Labour to end hotels for asylum seekers says Rachel Reeves
The chancellor announced the plan today in the Spending Review,
She said putting asylum seekers up in hotels was a costly policy and her plan would save £1billion.
Reeves told the House of Commons the government would 'End the use of hotels for asylum seekers by the end of this parliament".
She said that to achieve it, more money will be invested in cutting the asylum backlog and ensuring more hearings took place.
She did not state where asylum seekers would be housed instead.
Glasgow has been home to thousands of asylum seekers, under the UK dispersal programme and many have been housed in hotels in the city.
The city takes in more than nine out of ten asylum seekers in Scotland.
The city council has asked the government to pause sending more asylum seekers to the city as it places unbearable pressure on public services.
The pressure comes as more people are pushed through the process, leading to a rise in homelessness, as hundreds become homeless when they are given leave to remain.
People are moved out of their Home Office-funded asylum seeker accommodation, and then they need to find their own housing.
Many end up homeless and have to be put up by the council in temporary accommodation.
More than half of the people in temporary accommodation in Glasgow are refugees.
There are currently 4887 people with refugee status in Glasgow in temporary accommodation out of a total 8279 people.
In hotels, the picture is similar.
Of the 1972 people in 40 hotels and B&Bs for homeless people, 1417 are refugees.
The chancellor's statement only applies to asylum seekers in hotels and not refugees.
Glasgow City Council has said the policy of the previous, Conservative, UK Government to speed up hearings and get more people through the asylum process led to the housing emergency in the city.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
33 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
New House of Lords front door that cost almost £10 million does not work
The project has been described as 'a complete white elephant and a disaster'. Peers heard a member of parliamentary staff had to be permanently stationed at the door to press a button to open it. It also emerged that the price tag of the project spiralled by nearly 60% from the original estimate of £6.1 million. Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said it was 'completely unacceptable' to have a door that did not work properly, and she shared the frustrations, upset 'and every other adjective' members wished to use. There was also a question over whether it would ever be fully operational, she suggested. The bill for what has been described at Westminster as 'one of the most expensive front doors in the world' was made public after peers raised concerns that their requests for the cost of the scheme had been repeatedly stonewalled by the authorities on security grounds. They also said they had warned from the start that the design would not work. Members of the Lords vented their annoyance as they heard plans for commercial procurement in Parliament to be transferred into a new joint department of both Houses. While welcoming the administrative changes, Tory former Cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean pressed Lady Smith, who sits on the House of Lords Commission, over the cost of the new front door at the Peers' Entrance. He said: 'Very senior members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. 'I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. 'Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work, as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. 'We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. 'The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.' The Conservative peer added: 'I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no-one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs.' Tory former minister Lord Robathan said: 'If this were in the private sector, I am afraid that people would be sacked.' Lady Smith said: 'On the door itself, there are two issues, cost and operability. 'It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should.' On the cost she said there was 'wildly exaggerated and incorrect information', adding: 'It is important that we are secure, so the costs of the door are very high. It is not just the security issue but also the heritage issue. 'The initial estimate was £6.1 million for the door. That increased because it was the request of members that it should remain open during the duration of the works when the House was sitting. 'The fact that it could not be closed off to get on with the work meant the cost increased – plus some other issues around heritage were discovered. The total cost has been £9.6 million.' She added: 'That is high, but what is more serious is that, having spent that money, the door does not work. 'That is a huge frustration to everybody. 'One of the reasons that it is not the same as other security pods on the estate is that it has to be fully accessible for those who have mobility issues and wish to use mobility aids or wheelchairs. 'The information I have is that the work that has been ongoing to address the problems has not cost the House any more beyond that. 'However, there is a window where a decision has to be taken on whether or not it will ever be fully operational and serve the needs of this House. 'I share the frustrations, the upset and every other adjective members may wish to use.' Lady Smith told peers: 'When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.'
