End to asylum seekers in hotels ‘a fair way off' despite latest fall
More than 32,000 asylum seekers were being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March, as one expert predicted the Government meeting its pledge to end the use of such accommodation 'still seems a fair way off'.
The figure of 32,345 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.
London was the area of the UK with the highest number of asylum seekers in hotels while overall Afghan and Iranian were the most common nationalities to be housed in this kind of accommodation.
Home Office ">
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.
Figures for hotels published by the Home Office on Thursday begin in December 2022.
They show that hotel use peaked at the end of June 2023, when 50,546 asylum seekers were being housed in this way, and was at its lowest level a year later when the figure dropped to 29,585.
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'.
The Government does not release regular data on the number of UK hotels used to provide temporary accommodation for asylum seekers, although in March the Home Office confirmed 216 hotels were 'currently' in use, with seven due to close by the end of April.
There were 213 hotels in use in July 2024 at the time of the general election.
A report from public spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) earlier this month detailed that those temporarily living in hotels accounted for 35% of all people in asylum accommodation, and for about 76% of the annual cost of contracts – £1.3 billion of an estimated £1.7 billion in 2024-25.
That report said data from suppliers 'suggests that hotels may be more profitable than other forms of accommodation', while profit margins for contractors average 7% – which is within the Home Office's original estimate of between 5-13%.
The Home Office announced in March it had ended the use of supplier Stay Belvedere Hotels (SBHL), subcontracted by Clearsprings, after its performance and behaviour 'fell short' of expectations.
On the latest Government data, the Refugee Council said while it felt 'encouraged fewer people are being accommodated there, currently there are still over 30,000 people stuck in limbo in hotels'.
Mihnea Cuibus, researcher at the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, speculated that a 'stubbornly high' backlog of asylum appeals is a challenge for Labour as it works to end the use of hotels.
He said: 'Labour's pledge to end hotel accommodation for asylum seekers has been a tough nut for them to crack.
'The government is now making more asylum decisions, but the backlog of asylum appeals remains stubbornly high. This means that many asylum seekers are still in government accommodation, so ending the use of asylum hotels still seems a fair way off.'
London accounted for more than a third (37%) of the total number of asylum seekers in hotels.
The most recent data showed that of the 32,345 asylum seekers in hotels across the UK at the end of March, 12,024 were in the English capital.
Some 3,738 (12%) were in south-east England, 3,306 (10%) in the West Midlands and 3,167 (10%) in north-west England.
These four regions together account for more than two-thirds (69%) of the total.
Of the remaining 31%, 2,609 (8%) were in eastern England, 2,141 (7%) were in Yorkshire and the Humber, 1,999 (6%) in south-west England, 1,352 (4%) in Scotland, 1,285 (4%) in the East Midlands, 345 (1%) in north-east England, 288 (1%) in Northern Ireland and 91 (0.3%) in Wales.
Afghan and Iranian were the most common nationalities, accounting for 3,822 (12%) and 3,637 (11%) of the total respectively.
The next most common were Syrian (2,130, 7%); Eritrean (2,045, 6%); Iraqi (2,001, 6%); and Pakistani (1,426, 4%).
These six nationalities together accounted for nearly half (47%) of the total.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
27 minutes ago
- The National
This result shows the time has arrived for make-or-break move for SNP
We didn't need Professor Curtice to highlight that SNP fortunes haven't improved since the General Election. It was readily apparent to anyone who followed this SNP leadership contesting Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse as a supposed party of 'independence' and yet not relying on it to garner support. At a time when national polling for independence is reckoned to hover around 54%, Swinney's SNP managed to garner just 12% support from Hamilton's electorate (only 29% of those who actually voted). Doesn't this prove beyond any doubt he and his party are getting it woefully wrong? At a time when the independence movement is straining at the leash for real campaigning political leadership, itching to get the campaign into full swing, hasn't the SNP's campaign chief, Jamie Hepburn, signalled indy being kicked down the road once again when in Laura Pollock's report (June 6) he states: 'Next year, we're going into a General Election for the Scottish Parliament ... the fundamental question will be who's forming the next government ... who's going to be the next first minister ... either John Swinney or Anas Sarwar.' READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely There we have it. This SNP's clear intention is to just play regional politics, presumably to secure their own positions, rather than fight the 2026 election as the de facto referendum the movement demands and the polls suggest the public desires. I suspect the new strategy SNP may be heading towards claiming that the de facto referendum should be at the next General Election and promising to make it so ... just as long as we elect them to Holyrood next year so they can 'deliver' it. Well, let's head that one off at the pass. If 2026 is ignored as the legitimate platform for Scots to determine their national status, or fail to force the referendum our democratic rights deserve, then who doubts the SNP will be soundly defeated and the independence movement will need to start from