Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt.
New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25.
The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK.
The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money.
The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media.
Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas.
But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival.
According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK.
Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds".
Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period.
But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn.
Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog
Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits
On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether."
The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed.
But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets.
The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world.
Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn.
Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment.
Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government.
"Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement.
"It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul."
Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced.
"Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder."
"The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here."
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour.
"Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken."
A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK.
"We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026."
Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of foreign aid on asylum support this year
The Home Office plans to spend about £2.2 billion of foreign aid to support asylum seekers this financial year, according to new figures. The amount of overseas development assistance (ODA) budgeted by the Home Office – which is largely used to cover accommodation costs such as hotels for asylum seekers – is slightly less than the £2.3 billion it spent in 2024/25. International rules allow countries to count first-year costs of supporting refugees as overseas development assistance (ODA). The figures, first reported by the BBC, were published in recent days on the Home Office website. The Home Office said it is 'urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs' which will cut the amount spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. It also said it was expected to have saved £500 million in asylum support costs in the last financial year, and that this had saved £200 million in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. A total of 32,345 asylum seekers were being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March this year. This figure is down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations. Labour has previously said it is 'committed to end the use of asylum hotels over time', adding that under the previous Conservative government at one stage 'more than 400 hotels were in use and almost £9 million per day was being spent'. Jo White, chairwoman of the Red Wall group of Labour MPs, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday: 'We need to be looking at things like ECHR article eight. I don't think anything's off the table … including looking at new options such as processing abroad. 'So, we have to be open to see how we can move move that backlog as quickly as possible. I'm getting impatient. 'I know my colleagues in parliament are getting impatient and we're pressing the Government as hard as we can on this.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure and are urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of official development assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4 billion by 2026. 'The Rwanda scheme also wasted £700 million to remove just four volunteers – instead, we have surged removals to nearly 30,000 since the election, are giving law enforcement new counter-terror style powers, and increasing intelligence sharing through our Border Security Command to tackle the heart of the issue, vile people-smuggling gangs.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to slash foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the billions of pounds of foreign aid partly used to house asylum seekers in hotels, according to new figures. The £2.2bn Home Office estimate to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) in this financial year is only slightly less than the £2.3bn spent in 2024/25. The vast majority is used for the accommodation for asylum seekers who have arrived in the UK, with recent figures showing more than 32,000 were being housed in hotels at the end of March. Labour has pledged "to end the use of asylum hotels" and the government says it has reduced the overall asylum support costs by half a billion pounds, including £200m in ODA savings, which had been passed back to the Treasury. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said he will cut the overall ODA from its current level of 0.5% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.3% in 2027. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent on providing humanitarian and development assistance in other countries, but the UK is allowed to count refugee-hosting costs as ODA under internationally agreed rules. Labour MP Sarah Champion previously said a "scandalously large amount" of ODA has been diverted to the Home Office and has called for a cap on how much can be spent supporting asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations. A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and are urgently taking action to restore order, and reduce costs. "This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why the BBC thinks it can get Labour to give it more funding
Tim Davie struck a gloomy tone when discussing the BBC's finances on Tuesday, as he renewed calls for extra funding. 'I want proper investment and not begrudging, grinding cuts to the BBC, which you've had in the last 10 years, which have just not helped,' the director general said. The timing of his comments was key. Davie is currently locked in talks with ministers ahead of the BBC's Charter renewal in 2027, as he fights for the future of the licence fee. Bosses in W1A acknowledge that the funding model requires reform in the modern media age. But how this will affect the BBC's stretched finances is a critical question as it continues to lose viewers at an alarming rate. The licence fee has existed in some guise since the BBC's launch in 1922, when the government decided the new broadcaster should be publicly funded. This, the corporation says, allows its UK output to remain 'free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest'. While the BBC was initially limited to radio services, the first combined radio and TV licence was issued in 1946 for £2. Fast-forward to the 21st century and the BBC has transformed from a fledgling broadcaster into a public service behemoth. Income from the licence fee stood at £3.7bn last year, a significant chunk of the UK's entertainment and media market, which is valued at around £100bn by PwC. However, this scale does not tell the full story. With the emergence of streaming rivals such as Netflix and Disney, as well as social media platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, the BBC is facing an identity crisis. While the public service broadcaster continues to dominate the UK media space – around 86pc of adults consume its services each week, according to the latest Ofcom figures – it is losing ground. This is particularly acute among 16 to 24-year-olds, who spend just 5pc of their in-home video time with the BBC, compared to the 23pc for over-35s. Waning interest has meant lower income as viewers vote with their feet. The number of households paying the licence fee dropped to 23.9m last year – a 500,000 fall that sucked £80m from the BBC's budget. The figure is 2.3m lower than the peak of 26.2m between 2017 and 2019. Cost is likely to be a factor. At £174.50 per year, the licence fee comes in at around £14.50 a month. That compares to £5.99 a month for Netflix's ad tier, or £12.99 for its standard ad-free service. Disney charges £4.99 with ads and £8.99 without. While the BBC argues it offers good value for money given the breadth of its service, this is unlikely to win over apathetic youngsters who consider Auntie irrelevant. The fall in licence fee payers is not the only driving force behind the BBC's squeezed finances, however. Over the last 15 years, repeated government interventions have taken their toll. In 2010, George Osborne announced the licence fee would be frozen for seven years at £145.50. Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary, then froze the levy again in 2022, even as inflation surged. The fee will now increase in line with inflation until the end of the Charter in 2027, but only after another Tory culture secretary, Lucy Frazer, stepped in to prevent a 9pc – or £15 – rise amid concerns it would fuel the cost of living crisis. Adding further strain to the budget, the government in 2015 forced the BBC to take over the cost of providing free licence fees to the over-75s, while it also handed over the main burden of funding the World Service. Analysis shows that government interference, coupled with a decline in licence fee payers, amounts to a real-terms decrease of around 30pc – or £1.4bn – in the broadcaster's domestic funding over the last 15 years. The question, then, is how to plug the gap. Davie has been wielding the axe on both staff and programming as he seeks to strip £700m from the BBC's annual budget. Yet this whittling down of resources has fuelled anger and concern about the impact on the quality of the broadcaster's output, with spending on new shows poised to fall by £150m this year. The BBC has also ramped up enforcement of the licence fee, with 41m warnings sent out in the 2024 financial year – an increase of almost 13pc year on year. Another method championed by Davie, the former BBC Studios boss, is to boost the broadcaster's commercial income to help balance the books. Measures so far have included taking full control of BritBox International, the BBC's joint streaming venture with ITV, after buying out its rival for £225m. The BBC has also struck a co-production deal with Disney to air Doctor Who overseas, worth an estimated $100m (£73m). But other schemes, such as its plan to run adverts around radio and podcast output, have been scrapped in the face of fierce opposition from commercial rivals. Despite its bold aims, the BBC's commercial income fell to £1.7bn last year from just under £2bn the year before. Overall, the BBC is forecasting a £33m deficit for the coming year. While this is down from the eye-watering £500m shortfall the previous year, it highlights the ongoing strain on the corporation's finances. It is against this precarious backdrop that the BBC has entered discussions with the Government. Ministers have made it clear, however, that reform, or even scrapping, of the licence fee is top of the agenda. While the licence fee is now lower as a proportion of average household income – 0.46pc last year compared to 0.64pc in 2012 – the levy is facing scrutiny in a world where viewers have a plethora of entertainment options. What's more, the licence fee is regressive, with poorer households paying more relative to their income and women disproportionately prosecuted for not paying. So if the licence fee were to be scrapped, what could take its place? One option is replacing it with a subscription model, similar to those of streaming services. However, critics have warned that such a move risks undermining the BBC's ability to serve its audiences and would limit the scope of its output. 'A subscription funding model would be antithetical to the BBC's public service mission, necessarily ending universality of access and undermining its breadth of content,' said analysts at Enders Analysis. Similarly, funding the BBC through advertising has been viewed as a non-starter as it would draw too much money away from the commercial TV and radio sector. Both Davie and Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, have pushed to retain the licence fee with reforms, acknowledging the shortcomings of a regressive flat tax. But what would this look like? Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has pushed back against the idea of funding the BBC through general taxation, saying it would leave the broadcaster exposed to political interference. Another option is a household tax similar to the one used in Germany. This would boost the BBC's income by widening the payment of the licence fee to all households, rather than just those who use its services. It could also be linked to council tax bands, creating a more progressive system where wealthier households pay more. Other options under consideration include linking the levy to broadband bills – a measure that would take on particular relevance as Britain prepares to switch off terrestrial TV and move to a streaming-only model. It is thought that any of these reforms would reduce the rate of evasion, though ministers will no doubt be reluctant to introduce new taxes, especially in light of the upcoming spending review. In a speech last month, Davie said: 'When it comes to funding, we are not asking for the status quo. We want modernisation and reform. But in doing so, we must safeguard universality.' Alternatively, as the BBC's Charter comes up for renewal, ministers could opt for a bolder rethink. The corporation retains its Reithian principles – named after John Reith, the first director-general – to inform, educate and entertain. But in the modern age, does the BBC still need to be all things to all people? Some industry watchers note that the BBC could drop some of its more peripheral services, such as its education unit Bitesize. BBC bosses are themselves alive to this possibility, and the broadcaster in March launched its largest ever public survey to ask audiences what they want from the broadcaster in the future. A more radical view espoused by a number of industry bigwigs is a merger between the UK's public service broadcasters. Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former chairman of ITV, says: 'There's no doubt in my mind that there ought to be mergers between domestic broadcasters, not just in England, but right across Europe, in order for those broadcasters to survive and have big enough businesses in their streaming services.' Speaking at a conference in London this week, Wayne Garvie, Sony Pictures' international boss, said: 'We've got five public service broadcasters in Britain. The rest of the world might have one. 'It is unsustainable and the future has got to be, surely, Channel 4 and the BBC coming together.' The idea of slimming down the BBC or combining it with its rivals will no doubt rankle supporters who view the universality of access as a key tenet of its purpose. But as competition grows and audiences continue to defect, it is clear the status quo cannot continue. Instead of trying to do more with less, it may be time for the public service broadcaster to simply do less. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
