Government warns asylum seekers they may be made homeless if they refuse to move out of migrant hotels into alternative accommodation - as current bill costs taxpayers £5.7million per day
In a bid to stop migrants rejecting alternative housing without a valid reason, ministers will bring in new rules to tackle non-compliance.
A 'Failure to Travel' policy will ensure illegal migrants who are moved from hotels to other 'suitable' accommodation must take it.
If they refuse they could lose their housing and support, the Home Office said.
Around 100 asylum seekers refuse to move accommodation each week, the Mail understands, and ministers currently have no powers to force them.
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.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has vowed to put a stop to the practice by 2029 - in a move she says will save £1billion a year.
Currently, taxpayers are forking out £5.7million per day to house asylum seekers in hotels - at an average cost of £118.87 per person per night.
Other accommodation, such as shared houses, is estimated to cost just £15 per night.
Ministers are looking to buy tower blocks and former student accommodation to house migrants in a bid to reduce the hotel bill.
More than 106,000 asylum seekers were in receipt of taxpayer-funded support as of March this year, including 32,000 in hotels.
Asylum seekers are given free accommodation and a weekly allowance if the Home Office believes they would otherwise be destitute.
The majority of those arriving on small boats qualify.
Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Dame Angela Eagle, said: 'We inherited an asylum system on the brink of collapse - mismanaged, under strain, and costing the public a fortune. We are getting a grip.
'We are working to close hotels, restore order, and put fairness and value for money at the heart of our asylum system. This government is making those necessary decisions to protect the taxpayer and uphold the integrity of our borders.
'These reforms to the Failure to Travel policy are another example of this government's action to transform the asylum accommodation system and crack down on those who abuse our system, so it operates fairly and saves the taxpayer money.'
The Mail this week reported how asylum seekers are using taxpayer handouts to fund their gambling habits.
Home Office data, released to the PoliticsHome website, showed pre-paid cards given out to pay for basics including food and clothing are being used in gambling venues such as bookmakers, amusement arcades and even casinos.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Report: Britain's prisons 'on the brink of collapse' while Sunak was PM
Britain's prison system was on the brink of collapse on three occasions while Rishi Sunak was prime minister, according to a damning report. Dame Ann Owers, a former chief inspector of prisons, found the criminal justice system had been 'in crisis' for more than 18 months under the Tory government. In her review, commissioned by Labour 's Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Dame Ann revealed that senior officials even feared riots if jails ran out of space. She also disclosed that top civil servants 'were so concerned' about a breakdown that they kept 'an audit' of all decision-making and documents in case of a future inquiry. Following Labour's general election victory in July 2024, Ms Mahmood implemented a new early release scheme in order to tackle prison overcrowding. This saw her cut the proportion of a sentence that inmates must serve behind bars from 50 per cent to 40 per cent. But prisons in England and Wales are still around 98 per cent full. HM Prison and Probation Service says it cannot run the estate efficiently at over 95 per cent capacity. In her report, published today, Dame Ann described an 18-month 'permacrisis' in the criminal justice system while Mr Sunak was in Downing Street. Dame Ann criticized the previous Tory government for only doing 'just enough to avert breakdown and buy time until the next predictable cliff edge was reached'. She revealed how, in May 2024 following the announcement of the general election, senior officials discussed 'contingency plans in case the criminal justice system collapsed during the election campaign because prisons were unable to take in any more prisoners'. 'This could involve invoking emergency powers under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to release prisoners early, in order to avert the risk of public disorder,' she added. 'The risk was real: at one point there were fewer than 100 places in adult male prisons. 'However, the system had in fact been in crisis for over eighteen months. From 2023 onwards, prisons were running very close to the edge of capacity. 'On three occasions, this was only pulled back at the last minute by the use of early release schemes, gradually decreasing the amount of time many prisoners spent in custody, using powers designed to allow release on compassionate grounds. 'Senior officials were so concerned about a potential breakdown in the criminal justice system that an audit was kept of all decision making and documents, in case there was a public or parliamentary inquiry.' In a further criticism of the previous government's handling of the crisis, Dame Ann continued: 'Although departmental ministers were convinced by mid-2023 that some form of early release was both necessary and urgent, this required Prime Ministerial agreement, which was not forthcoming until the system was within three days of potential collapse, and only in incremental stages.' She also said that, while conducting her review, many of those she spoke to 'expressed frustration and sometimes anger at the reluctance to accept and then act on the well-documented and imminent crisis, or to agree any coherent plan to avert it'. 