
Estimated cost of asylum accommodation treble what was expected, says watchdog
The National Audit Office (NAO) published a briefing into the Home Office's contracts for housing asylum seekers on Wednesday to support an inquiry into the issue by the Commons' Home Affairs Committee.
Original estimates from the Home Office for asylum accommodation and support contracts totalled £4.5 billion over the 10-year period for 2019-2029, the report said.
But, in 2024/2025, the current expected total stands at £15.3 billion over the same period, it said.
The watchdog said: 'The Home Office's total spend on asylum accommodation is more than planned and it has few levers to control costs.'
It added that the number of people seeking asylum housed in Home Office accommodation rose by 134% between December 2019 and 2024, from 47,000 to 110,000.
The watchdog said this was because of the increase in people arriving in the UK by crossing the English Channel and a rise in those claiming asylum who were previously detained under the Conservative government's Illegal Migration Act 2023.
So far this year, more than 11,500 people have arrived in the UK after crossing the English Channel, a record number for the first five months of the year since data was first collected in 2018.
The report also 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.
The findings come ahead of MPs preparing to question contractors Clearsprings Ready Homes, Serco and Mears about their role sourcing and managing asylum accommodation next Tuesday.
Reacting to the report, Home Affairs Committee chairwoman Dame Karen Bradley said: 'Dealing with the cost of the asylum accommodation system remains a huge challenge for the Government.
'The NAO report reveals that the cost of these contracts is likely to be over three times what was envisaged when they were drawn up.'
On questioning providers, Dame Karen added: 'We want to see why costs have risen so dramatically, but will also be looking at the quality of support that is provided, and will be challenging providers on failures to meet key performance indicators in recent years.'
The NAO's report also 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 watchdog also reported as of March 31 2025, the Home Office has taken £4 million off suppliers' revenues – accounting for less than 1% – for reported underperformance since 2019.
It comes as the Home Office ended the use of supplier Stay Belvedere Hotels (SBHL), subcontracted by Clearsprings, after its performance and behaviour 'fell short' of expectations.
Announcing the move in March, Home Office minister Dame Angela Eagle had also told MPs a full audit was being conducted of the supply chain.
Reacting to the latest estimate, Reform UK's newest MP Sarah Pochin doubled down on plans for the party, who won control of a number of councils in the local elections, to 'vigorously oppose' asylum accommodation.
'We will use every legal tool available including injunctions, judicial reviews, and planning laws to block the housing of asylum seekers in hotels in the areas we govern.' she said.
Meanwhile, 53 organisations providing frontline support to refugees and asylum seekers have written to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper urging for the management of asylum accommodation to be transitioned from private contractors to local authorities or third-sector organisations.
Conversation Over Borders, Refugee Action, Refugee Council and others have said the change should focus on 'cost-effective, humane' housing solutions that integrate people seeking asylum into communities they are placed.
They added the public's frustration over inadequate housing is 'real and justified' but asylum seekers have been 'unfairly blamed for the strain on these services' as they called for diverted investment into social housing for all.
Since the Labour Government came to power in July last year, 23 hotels have been closed while contracts were discontinued at three large sites, such as the Bibby Stockholm barge.
Napier Barracks in Folkestone, Kent, is also due to close and be returned to the Ministry of Defence in September.
Responding to the NAO's findings, a Home Office spokesperson said: 'As this report shows we inherited an asylum system in chaos with tens of thousands stuck in a backlog, claims not being processed and disastrous contracts that were wasting millions in taxpayer money.
'We've taken immediate action to fix it – increasing asylum decision-making by 52% and removing 24,000 people with no right to be here, meaning there are now fewer asylum hotels open than since the election.