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Reeves claims she's balancing the books - but sky-high bond yields tell a different story, says ALEX BRUMMER
The Chancellor's spending review is being billed by Labour as a signal moment for a government that is haunted by banana skins of its own making. It paints events as a moment for national renewal after 14 years of Tory chaos. It is nothing of the kind. An analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows, despite the hype and hand-outs for favoured constituencies, Rachel Reeves barely moved the dial on capital investment spending. All she did was maintain capital budgets, such as those for science and tech, at the same 'high' level of national income as Jeremy Hunt, the most recent Conservative Chancellor. IFS's director Paul Johnson doesn't pull his punches. He says if anyone was 'baffled' by the Chancellor's speech 'so were we'. He goes on to suggest that it wasn't a serious effort to provide useful information to anybody. It also exposed Reeves's ineptitude in framing arguments. There was no attempt to elevate and explain the spend, with focus on the white heat of technology, in terms of the nuclear, digital, and biotech revolution which will change Britain forever. Instead, there was revived talk of 'securonomics' (buried since Labour has been in office) and misleading crowing about the state of the economy. The boast that the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first quarter of the year was accurate. But as Reuters reported yesterday it was a case of 'pride comes before a fall'. Reeves and her team must have had early sight of the April growth data which showed output shrank by 0.3 per cent. A big factor was Trump's tariff war, which caused car, steel and other exports to stumble. One might have thought someone at the Treasury, or a special adviser, might gently have suggested the G7 comparison was a rhetorical trap which might have been avoided. The April data may be rogue because of Trump tariff uncertainty. The Government hopes the trumpeted trade accord with the US will soon come to fruition and the UK's upmarket car makers – Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley, and Rolls-Royce and the more eclectic Mini – will soon be back to normal business. However, it will take time for the logistics and supply chain to be revised. The downturn also was partly the result of policy. The end to concessions on stamp duty predictably produced a lull in home sales, despite the good househunting weather and the easing of the bank rate. Tax does make a difference. It is not wise for a government making a big bet on the housing market to bypass it as a recovery tool by punishing homebuyers, especially younger people seeking the first rung on the ladder. There is one G7 table which Rachel Reeves didn't mention. The Chancellor believes her fiscal rules, which require current spending to be matched by taxation but allow borrowing for investment, have secured the UK's budget after the Liz Truss disorder. Markets don't believe it. The yield on Britain's ten-year bond – or gilt – at 4.5 per cent in latest trading is the highest among the rich Western democracies. Reeves makes the reasonable case that UK yields move in lockstep with those in New York. There is, however, a serious flaw in the thinking. The Chancellor appears to believe that if the current budget is in balance, it is fine to borrow to invest. That may be the case in Japan and Germany, where bond rates are 1.46 per cent and 2.53 per cent respectively, because their governments' overall interest bill is, by UK standards, under control. In Britain's case, every pound that is borrowed for a new roundabout or bypass behind the Red Wall comes with interest at high rates. So the extra borrowing for Labour's £2 trillion or so of capital spend inflates the current budget via borrowing charges. In the autumn, the Treasury estimated the interest bill for 2025-26 at £126billion. If gilts had a similar yield to the German bund there would be an extra £60billion or so for education, health or even an end to the freeze on income tax thresholds which punish hard work and enterprise. Britain's national accounts do not provide a free pass for capital projects.
North Wales Chronicle
43 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
New House of Lords front door that cost almost £10 million does not work
The project has been described as 'a complete white elephant and a disaster'. Peers heard a member of parliamentary staff had to be permanently stationed at the door to press a button to open it. It also emerged that the price tag of the project spiralled by nearly 60% from the original estimate of £6.1 million. Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon said it was 'completely unacceptable' to have a door that did not work properly, and she shared the frustrations, upset 'and every other adjective' members wished to use. There was also a question over whether it would ever be fully operational, she suggested. The bill for what has been described at Westminster as 'one of the most expensive front doors in the world' was made public after peers raised concerns that their requests for the cost of the scheme had been repeatedly stonewalled by the authorities on security grounds. They also said they had warned from the start that the design would not work. Members of the Lords vented their annoyance as they heard plans for commercial procurement in Parliament to be transferred into a new joint department of both Houses. While welcoming the administrative changes, Tory former Cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean pressed Lady Smith, who sits on the House of Lords Commission, over the cost of the new front door at the Peers' Entrance. He said: 'Very senior members of this House and members of the commission have been told repeatedly that they cannot know the cost of the front door, because if they knew the cost of the front door that would enable terrorists to work out what the security is surrounding it. 'I suspect that the costs of the front door make it one of the most expensive front doors in the world, and it is a front door that does not work. 'Various Members from all sides of the House protested right at the beginning that this design would not work, as it would result in people having to queue outside to get in and they would therefore be more vulnerable. 'We were told that no, it had been carefully designed and the system had been looked at, but we now discover that we need somebody permanently there to press the button to open the door. 'The other evening someone in a wheelchair was unable to access the House. It is a complete white elephant and a disaster.' The Conservative peer added: 'I do not wish to be unkind to any of the staff who serve this House or to underestimate the difficulties of dealing with a historic building of this kind, but it is simply not acceptable that public money should be spent in this way with such disastrous consequences, with no-one being held to account and no knowledge of the associated costs.' Tory former minister Lord Robathan said: 'If this were in the private sector, I am afraid that people would be sacked.' Lady Smith said: 'On the door itself, there are two issues, cost and operability. 'It is completely unacceptable that we have a door that does not operate as it should.' On the cost she said there was 'wildly exaggerated and incorrect information', adding: 'It is important that we are secure, so the costs of the door are very high. It is not just the security issue but also the heritage issue. 'The initial estimate was £6.1 million for the door. That increased because it was the request of members that it should remain open during the duration of the works when the House was sitting. 'The fact that it could not be closed off to get on with the work meant the cost increased – plus some other issues around heritage were discovered. The total cost has been £9.6 million.' She added: 'That is high, but what is more serious is that, having spent that money, the door does not work. 'That is a huge frustration to everybody. 'One of the reasons that it is not the same as other security pods on the estate is that it has to be fully accessible for those who have mobility issues and wish to use mobility aids or wheelchairs. 'The information I have is that the work that has been ongoing to address the problems has not cost the House any more beyond that. 'However, there is a window where a decision has to be taken on whether or not it will ever be fully operational and serve the needs of this House. 'I share the frustrations, the upset and every other adjective members may wish to use.' Lady Smith told peers: 'When we spend that much money on something that does not work, the key thing is that it is resolved, and that is what I am focused on.'