'Many believed that the default position was to do as little as possible as late as possible, with the consequence that the system repeatedly reached the brink of collapse, rather than accepting the inevitable and getting ahead of the crisis,' Dame Ann added. In October 2023, then justice secretary Alex Chalk announced some 'less serious offenders' could be freed from prison up to 18 days before their automatic release date. This was then increased to 60 days in March 2024 and then to 70 days in May 2024. Ms Mahmood said: 'This report lays bare the disgraceful way the last Conservative government ran our prisons. 'They added less than 500 cells to the prison estate over 14 years, released over 10,000 prisoners early under a veil of secrecy, and brought our jails close to total collapse on countless occasions.' Andrew Neilson, the director of campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: 'This review into prison capacity spells out in forensic detail how the Government has found itself facing the prospect of running out of cells. 'It is a crisis, or more accurately a series of crises, that has been brewing over several decades and across successive governments.' A Conservative Party spokesman said: 'In office, the Conservatives rightly listened to the public demand to see criminals punished with proper sentences, and to tackle the capacity issues we had plans to use prisons abroad. 'Labour scrapped those plans and instead chose to release violent criminals back on our streets. 'Labour aren't serious about tackling these issues. They blocked our deportation bill that would have mandated the deportation of all foreign criminals. 'Whilst Labour and Reform want shorter sentences, the Conservatives will make no apology for ensuring that heinous criminals are kept off our streets and behind bars.'
New Statesman
29 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The Gaza movement will never forgive Labour
Photo by Mark Kerrison/In Pictures On Monday evening (4 August), the pro-Palestine movement unleashed a 'siege on Labour'. Located on a side street in south London, its party headquarters is an unassuming, dusty-brown office block. But, surrounded by a mass of keffiyehs, flags and badges organised by the Palestinian Youth Movement, the area became a cacophony of noise – and confrontation. The protesters came bearing two key messages: that Labour is complicit in the destruction wrought on Gaza, and that David Lammy must resign as Foreign Secretary. There was a vengeful mood. Several carried a banner reading, 'Labour supports genocide,' decorated with fresh, blood-red handprints. With the parliamentary summer recess in full flow, there was barely anyone affiliated with the party to take notice of the groups who massed at 15 of its key offices across the country. Those suited office workers that did happen to be present merely looked on awkwardly through the glass frontage. The protestors did face some opposition: chants of 'From the river, to the sea…' were met by a piercing siren purposefully set off by a disgruntled neighbour in a nearby block of flats, and lone man with a thin mohawk and skin-tight jeans also showed up to counter-protest. Both were soon crowded out by the size and noise of the demonstration. 'History will judge Labour on this,' one of the event's leading speakers, Cat, told me as she used her keffiyeh to cover her hair in the early-evening drizzle. 'They have collaborated with war criminals. They have allowed crimes against humanity to take place under their watch, knowing what was going on.' This is the voice of newly radicalised politics, one who may never forgive the Labour party – or mainstream politics altogether. While support for Palestine was universal among those who turned up, there was a split over which MPs were adequately on the side of the cause. Jeremy Corbyn, Zarah Sultana, 'even the Tory, Kit Malthouse' – who has strongly criticised Labour's response to the war – drew praise from one protester, who cited the incoming Corbyn-Sultana party as an example of 'people-powered movements rising up'. But another declared that British politics is laden with 'imperialist parties', and that 'we've never seen a Labour MP [truly] defend the Palestinian people in their resistance-struggle.' Not even Corbyn? 'When you look at the Labour Party under Corbyn, it's the same [as now].' But while this movement has few parliamentary allies, it knows who its opponents are. 'The Palestine liberation movement needs to up its game,' Seema, a protestor, told me. 'We can't just be doing A-to-B protests, we have to show who the real enemy is.' This mentality was what drove a separate group of protesters to the heart of Tottenham, where they crowded by the metal gate that leads to David Lammy's constituency office. The mood was persecutory. 'Down with the Labour Party!' was the cry when I arrived. It soon turned to 'David Lammy, be afraid / We will see you at the Hague.' In the judgement of these protestors, Lammy is a collaborator with Israel, the personification of Labour's feeble response to the war, and its half commitment to a Palestinian state. His name came up more often in my conversations with protestors than Keir Starmer, despite the Prime Minister's own missteps on the issue. There is equal ill-feeling towards Wes Streeting; on the same evening as the Tottenham demonstration, protestors also took to the Health Secretary's constituency office in Ilford, nine miles down the road. And while these protests have an emotional temper, they reflect a real political splintering. 