Recommendation 13

Both the Ministry of Justice’s property function, which provided an outsourced property service to the Home Office, and the Home Office’s external property advisers recommended conducting a ‘Red Book’ valuation for the site, as typically required for a site requiring remediation. However, the Home Office negotiated the purchase of the Northeye site without one.32 During our evidence session, the Home Office told us that while it did not commission a ‘Red Book’ valuation of the Northeye site, it will do so for any future site acquisitions.33 Moreover, the Home Office sought, but was not granted, an exemption from complying with standard approval of the acquisition by the Office of Government Property within the Cabinet Office. Following its review, on 27 March 2023 the Cabinet Office highlighted to the Minister for Immigration significant risks with the acquisition, but stated that if the Home Office believed it would be able to mitigate these risks, then the Cabinet Office would accept the Home Office’s assurances.34 We asked the Home Office how it could have assured the Cabinet Office when it did not fully understand the risks involved. It reiterated that, with hindsight, it “definitely would not do that again”. The Home Office explained that it while it was “not operating in a total vacuum” and was receiving proper advice, 28 Qq 5–7, 12, 18, 20 29 AA0007, Written evidence submitted by Bexhill–on–Sea Town Council, 9 December 2024; AA0008, Written evidence submitted by Mr Nigel Jacklin (Leader at No To Northeye), 9 December 2024 30 AA0009, Written evidence submitted by Wethersfield Airbase Scrutiny Committee, 9 December 2024 31 Q 17 32 C&AG’s Report, para 6, 1.17 33 Q 11 34 C&AG’s Report, para 6 13 it nevertheless went ahead with the acquisition because it was “seeking to operate at pace”. The Home Office said it will now ensure a more detailed assessment is made by property experts before making final acquisition decisions.35