Councils could house migrants in empty homes, disused tower blocks and student digs as unrest grows over asylum hotels
The Government is proposing pilot schemes where it could pay local authorities to buy or renovate property, which they would lease back to the Home Office to house asylum seekers.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has set out a target to end the use of hotels by 2029, although it is unclear how this can be achieved when Channel crossings are at record highs.
There are currently 700,000 empty homes across England, including 93,600 in London and 35,000 in Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds - according to official figures.
Sir Keir Starmer outlined the Government's approach this week, telling a committee of MPs: 'A central focus of what we are doing is what can be built, arranged or taken by councils and repurposed. I am impatient for this change to be driven through.
'We have to take over other accommodation, and we have to drive down the asylum lists. There is no alternative... There is lots of housing in many local authorities that can be used, and we are identifying where it can be used.'
Dame Angela Eagle, the border security and asylum minister, told MPs that the ambition was to move away from using private accommodation contractors to a 'more democratically accountable' system in partnership with councils.
Around 200 councils are said to have 'expressed interest' in running pilot schemes funded by central government.
Migrant hotels are a major focus of public anger, with more protests taking place outside sites across England over the weekend.
The recent string of flare-ups began with a demonstration outside The Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, after Ethiopian man Hadush Kebatu was charged with sexually assaulting a schoolgirl just days after he arrived in Britain in a Channel dinghy.
Police chiefs have already described the unrest at The Bell as a 'signal flare' for another summer of disorder.
Epping Council voted unanimously last week to urge the Government to close the hotel. But Treasury minister James Murray refused to comment yesterday when asked why the Government has not listened to the demands.
He told Sky News: 'I'm not going to comment on specific cases, but I do understand people's frustration.
'And whilst, obviously, there can never be any place for criminal violence, there's absolutely a right for people to protest about this.'
While using hotels at a cost of about £5.77million is unpopular, moving large groups of asylum seekers into accommodation in local communities often provokes a backlash too.
The Home Office sparked fury this week after it emerged they were planning, without consultation with the local council, to relocate 35 asylum seekers to a new development above a High Street shop in Waterlooville, Hampshire.
The earmarked development is a newly converted block of 19 flats called Waterloo House.
The flats are located above a bric a brac store called The Junk Emporium which was once a Peacocks clothing store and before that, a Tesco.
It is owned by Mountley Group whose Director, Hersch Schneck, also owns a migrant hotel in nearby Cosham.
A member of staff at the shop, who rent from Mountley Group, told MailOnline how they only found out about the plans over Facebook and revealed the fallout of the row has severely impacted business.
She explained: 'Yesterday we probably took around a third less. They [customers] think it's to do with us but it's not, we just rent the shop, they kind of assume we know what is going which we don't.
'We've had lots of phone calls and people coming in asking questions we can't answer. We were always under the impression that the flats above would be sold to commuters and people like that.
Portsmouth fan Steve, 58, who has lived in the area his whole life, told MailOnline: 'I've got a 13-year-old granddaughter, when you're about that age, you want to go out up the high street, but I'd be worried now.
'There's no criminal history checks on these people. It's easy to get swept up in that aspect, but it's not just that, I think it will attract trouble for us as well as the migrants.
'With the planned protests, I don't want people to start smashing things up because that plays into the hands of the Home Office and police who say 'see, there we go, right wing'.
'We have genuine concerns but the narrative can change quickly.'
Patricia Walding, 87, added: 'These hotels are changing our towns, they are costing us a fortune and robbing the taxpayer while our own people are sleeping on the streets, I think it's disgusting.'
Sid Conroy, who used to work for Airbus and now spends his time breeding racing pigeons, fears serious repercussions if the hotel gets given the greenlight.
The 68-year-old said: 'I'm dead against it, there could be fights and trouble up here. You're going to have problems here, I can tell you that.
'There are people waiting years on housing waiting lists and it just seems like they get a brand new flat just like that? Why can't they look after us first?
'Our government is making us unhappy because of it. People are left behind, they're thinking more of the people coming in now. You get them coming over here, causing mayhem, causing trouble, all they get is a slap on the wrist and don't do it again. This is how I see it.'
Others were more relaxed about the plans, with one lady, a special needs teacher who did not want to be named, claiming that locals were unloading unrelated grievances about their lives onto asylum seekers because they are 'an easy target'.
On Friday, the Home Office said asylum seekers face being made homeless if they refuse orders by officials to move out of hotels into alternative accommodation.
Around 100 asylum seekers refuse to move accommodation each week, and ministers currently have no powers to force them.
Record arrivals for the year is making it harder for officials to find new accomodation
Under the Conservatives, the Government threatened to remove housing and support from those who refused to move to the Bibby Stockholm barge, which is no longer in use.