scratch to fight for independence without them; trust in the SNP decimated and Scotland's independence prospects truly parked for another generation – victory for the Unionists? If Keir Starmer, as seems likely, is about to scapegoat Rachel Reeves to secure his position, isn't it time for the SNP to scapegoat their current leader and his influencers in order to elect a leader in time for 2026 who has independence at heart, has the drive to deliver it and can persuade 54% and rising of Scots that they can do so? Hasn't the Hamilton election result shown the time has arrived for, if no serious independence leadership and drive for it, then no SNP? Jim Taylor Scotland THE loss of the Hamilton by-election to the risibly inept 'Scottish' Labour – a party so devoid of ideas it could barely muster a coherent manifesto – is not merely a setback. It is a catastrophe of the SNP's own making, a fiasco that reeks of complacency, strategic idiocy and the kind of centrist dithering that has come to define John Swinney's leadership. This was an entirely avoidable humiliation. Instead of seizing the moment – with independence support now at a formidable sum – Swinney, that master of inertia, chose to dither. His response? A pledge to wait until 75% of Scots beg for freedom before lifting a finger. One wonders if he imagines history's great emancipators –Washington, Bolívar, even the wretched Garibaldi – paused to consult focus groups before acting. When Starmer, that most unctuous of Westminster careerists, declared he would block any independence referendum, Swinney's silence was deafening. Not a word of defiance, not a hint of resistance to the colonial farce of Section 30. Instead, he opted to align with Labour – a party whose sole distinction from Reform is a marginally more polished veneer of hypocrisy. Both are Unionist to the core, united in their mission to siphon Scotland's wealth southward while offering nothing but condescension in return. The campaign itself was a masterclass in misdirection. Rather than rallying the independence movement with a bold vision, Swinney fixated on Reform – as if thwarting Nigel Farage's band of reactionary clowns was the defining struggle of Scottish nationalism. The result? A muddled, defensive mess that left voters uninspired and Labour undeservedly triumphant. Worse still, Swinney has perpetuated the worst excesses of the Sturgeon era: the cult of secrecy, the slavish deference to corporate interests (see: Flamingo Land's desecration of Loch Lomond) and the systematic sidelining of anyone with a spine. Sturgeon's legacy was to ensure that no competent successor could emerge – only loyalists and mediocrities, of which Swinney is the apotheosis. The truth is stark: the SNP have no plan for independence. No strategy beyond grovelling to Westminster for permission to hold a vote – a humiliation masquerading as diplomacy. It is a spectacle so pitiful it verges on self-parody. Swinney must go. Not with a whimper, but with the swift, decisive exit his failures demand. The independence movement deserves leaders who grasp that freedom is seized, not negotiated – and who possess the courage to act accordingly. Until then, the SNP's decline will continue, and Scotland's potential will remain shackled by the timid and the unimaginative. Alan Hinnrichs Dundee
The National
27 minutes ago
- The National
As a Western Isles councillor, I've seen the value of unity
Labour's narrow victory – 8559 votes to our 7957, with Reform UK's 7088 nipping at our heels – shows what happens when the independence movement is divided. As a councillor for Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, I see daily the struggles of our communities, from the cost of living crisis to the strain on our NHS and the erosion of our island economies. These are not just local woes; they are the direct result of a Union that fails us and worsens our challenges. I call on all pro-independence forces – SNP, Alba, Liberation Scotland, Salvo and every Yes activist across our land – to unite urgently. We must make the 2026 Holyrood election a clear mandate for independence, a moment to seize the powers we need to build a fairer, stronger Scotland. READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely From the Western Isles to the central belt, Scots are crying out for change. Westminster's grip denies us the ability to protect our public services, revive our communities or harness our vast resources – our renewables, our fisheries, our land – for the benefit of all. Independence is not just a dream; it's the practical solution to these crises. A sovereign Scotland could invest in our ferries, bolster our schools and ensure no-one in our islands or beyond is left behind by poverty or neglect. But we cannot achieve this if we stand apart. Unity is our greatest asset. Our history, rooted in a shared commitment to community and collective effort, teaches us that when Scots come together, we can reshape our future. In the Western Isles, we know the power of working as one – whether it's saving our crofts or fighting for our Gaelic culture. The 2014 Yes campaign showed what's possible when we unite for a common cause, inspiring a million voices to demand self-determination. Yet, the Hamilton result proves that division hands victory to those who thrive on our disunity – Westminster's establishment and the divisive rhetoric of parties like Reform UK. If we let our votes splinter in 2026, we risk losing our chance to break free. I urge all pro-independence groups to come together now, in a spirit of shared purpose. Let's convene a summit, a Constitutional Convention like the one the SNP called for in 2023, to forge a united strategy for 2026. Together, we can rally the 44% who still back independence and win over those who've lost faith – voters who turned to Labour or stayed home, frustrated by politics as usual. We must show them that independence means real change: a Scotland where our wealth serves