Major update on UK hotels being used to house asylum seekers
Rachel Reeves has told MPs that asylum hotel use will end by the end of this Parliament.
Delivering her Spending Review to the Commons, the Chancellor said the move will save taxpayers around £1billion a year. It comes after years of chaos under the Tories saw numbers swell, with over 30,000 asylum seekers living in hotels in March.
Ms Reeves also announced funding of up to £280million for the UK's border security command - the organisation charged with stopping small boat crossings.
It comes after Spending Review negotiations went down to the wire with Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. She was the last Cabinet minister to agree a settlement with the Chancellor, having only confirmed a deal on Monday.
Ms Reeves told MPs: "To support the integrity of our borders I can announce that funding of up to £280million more per year by the end of the spending review for our new border security command.
"Alongside that, we are tackling the asylum backlog. The party opposite left behind a broken system: billions of pounds of taxpayers' money spent on housing asylum seekers in hotels, leaving people in limbo and shunting the cost of failure onto local communities. We won't let that stand.
"So I can confirm today that, led by the work of ... the Home Secretary, we will be ending the costly use of hotels to house asylum seekers in this Parliament. Funding that I have provided today, including from the Transformation Fund, will cut the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases, and return people who have no right to be here, saving the taxpayer £1billion per year."
We'll be bringing you the latest updates on this Breaking Politics News story.
Get all the big headlines, pictures, analysis, opinion and video on the stories that matter to you by following The Mirror every time you see our name.
You can sign up for Twitter alerts for breaking news here @MirrorBreaking_ and follow us https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics for all the latest updates.
Keep up-to-date with your must-see news, features, videos and pictures throughout the day by following us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/MirrorPolitics/. See all our social accounts you can follow here: mirror.co.uk/social
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Labour promise to ‘end asylum hotels' is worthless… Reeves will be turfed out long before last asylum seeker leaves B&B
AS election manifesto pledges go, it was as simple and straightforward as they get: Labour will 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. No wriggle room there, you might think. Not SOME asylum hotels, ALL of them. 3 3 3 And, given the current huge annual cost of housing Channel migrants, that would surely save taxpayers money. Simple! Well, sorry to be the bearer of bad — and expensive — news, but apparently not. After 11 months in office, Chancellor Rachel Reeves gave a helpful update this week on that vow to the British people during her Spending Review, and added in the teeny-tiny oh-so-insignificant caveat that it wouldn't actually happen until 2029. That's four long years away. It also means many more billions of pounds of taxpayers' money being thrown away. After all, the Government is currently forking out more than £4BILLION a year to house illegal migrants, some of whom have arrived on small boats, and even by 2029 asylum costs are STILL predicted to top £2.5billion a year — with or without a hotel room in sight. After the Tories failed to deliver on their promise to stop putting asylum seekers in hotels, we have every right to be cynical. Indeed, they were happily paying for expensive four-star rooms until that was exposed to widespread public fury. But even if Labour do actually keep their manifesto pledge by 2029, what does 'ending asylum hotels' actually mean? Let's look at the best-case scenario. Let's imagine a world where Home Office officials go to warp speed to process the massive backlog of asylum seekers who are currently waiting years to learn their fate. Will that mean we can finally stop paying for their accommodation? Almost certainly not. Windows smashed at migrant hotel as UK braces for another night of violence Although Britain already grants asylum at a far higher rate than most other European countries (indeed, it offers asylum to those who've already failed to win it elsewhere in Europe), tens of thousands of claims from undocumented economic migrants are still likely to be refused. So will that mean those failed asylum seekers will be packed off home and finally off our books? Nope. Unless their own countries agree to take them back and their safety can be guaranteed in places like Iran, Afghanistan or Eritrea, then I'm afraid they will be staying right here. What about shipping them off to third countries, like Rwanda or Albania, if they won't go home? Again, that's a non-starter under Sir Keir Starmer, whose human rights lawyer chums will have a field day arguing for failed asylum seekers' rights to a family life in Britain. Staying right here If it turns out that the thousands of young men who pay people-smugglers to get on dinghies to come to our shores are NOT in fact all brilliant rocket scientists, brain surgeons and engineers, they will probably end up working in low-wage jobs, often in the black economy, needing benefits and will likely remain a drain on taxpayers for the rest of their lives. Anyway, even if the Home Office could manage to deal with the existing backlog, what are they going to do about the thousands of new asylum seekers who are arriving from the beaches of Calais every week? This year has so far seen the highest ever number of illegal immigrants crossing the Channel, with no sign — despite Sir Keir Starmer's promises — of