Labour's new plan will mirror the Tory rules, but will be applied more widely to other forms of accommodation.
The 'firm but fair' policy is part of the Government's drive to end the use of expensive hotels to house asylum seekers.
One plan could see empty homes brought back into use to house both asylum seekers and local homeless people, according to the Telegraph.
The Home Office said it wanted 'to develop a more sustainable, long-term model of accommodation supply, which may be more locally led, should reduce competition for affordable housing, and help deliver new supply'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action High Court challenge can go ahead, judge rules
Palestine Action's co-founder has won a bid to bring a High Court challenge over the group's ban as a terror organisation. Huda Ammori is challenging Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to proscribe the group under anti-terror laws, announced after the group claimed responsibility for action in which two Voyager planes were damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. The ban means that membership of, or support for, the direct action group is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Earlier this month, lawyers for Ms Ammori asked a judge to allow her to bring the High Court challenge over the ban, describing it as an 'unlawful interference' with freedom of expression. And in a decision on Wednesday, judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said that two parts of the arguments on Ms Ammori's behalf were 'reasonably arguable'. In his ruling, he said it was arguable that the proscription 'amounts to a disproportionate interference' of Ms Ammori's rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. He said: 'That being so, the point will have to be determined at a substantive hearing and it would not be appropriate for me to say more now.' The judge continued that a second argument, that Ms Cooper failed to consult Palestine Action 'in breach of natural justice', could also go to a full hearing. He said: 'As a matter of principle, I consider that it is reasonably arguable that a duty to consult arose.' He continued: 'Having considered the evidence, I also consider it reasonably arguable that there was no compelling reason why consultation could not have been undertaken here.' Mr Justice Chamberlain refused to allow Ms Ammori to challenge the Government's decision on several other grounds, including a claim that the Home Secretary failed to gather sufficient information on Palestine Action's activities or the impact of the proscription on people associated with it. He also refused to allow Ms Ammori to argue that Ms Cooper breached her duty under the Equality Act, and took into account 'irrelevant considerations', such as whether Palestine Action's methods were 'morally or politically justifiable'. Following the ruling, Ms Ammori said: 'This landmark decision to grant a judicial review which could see the Home Secretary's unlawful decision to ban Palestine Action quashed, demonstrates the significance of this case for freedoms of speech, expression and assembly and rights to natural justice in our country and the rule of law itself.' She continued: 'We will not stop defending fundamental rights to free speech and expression in our country and supporting Palestinian people against a genocide being livestreamed before our eyes.' Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, previously told the court at the hearing on July 21 that the ban had made the UK 'an international outlier' and was 'repugnant'. Mr Husain added: 'The decision to proscribe Palestine Action had the hallmarks of an authoritarian and blatant abuse of power.' The Home Office is defending the legal action. Sir James Eadie KC, for the department, said in written submissions that by causing serious damage to property, Palestine Action was 'squarely' within part of the terrorism laws used in proscription. He said: 'There is no credible basis on which it can be asserted that the purpose of this activity is not designed to influence the Government, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.' Previously, Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, said Palestine Action could challenge the Home Secretary's decision at the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC), a specialist tribunal, rather than at the High Court. Sir James said that an 'exceptional case' would be needed for it to go to the High Court, rather than the POAC. Mr Justice Chamberlain said on Wednesday that a High Court challenge could take place in the autumn of this year, whereas an appeal to the specialist tribunal would take much longer. He said: 'If it were necessary to appeal for deproscription, it is very unlikely that an application before POAC would be listed before the middle of 2026.' In his judgment, he said: 'If the legality of the proscription order can properly be raised by way of defence to criminal proceedings, that would open up the spectre of different and possibly conflicting decisions on that issue in magistrates' courts across England and Wales or before different judges or juries in the Crown Court. 'That would be a recipe for chaos. 'To avoid it, there is a strong public interest in allowing the legality of the order to be determined authoritatively as soon as possible. The obvious way to do that is in judicial review proceedings.' The judge also said that people protesting in support of Palestine and Gaza, but not expressing support for Palestine Action, had 'attracted various kinds of police attention, from questioning to arrest'. He continued that it was 'important not to draw too much from the fact that police and others appear to have misunderstood the law on some occasions'. But he added: 'Nonetheless, reports of the kind of police conduct referred to… are liable to have a chilling effect on those wishing to express legitimate political views. 'This effect can properly be regarded as an indirect consequence of the proscription order.' Ms Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, saying that the vandalism of the two planes, which police said caused an estimated £7 million of damage, was 'disgraceful'.
