Labour’s plans to end the use of hotel accommodation for some of the 104,517 individuals currently in receipt of asylum support, and the addition of 1,000 extra caseworkers to reduce the backlog, have been welcomed by many charities and groups supporting asylum seekers. From my experience working for a charity in a hotel for asylum seekers, it is clear that these hotels, managed by various private companies for the Home Office, are neither safe nor appropriate homes, particularly for children and vulnerable women.
However, the problem is not one that can be easily or quickly resolved. Ending the use of these buildings could potentially displace the problem, isolate individuals, and not necessarily save the taxpayer money. Therefore, we must consider the implications of this policy change and explore ways to improve the current situation to better support asylum seekers and ensure cost-effectiveness.
Analysis from the Local Government Association (LGA) reveals that the number of households living in temporary accommodation has risen by 89 per cent over the past decade to 104,000 at the end of March 2023—the highest figures since records began in 1998—costing councils at least £1.74 billion in 2022/23. Asylum seekers granted refugee status are included in this figure. The majority of asylum seekers I have worked with, upon leaving the hotel, find themselves in temporary accommodation, often another hotel like a Travelodge or a run-down B&B, as councils lack sufficient social housing to support them.
They transition from an environment where we, as a charity, have created a community, providing mental health support, English lessons, and assistance with finding schools, work, and volunteering opportunities, to another run-down hotel. Here, they are often isolated in areas with poor amenities and transport, with no regard for whether they can get to work, college, or hospital appointments. Most worryingly, vulnerable women who have experienced unimaginable trauma can be housed in shared accommodation without even their own bathroom, alongside men, or in hotels on motorways, being used by a range of other people for whom the council is responsible. The wait can be months, often with individuals not knowing which hotel they will be housed in from one week to the next, at a huge cost to the council, which pays a week at a time seemingly without securing preferential rates.
The hotel I work in was quickly acquired by the Home Office a year ago and hastily turned into temporary accommodation within weeks, with no consultation with local services or residents. The image of asylum seekers housed in hotels portrayed by the far-right is far from the reality. The pool has been emptied and piled high with mattresses, communal areas are used as storage, families are squeezed into small rooms with beds on the floor, barriers have been put up around the hotel, and the contracted minimal cleaning is carried out around this shabby three-star hotel.
As a charity, we have made the environment as welcoming and supportive as possible. Fortunately, the staff are incredibly caring and go beyond the contractual obligations set out by the Home Office, allowing us as a charity to support the families, which is not the case in every such hotel. The children in these hotels, some of whom were born in this country, are simply not being treated the same as they would be in other government-controlled settings. There is also a staggering waste of money, using private companies that offer poor service when a more integrated multi-agency approach with local services would provide better support and be more cost-effective.
A glaring example of inefficiency is the Home Office’s use of a London-based taxi firm, some 70 miles away, for essential trips like hospital appointments. The result is that we, as a charity, end up helping residents in need and I am proud to have transported two women in labour to hospital rather than waiting three hours for a taxi.
Labour’s pledge to end hotel use is ambitious and long term, but a short-term solution must be found and enacted quickly to prevent both the human and economic suffering of the crisis they have inherited.
There are ways to ease these pains. If the Home Office worked with local services, we could have a properly trained Designated Safeguarding Lead on site, integrate services like mental health support, and plan residents’ futures with them in a controlled and supportive way. It is heartbreaking and frustrating to see families who have settled into schools, work or volunteering roles, local churches and mosques being told they are being moved as far away as Glasgow or to somewhere rural with less support available, having to start again, which undoubtedly comes at considerable cost to the taxpayer too.
While we would all like to see an end to the use of hotels for asylum seekers, we must improve the ones we have with a more integrated approach. We must consider the actual costs of the alternatives and the danger that, given our woeful lack of social housing, shutting them could provide worse service for everyone at a higher cost.
To read more on this topic, see ‘Polls say Labour can win on immigration’.
The post The Case for Reforming Asylum Hotels: A Path to More Humane and Effective Solutions appeared first on Progressive Britain.
