Select committee: Public Accounts Committee
Conclusion 14
Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership
Published 29 May 2024
Addressed to HM Treasury
Public Accounts Committee Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
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
From: Public Accounts Committee, Thirty-Fourth Report - Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership (HC 639), 29 May 2024
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 11 July 2025 (deadline 29 July 2024).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government states that it agrees with most of the Committee's recommendations, says it will end the Rwanda partnership with "no removals to Rwanda under the MEDP", and only notes two recommendations that it describes as no longer relevant or not proceeding.
- On the Rwanda partnership, the government notes the recommendations on quarterly updates and on an evaluation strategy, saying the first is "no longer relevant" and that evaluation of deterrent impact and value for money "will not proceed".
- On large accommodation sites, the government agrees and lists measures including restructuring the programme to deliver smaller sites and earlier due diligence; it says an Infrastructure and Projects Authority review found successful delivery "appears feasible".
- The government agrees to write to the Committee quarterly on service credits applied for accommodation safety KPIs, with a target implementation date of October 2024.
- On Accounting Officer Assessments, the government agrees but gives no date, saying dates are "dependent on project development". It will not yet publish one for the large sites programme, and will write to the new Committee "in due course" on third country negotiations.