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reform poll delivers fresh blow to Starmer
New polling reveals that Reform voters largely prefer Jeremy Corbyn over Sir Keir Starmer across most metrics, despite Sir Keir's attempts to shift Labour to the right. The survey, conducted by Merlin Strategy for Novara Media, indicates Reform voters view Mr Corbyn as more authentic, honest, principled, and capable of radical decisions than Sir Keir. Sir Keir was only seen more favourably than Mr Corbyn regarding his standing on the world stage. The poll results coincide with Sir Keir's public approval rating reaching a new low, with many voters perceiving his government as chaotic. The findings follow Mr Corbyn's recent launch of a new political party with Zarah Sultana, which he claims has attracted over 600,000 sign-ups.
BBC News
12 minutes ago
- BBC News
The delicate politics behind the UK's move on Palestine
Sir Keir Starmer is familiar with Emily Damari's ordeal. Over the 15 months that she was held hostage in Gaza, the prime minister mentioned her several times when talking about the war, including describing phone calls he held with her British mother Mandy when she did not know whether Emily was still alive. So it will no doubt feel unpleasant, to say the least, for the prime minister to find himself on the receiving end of sharp criticism from Emily today. Responding to Sir Keir's announcement that he was willing to recognise a Palestinian state in September, Ms Damari accused him of "moral failure".She said he risked "rewarding terror" and "prolonging the conflict". Her intervention echoed a statement from representatives of 10 hostages who are being held or have been held in Gaza, who are either British or have close ties to said that they took no position on the "wider politics" of the war, but they were concerned that the UK's new position would remove incentives for Hamas to sign up to a ceasefire and release the remaining hostages, because it could now make recognition of a Palestinian state less concern of the hostage families is based on one of the prevailing interpretations of what the prime minister said in Downing Street after Tuesday's emergency cabinet that UK recognition of Palestine would be determined only by whether Israel met various conditions in the intervening weeks: agreeing to a ceasefire, making it clear it will not annex the West Bank, taking "substantive steps" to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and committing to a long-term peace government sources today have been pointing additionally to another element of the prime minister's statement on Tuesday."Our message to the terrorists of Hamas is unchanged and unequivocal," he said. "They must immediately release all the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza."We will make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps."Parties plural - that's to say, both Israel and Hamas. This, Downing Street sources argue, shows that the question of whether the UK ultimately presses ahead with recognition will be based not solely on Israel's actions but those of Hamas too, and means that their approach will not disincentivise Hamas to release the hostages after all. But that position has not been consistently articulated. For example, speaking to the BBC today, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said that "the ball is in the Israeli government's court". Asked whether recognition would still happen if Hamas is in control of Gaza in September, she replied by speaking only about the need for Israel to meet the government's conditions. The bottom line is this: nobody I have spoken to in Labour expects the government to do anything other than recognise Palestine in all the uncertainty about the precise conditions for getting there, and the mechanics of the assessment process the government will carry out, that is the significance of what Sir Keir said on that is a hugely significant shift in the UK's diplomatic posture, both across governments of different stripes, and compared to what this government was saying just a few days ago. Sir Keir has long said that he wants to recognise a Palestinian state, but only when it would make the biggest contribution to bringing about a two-state solution – which, it had generally been assumed, meant after the end of this delicate politics involved in changing position is one reason why the government has ended up in a slightly convoluted position was also undoubtedly involved in the government's decision to change course. Political gravity Sir Keir's own rhetoric, especially as regards the humanitarian situation in Gaza, has been publicly hardening for a little the mood of the parliamentary Labour party was moving faster. By the start of this week, more than half of Labour's MPs who don't hold government positions had signed a letter urging the government to recognise Palestine. Cabinet ministers were finding ways to let it be known that they agreed some in government, there was concern that when MPs return from their summer break in September, an opposition party would find a way to force a vote on the issue - and Starmer would have to climb down then, if he had not done so gravity was always going to take effect before long. There is a risk, though, that the government could fall between two stools. There are those, including some of those in Labour who have been pushing to recognise Palestine most loudly, who argue that if Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people, then it should not be conditional on actions taken by the Israeli is also the position taken by the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, and independents such as Jeremy the other side, there are those who argue that this is gesture politics, and statehood should not be entertained until Hamas has released the hostages - even though ultimately the Palestinian state the UK envisages would be governed by the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas. That's the position of a few in Labour, though more prominently of the Conservatives and Reform above all, a change in the government's position became inevitable because the middle of the Labour Party - those who have not necessarily always been vocal on this issue, and have generally backed Sir Keir's judgment - wanted a change. They are happy fragile political peace is based on a universal assumption that this is all merely a staging post to inevitable recognition of Palestine in just a few weeks. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