'I think there's anger, but I also think there's sober analysis. People have woken up,' Nihal, one of Palestinian Youth Movement organisers, told me. These protesters face a dual anxiety: fear for the potential of personal repercussions (seen in the ubiquity of face-coverings); and fear of the power of the security services, exacerbated by the proscription of Palestine Action in July. But those present last night were resolute. If the government bans an organisation, 'new ones will just keep turning up', Nihal said. 'Even with today's protest, people have called it violent. They've called it bullying, when we're just standing outside of a public servant's office, calling for accountability in a very peaceful manner. With all the pearl-clutching, you'd think that we'd be doing something that is beyond the pale. This is normal protesting in a functioning democracy.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe That may be so, but it is reflective of a restive public consciousness. In the final Cabinet meeting before Parliament split for the summer, Labour's frontbenchers fretted over the prospect of a 'summer of discontent'. From the protests outside asylum hotels to this very different display – a mass movement against British foreign policy – that summer is quickly coming to pass. Though Lammy and key figures from Labour weren't around to hear this summer's latest remonstration, they didn't need to be. They already know – and the discontent shows no sign of ending. [Further reading: Palestine Action and the distortion of terrorism] Related
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Snowflake solicitors are destroying a once proud profession
Britain's legal profession – once a byword for rigour, intellect and integrity – now finds itself the latest battleground in the war against excellence. A cohort of aspiring solicitors has taken to petitioning for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) to be made easier. Their complaint? The exams are 'too hard, disproportionately challenging ', and, of course, 'biased towards certain backgrounds and learning styles '. In other words: 'We didn't do well, and it must be someone else's fault.' There could hardly be a more telling parable of our times. The snowflake sensibility – once confined to undergraduate common rooms and the wilder fringes of social media – has now infected even the corridors of legal ambition. The future custodians of our justice system are not asking for a level playing field; they are asking for the pitch to be tilted until everyone scores. The argument, if we can call it that, is that maintaining high standards will inevitably restrict 'diversity' in the profession. And here we are again, at the familiar intersection where merit collides with identity politics – and where the latter is expected to triumph, no matter the cost. This isn't about widening opportunity. It is about lowering the bar. Having sat more than a dozen legal exams across three jurisdictions – from the halls of Cambridge to the benches of the Sorbonne, and ultimately the famously exacting New York bar – I speak from a place of experience. These were not fun. I lost a stone in weight during one set of particularly punishing exams. They were not 'inclusive'. They were not designed to reflect my personal learning style. They were difficult. That was the point. And when I passed them, I felt a precious sense of achievement and readiness for the real world of legal practice. And therein lies a truth we are fast forgetting: standards are not meant to flatter us, they are meant to test us. The whole premise of a professional exam is that it provides an independent measure of competence. It is meant to be hard. It is meant to discriminate: not on the basis of race or class, but on the basis of skill, preparation and effort. That is not injustice. That is fairness. If I'm paying a lawyer, a doctor, or a pilot for their services, I do not want someone who merely feels entitled to the role. I want someone who has earned their place. Their colour, class or creed do not matter to me. What matters, and should matters, is their calibre. And if that view now makes me unfashionable, then so be it. But the consequences of this race to the bottom go far beyond a few disgruntled exam-takers. Undermining legal standards risks hollowing out one of the UK's most formidable exports: our legal profession itself. English law is the governing framework of choice for international commerce precisely because it has been shaped by a world-class profession. A profession forged through rigour, not rhetoric. Flooding it with underprepared entrants – however well-meaning or well-intentioned – will not promote equity. It will diminish excellence. And it is the very people supposedly being helped who will suffer most, entering a crowded profession where oversupply drives down wages and erodes prestige. Here, then, is the central paradox: in the name of inclusion, we exclude the very mechanisms that uplift. Hard work. Discipline. Ambition. Standards. The old virtues are being recast as vices: elitism, snobbery, oppression. And all to appease a cultural mood that seems to confuse equal opportunity with equal outcomes. But Britain cannot afford this decline. Not in a century where the likes of China, India, and the United States are training their brightest and best to surpass us. While they chase excellence, we chase excuses. This is not compassion. It is cowardice, disguised in the language of empathy. It is not progress, it is entropy. And unless we reclaim the idea that standards matter – that excellence should be earned, and that challenge is a feature, not a flaw, of a functioning society – then we will become a country incapable of producing not just good lawyers, but good professionals of any kind.