every community, where our resources lift up the many, not the few, and where our decisions are made here, not in London. Picture a united campaign in 2026, where every pro-independence vote counts toward a majority that Westminster cannot dismiss. A Holyrood election won decisively by our movement could force a referendum or empower us to begin negotiations for independence. This is not about one party; it's about a nation standing together, as we have before, to demand a future where fairness and opportunity define us. The Union is failing us. It starves our services, ignores our voices, and deepens inequality. But together, we can change that. Our shared resolve, born of a history that values community and equity, can make 2026 the year we take back control. Let's unite, plan and fight for a Scotland that answers to its people. Cllr Gordon Murray Comhairle nan Eilean Siar LIKE most readers of this newspaper, I was very surprised to learn of Labour's win in Hamilton. Their UK-wide polling and comments from John Swinney had led me to expect them contesting second place with Reform. It's a crumb of comfort that Reform 'only' came third. The disconnect between the SNP and independence supporters has been exposed even more starkly which their leaders will only ignore at their peril. Numbers can be boring but also intuitive so please bear with me. The following facts have not been highlighted. The turnout for the election was only 44.2% so the actual percentages of the electorate votes cast which the first three parties received were: Labour (31.6%) 13.9%, SNP (29.4%) 13.0%, Reform (26.1%) 11.6%. When polling indicates roughly half of our population supporting independence (currently slightly more), the fact that only 13% of the Hamilton electorate bothered to go and vote for the principal party of independence, the SNP, is hugely significant. Our independence movement is in crisis without an obvious party for us to rally behind to take us forward. Alba's point about the Greens standing and thus robbing the SNP of victory assumes that those who voted Green would have actively voted SNP instead. This is quite some assumption given that only 13% actively voted SNP. For me, though, the major point is the unsatisfactory and again discredited first-past-the-post electoral system which elects the biggest minority with total power. Who can justify a party 'winning' a seat with only 13.9% support from the electorate? It is little wonder people are becoming disillusioned with our electoral system. Reform would have 'won' with only 2.3% more people voting for them! Who said that for evil to prevail all that was required was for good people to do nothing? Let's find a fairer system while we still can. Campbell Anderson Edinburgh AFTER defeat by Labour in Hamilton, as an SNP member I'm asking, will the leadership of the SNP now realise that Scottish independence will only be achieved by a united movement of all groups and begin to join with the other like-minded to put our differences behind us and work together? Other independence movements have had factions, but they resolved to put aside their differences, achieve independence and then resolve them. This is the ONLY way, as divided movements don't win at anything. Let's get together and form a pro-independence alliance. Graham Smith Arbroath Perhaps John Swinney will wake up now. The over 50% of folk who didn't vote in Hamilton are probably languishing in child poverty. Why aren't they voting for independence? Why aren't they voting for the only truly socialist party in Scotland? Perhaps they would prefer the collapse of democracy and a dictatorship. Perhaps they would like The National to be banned. Compulsory voting as practised in Australia might be the answer. Tony Kime Kelso KEIR Starmer's latest rhetoric about putting the UK on a 'war footing' and boosting the economy through fast-tracked weapons and submarine programmes is alarming. While families across the UK are struggling with the cost of living, underfunded public services and chronic housing insecurity, the political priority appears to be a renewed arms race. Are Trump's fingerprints all over this latest development? This is not about genuine defence or security – it is political theatre. With around 17 ageing submarines already languishing in storage at Rosyth and Devonport, awaiting decommissioning at great cost to the taxpayer, the suggestion of accelerating new production looks less like strategic planning and more like an attempt to curry favour with the defence lobby and right-wing voters ahead of a future election. What's more, this posturing comes at a time when the UK has conspicuously failed to speak or act forcefully against the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. If our government can mobilise billions for submarines, why can it not marshal the same urgency and resourcefulness to uphold international law and human rights? There is no 'money tree' for nurses, teachers or social care – but apparently, there is one for military expansion. We are told this is about 'economic growth', yet militarised growth rarely benefits ordinary people. It creates profit for arms manufacturers, not food for children. The public should not be asked to accept an ever more militarised national agenda, especially when it comes at the expense of both domestic welfare and our moral standing on the world stage. The UK must not drift, without scrutiny, toward a war economy while turning its back on justice abroad and fairness at home. It causes the utmost despair to be shackled to this distant Parliament which does not have the best interests of the Scottish People in mind. Starmer may not play the Churchill card to boost his tanking premiership. Peter Macari Aberdeen
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Our politicians are the least serious in history – and that includes you, Nigel
