible.22 We have previously reported how competition can help support efficiency, innovation, and quality in public services, but that while framework agreements had become the most prevalent route for government to buy goods, inappropriate use of frameworks may lead to competition being limited by having insufficient suppliers for a mini competition.23 In the case of the contract for procuring the Bibby Stockholm vessel, there was only one supplier on the framework used, which meant there was no opportunity for competition. The Home Office also outlined how it had amended some existing contracts with providers, but that these contracts included checks and balances, such as a profit cap over which the suppliers have to return a certain amount of profit, and that the profits are regularly reviewed. The Home Office suggested that setting up new contracts “would have added risk”. We asked for assurance that when these contracts come to an end there will be an opportunity that they will be properly fully competed. While the Home Office said this would be the case, it caveated that this would be “where time permits”.24
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it agrees and has implemented the recommendation, outlining measures to improve cost profiling, technical expertise, and due diligence for site selection and delivery, but does not address the committee's concerns about the lack of competition in past contracts or provide assurance for …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
17
Conclusion
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommoda…
Not Addressed
Many of those subject to removal will be living in Home Office accommodation, such as hotels or large sites, despite being unable to claim asylum in the UK. The Home Office spent an estimated £4.7 billion on asylum support (which covers accommodation, and financial subsistence for those who would otherwise …
Read more
Many of those subject to removal will be living in Home Office accommodation, such as hotels or large sites, despite being unable to claim asylum in the UK. The Home Office spent an estimated £4.7 billion on asylum support (which covers accommodation, and financial subsistence for those who would otherwise be destitute) in the 2023–24 financial year, and the Government spent £4.3 billion of official development assistance budget (one-quarter of all aid spending) on supporting refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, many of whom will not be entitled to claim asylum here. We challenged the Home Office that many members of the public would be surprised that it was spending so much of the overseas development assistance supporting people within the UK rather than overseas, and if it believed that was sustainable. The Home Office told us the UK had no choice but to “score it as [overseas development assistance]” but that the level of spending was not sustainable, which is why it was looking to reduce its reliance on hotels and reduce other costs, so that the official development assistance can be spent elsewhere.28 The Home Office subsequently wrote to us to correct its statement and said that the UK government chose to include all in-country refugee costs as overseas development assistance.29
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it agrees and has implemented the recommendation, but the response details existing welfare and safeguarding provisions for asylum seekers, completely failing to address the committee's concerns about the sustainability of current spending on accommodation or the use of ODA.
Read full response →
HM Treasury