the smuggling gangs being smashed any time soon. It doesn't really matter where these people live; once they set foot on our beaches, we will end up footing the bill one way or another Julia Hartley-Brewer OK, fair enough, but at least by 2029 we won't be paying for these new arrivals to live in hotels any more. True, but they will need to live somewhere. Unless the Government is secretly planning to send them off to the Falklands or give them all tents and plonk them in a field in the middle of nowhere, that means paying for their accommodation and other living costs. If officials are not going to pay for hotels, then more and more asylum seekers will end up being moved into private rented flats and houses in a street near you. This is already happening in many towns and cities, as companies such as Serco, Mears and Clearsprings have been handed multi-million pound contracts to strike deals with local landlords to house asylum seekers. Hope we won't notice Using our hard-earned taxes, they often pay far above (sometimes even double) local market rents, with guaranteed leases for five years, with all utilities and any other costs paid for by taxpayers, and pushing rents beyond the means of countless local families. Getting asylum seekers out of hotels also brings the added bonus that the cost of thousands of individual private rentals are rather easier to hide from the public than enormous Home Office hotel bills totalling billions. And after the Channel migrants are processed and allowed to stay — with or without asylum status — they can then be quietly shunted on to the general benefits bill or on to local councils' housing costs in the hope that we won't notice or care any more. Like so many manifestos, the promise to 'end asylum hotels' isn't worth the glossy paper it is printed on. It doesn't really matter where these people live; once they set foot on our beaches, we will end up footing the bill one way or another for years to come. We don't know how many more Channel migrants will turn up this week, this year or by 2029, so we can't know how much that bill will be. But the one thing we can say for certain is that Rachel Reeves will be turfed out of the Treasury long before the last asylum seekers are turfed out of their hotel. HOMELESS TENT CITIES ON WAY DON'T look now but the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, has had another brilliant idea. This time, her clever plan is to tackle the rising problem of rough sleeping on our streets by decriminalising it. She plans to repeal the 1824 Vagrancy Act which, for two centuries, has made it a criminal act to sleep rough, raising fears that we will soon see tent cities pop up in our parks and streets, similar to those in San Francisco. Ms Rayner says these people are not criminals but 'vulnerable' victims of 'injustice'. Indeed, this is true for many. In the first three months of this year, 4,427 people spent at least one night sleeping on the streets of our capital. Many of them are drug addicts or alcoholics, while others are service veterans who are victims of both PTSD and a bureaucracy that just doesn't care. Making it easier for people to sleep on the streets won't solve THEIR problems – but it will create more problems for everyone else.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Rachel Reeves 'a gnat's whisker' from having to raise taxes, says IFS
Rachel Reeves is a "gnat's whisker" away from having to raise taxes in the autumn budget, a leading economist has warned - despite the chancellor insisting her plans are "fully funded". Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said "any move in the wrong direction" for the economy before the next fiscal event would "almost certainly spark more tax rises". Speaking the morning after she delivered her spending review, which sets government budgets until 2029, Ms Reeves told Wilfred Frost hiking taxes wasn't inevitable. "Everything I set out yesterday was fully costed and fully funded," she told Sky News Breakfast. Her plans - which include £29bn for day-to-day NHS spending, £39bn for affordable and social housing, and boosts for defence and transport - are based on what she set out in October's budget. That budget, her first as chancellor, included controversial tax hikes on employers and increased borrowing to help public services. 3:43 Chancellor won't rule out tax rises The Labour government has long vowed not to raise taxes on "working people" - specifically income tax, national insurance for employees, and VAT. Ms Reeves refused to completely rule out tax rises in her next budget, saying the world is "very uncertain". The Conservatives have claimed she will almost certainly have to put taxes up, with shadow chancellor Mel Stride accusing her of mismanaging the economy. Taxes on businesses had "destroyed growth" and increased spending had been "inflationary", he told Sky News. New official figures showed the economy contracted in April by 0.3% - more than expected. It coincided with Donald Trump imposing tariffs across the world. Ms Reeves admitted the figures were "disappointing" but pointed to more positive figures from previous months. 7:57 'Sting in the tail' She is hoping Labour's plans will provide more jobs and boost growth, with major infrastructure projects "spread" across the country - from the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk, to a rail line connecting Liverpool and Manchester. But the IFS said further contractions in the economy, and poor forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, would likely require the chancellor to increase the national tax take once again. It said her spending review already accounted for a 5% rise in council tax to help local authorities, labelling it a "sting in the tail" after she told Sky's Beth Rigby that it wouldn't have to go up.