This week an appalling case reminded us just how broken Britain is. We learnt that a 15-year-old boy killed elderly dogwalker Bhim Kohli while a female friend, aged 12, filmed it on her mobile phone. Both were laughing as the beloved grandfather lay dying in the street. How on earth can it have come to this? The case is emblematic of everything that has gone wrong – and continues to go wrong – in our fragmented, seemingly lawless society. We are led by complete incompetents: from police administering two-tier justice right the way up to our Prime Minister. It is little wonder there is a university course running in France on why the UK is such a failure. And Mayor of London Sadiq Khan's answer to our capital's woes, despite knife and other crimes soaring? Decriminalising cannabis. We knew Labour were not fit for purpose before they even took office, but this latest example of idiocy from City Hall really does sum up the problem with having hapless, careerist socialists anywhere near the levers of power. And now Reform UK appears to have imploded. Having abandoned the Conservative Party after an inept 14 years of governance, which left us with higher bills, higher taxes, higher NHS waiting lists and higher immigration, voters had hoped that Nigel Farage and his motley crew might bring the salvation Britain so desperately needs. Reform was meant to represent the alternative to 'uniparty' politics by ripping up the political rule book and restoring good old fashioned common sense. What we have learnt in the past 24 hours, however, is that the one thing uniting all four major parties in the UK (and I'm including the ludicrous Liberal Democrats in this, with their clown of a leader Sir Ed Davey) is just how thoroughly unserious they all are. Westminster currently resembles a cross-party circus act; what has the electorate done to deserve this? Let's take them one by one. We currently cannot believe a word slippery Starmer says after a string of Labour lies on tax, winter fuel, defence spending, relations with the EU, the Chagos Islands, immigration – you name it. They promised 6,500 more teachers with their vindictive VAT raid on private school fees and this week it was revealed teacher numbers are actually down since they took office. Millionaires are leaving, businesses are folding, more tax rises are on the way. We've got an Attorney General who wants to defend terrorists like Osama bin Laden's right-hand man while the justice system imprisons mothers like Lucy Connolly for 'hurty words' on the internet. The Left accuses Reform of being amateurs – and then run the country as if it's a university student union staffed by drop-outs. Yet the Right-wing opposition appears equally as childish. This week, we have had the shadow chancellor Mel Stride denouncing Liz Truss's premiership with some weasel words about the Tories 'never again undermining fiscal credibility by making promises we cannot afford'. The former prime minister – once famously compared to a lettuce – hit back with an excoriating statement on the political playground that is X, accusing Sir Mel of being a 'creature of the system' by siding with 'failed Treasury orthodoxy'. In what world does this blue-on-blue infighting help Kemi Badenoch as she struggles to cut through? Equally infantile was the typically boyish intervention of her former leadership rival Sir James Cleverly with a demand that the Conservatives stick to net zero – despite it being among the main reasons the party is now facing its own climate emergency. He's been invisible for months and then emerges with this sort of unhelpful Ed Milibandesque claptrap? Read the room, for pity's sake. All credit to Robert Jenrick for trying to find some grown-up solutions to some of the country's problems – like fare dodging, notwithstanding the self-serving nature of his attention-grabbing social media endeavours. Badenoch is trying her best to be a serious politician, with thoughtful rather than knee-jerk interventions on issues like our membership of the ECHR – only to have MPs in her ranks like Kit Malthouse spreading anti-Israel slanders like his declaration this week that Gaza is 'an abattoir where starving people are lured out through combat zones to be shot at'. Along with other Tories, he's also been calling for the Prime Minister to recognise a Palestinian state. Harebrained student politics are clearly not just confined to the Labour Party. We had hoped Reform, led by streetwise Nigel Farage, a man of political wisdom and experience, might rise above all this. But even he has been dogged by infantilism. If Rupert Lowe's 'more people watch my X videos than Nigel's' bravado wasn't bad enough, Reform now has been badly damaged by the similarly petulant flouncing out of party chairman Zia Yusuf. I like Zia and think he deserves credit for all the hard work he has put into professionalising the party over the past 11 months. But what on earth was there to be gained from such a public tantrum? Just leave quietly, don't blow the whole thing up with spiteful talk of working to get the party elected 'no longer being a good use of my time'. Similarly juvenile was the language he used to describe Reform MP Sarah Pochin's Commons call to ban the burka (which provoked laughter from the front bench: that's the state of public discourse in this country, folks). Responding to Katie Hopkins, of all people, on X, he wrote: 'Nothing to do with me. Had no idea about the question nor that it wasn't policy. Busy with other stuff. I do think it's dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do.' At the age of 38 and having worked at Goldman Sachs and established his own hugely successful business, he should know this is not the way to behave in the public eye. Reform remains a party that cannot even govern itself, let alone the country. This simply isn't good enough. The Government is useless, the Tories are a busted flush; if Reform seriously wants to break the doom loom of despair then it cannot be part of the problem. The party must get its act together – and fast.
