Recommendation 12

When we asked the Home Office what it had done to understand the risks before acquiring the Northeye site, it told us it did a “fair amount of due diligence” and repeatedly emphasised that “with the benefit of hindsight” 22 Qq 52, 53 23 Q 7; Home Office, Breakdown of Home Office costs associated with the MEDP with Rwanda and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, dated 2 December 2024 24 Qq 4–5 25 Q 7 26 Qq 4–5 27 C&AG’s Report, para 9, 1.13 12 it should have done much more.28 We received written evidence from both Bexhill–on–Sea Town Council and the ‘No To Northeye’ campaign group, which highlighted concerns raised by local residents about site contamination early in the acquisition process.29 They told us their concerns were not adequately addressed or acknowledged by the Home Office. In its written evidence to us, the Wethersfield Airbase Scrutiny Committee highlighted similar concerns regarding the Home Office’s due diligence in relation to the former RAF base in Wethersfield, Essex.30 It indicated that the Home Office’s “refusal to procure expert advice” and its failure to act on expert recommendations, particularly those arising from geo-environmental surveys of contaminated land, was a recurring issue. The written evidence we received suggests that these oversights were part of a broader pattern. During our evidence session, the Home Office acknowledged the shortcomings of its assurance process regarding the Northeye site. It explained that a key lesson it has learned is the need to engage with local authorities and communities to ensure acquisitions are in the “right places” and have the necessary support from local areas.31