North Wales Chronicle
4 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Government ‘putting its money where its mouth is' with £200m for Acorn scheme
Ministers confirmed they are meeting in full the request for development funding for the Acorn project in Aberdeenshire – the first time a government has provided funding of this scale for such a project to proceed. The scheme, which proposes storing emissions from across Scotland under the North Sea, had previously been overlooked for support despite repeated calls from the Scottish Government and others for it to be backed. With the UK Government also pledging to support the Viking carbon capture and storage (CCS) project in the Humber, Mr Miliband insisted the two schemes will 'support industrial renewal' with 'thousands of highly skilled jobs'. According to the sector, Acorn could support about 15,000 jobs at its peak, with up to 20,000 jobs at the Viking project. As it develops, it is planned the Acorn site will link up with the former oil refinery at Grangemouth via more than 200 miles of pipelines. An existing 175 miles of gas pipes will be repurposed for this, with 35 miles of new pipeline also being built, allowing CO2 from the Grangemouth site to be transported to Acorn's storage facilities under the North Sea. The move is seen by many as being key in securing a future for the facility, where some 400 workers were recently made redundant. Speaking as he visited the site near Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, Mr Miliband said: 'This Government is putting its money where its mouth is and backing the trailblazing Acorn and Viking CCS projects. 'This will support industrial renewal in Scotland and the Humber with thousands of highly-skilled jobs at good wages to build Britain's clean energy future. 'Carbon capture will make working people in Britain's hard-working communities better off, breathing new life into their towns and cities and reindustrialising the country through our Plan for Change.' Mr Miliband visited the site the day after Rachel Reeves promised funding for Acorn in her spending review – although the Chancellor did not put a figure on how much support would be given in her statement to MPs. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray said afterwards: 'The £200 million funding confirmed for the Acorn carbon capture project will help to support the design and preparation as it continues to progress. 'This is about revitalising our industrial communities and creating long-term economic opportunities for Scottish workers.' Tim Stedman, chief executive of Storegga, the lead developer of Acorn, said: 'We warmly welcome the UK Government's support for the Acorn project and the commitment to development funding that will enable the critical work needed to reach final investment decision.' He added the 'milestone' is 'key not only for Acorn but for establishing Scotland's essential CCS infrastructure needed to grow and scale the UK's wider carbon capture and storage industry'. Mr Stedman continued: 'We look forward to working with Government in the months ahead to understand the details of today's commitment, and to ensure the policy, regulatory and funding frameworks are in place to build and grow a world-leading UK CCS sector.' Graeme Davies, executive vice-president at Harbour Energy, which is leading the Viking project, said the commitment in the spending review 'sends a strong signal' that the project is 'an infrastructure-led economic growth priority' for the Parliament. He added: 'We will work with Government on the critical steps needed to progress Viking CCS towards a final investment decision.' However climate campaigners at Friends of the Earth said the money should instead be invested in public transport, energy efficiency and measures to support oil workers to transition to jobs in the renewables sector. Caroline Rance, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: 'This is an enormous handout of supposedly scarce public money that will only directly benefit greedy oil and gas companies. 'Politicians are paying hundreds of millions to keep us locked into an unaffordable energy system which is reliant on fossil fuels and is destroying the climate. 'Carbon capture technology has 50 years of failure behind it, so businesses, workers and the public are being sold a lie about its role in their future. 'Building new fossil fuel infrastructure will undermine the energy transition and embolden oil firms to keep on drilling in the North Sea. 'Both the UK and Scottish governments should instead be backing climate solutions that can improve people's lives such as upgrading public transport, ensuring people live in warm homes and creating green jobs for the long-term.'