'By restoring grip on the system and speeding up decision making we will end the use of hotels and are forecast to save the taxpayer £4 billion by the end of 2026.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scotsman
24 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Why Tories must stop agreeing with Farage and start attacking him to survive
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... On April 15, 2010, the UK held its first-ever televised general election debate, pitting Labour's Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister, against David Cameron of the Conservatives, with Nick Clegg expected to do little more than make up the numbers. However, if that was the anticipated script, no one told Clegg, who spoke so persuasively that the catchphrase of the night was 'I agree with Nick' as both Cameron and Brown sought to side with him. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In a snap YouGov poll after the contest, 51 per cent declared the Liberal Democrat leader to be the winner, with Cameron on 29 and Brown on 19. While 'Cleggmania' proved short-lived, the clear lesson was that agreeing with a political opponent tends to benefit them. Delegates at the Conservative party conference in 2023 pose for a photograph with Nigel Farage (Picture: Oli Scarff) | AFP via Getty Images A political cataclysm looms Fifteen years later, and the Conservatives' current strategy to defeat Reform UK, by echoing its rhetoric, is backfiring even more badly. While the 2010 debate was a one-off event, the Tories have effectively been campaigning for Reform for years. In Thursday's Hamilton by-election, the Conservative candidate received just 1,621 votes, down from 6,332 at the last Scottish Parliament election, while Reform got 7,088, not far behind the winner, Labour's Davy Russell, and the SNP in second. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As the Scottish Tories prepare for their party conference this week, a major topic of discussion must be about finding ways to disagree with Reform, if they wish to survive what threatens to become a political event as cataclysmic as the collapse of the old Liberal party after the First World War. Farage is out to destroy the Tories, and they must be as determined and ruthless. There is much to go at. Many of Reform's policies are patently ridiculous and some are downright dangerous. Keir Starmer's claim that Farage would 'crash the economy' like Liz Truss was a good line, and the Conservatives need to find similarly resonant ways of highlighting the very real dangers of voting for Reform.

The National
an hour ago
- The National
Defence review dodges Britain's nuclear blind spot
Presented as a roadmap to 'Make Britain Safer', the review promised clarity and accountability, but it fails to confront the most pressing truths: that the UK's nuclear programme is financially unsustainable, strategically unbalanced, increasingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all. These concerns are not hypothetical. In the final months of the last Parliament, I raised them on the floor of the House of Commons, not out of party dogma, but in response to serious and public allegations from Dominic Cummings, former chief adviser to the then prime minister, remember him? He described Britain's nuclear infrastructure as a 'dangerous disaster', responsible for the secret 'cannibalisation' of other national security budgets and shielded from meaningful scrutiny. READ MORE: UK won't recognise Palestine at UN conference despite 'discussions', reports say Whatever one thinks of Cummings or the nuclear deterrent, the substance of these allegations is disturbingly familiar. The National Audit Office (NAO) has echoed similar concerns, reporting a projected defence funding gap of up to £29.8 billion, with nuclear and Royal Navy costs rising the most sharply. These are not partisan claims, they're structural failures. That day in the Commons, the then-shadow defence secretary, now the Secretary of State, was present to hear them and now in government, he has chosen not to challenge or investigate them, he's just sidestepped them entirely. Nuclear ringfencing: A cost we refuse to count The UK Defence Review reaffirms the nuclear deterrent as the UK's 'top defence priority' and explicitly commits to protecting its funding through ringfencing, yet it offers no detailed breakdown of those costs and barely acknowledges the impact this has on the rest of the armed forces. At one point, the review admits that nuclear spending 'might have forced savings in essential capabilities' – a remarkable understatement. Behind this phrase lies a wider truth: that the UK's defence strategy is being skewed by a deterrent whose costs are rising beyond control, shielded from accountability by MOD political taboo. There is no analysis in the review of how ringfencing distorts capability development, procurement planning or readiness in the conventional forces. In a document designed to show how Britain will 'balance' risk and resilience, this omission is fatal. Procurement dysfunction: Recognised, and untouched The review admits what every oversight body has said for years: defence procurement is broken. Projects are delayed, over budget and misaligned with modern threats. Yet beyond nodding at the problem, the review offers no structural reform. Cummings alleged that the MOD continued to fund 'legacy disasters' while gutting new capabilities. Those criticisms align with a long history of NAO reports, whether on AJAX, Type 26 delays or wider programme mismanagement. The review responds with little more than the promise of procurement 'measured in months, not years'. READ MORE: 'Joy, celebration and warmth' of Palestinian art to be showcased at Edinburgh Fringe Unsurprisingly, there's no serious roadmap, no new governance model, no mechanism to hold decision-makers in the MOD accountable and without these, the same dysfunction will continue to waste billions, no matter how polished the strategic language. Where is the democratic oversight? Perhaps most worrying is the review's treatment of oversight. Cummings claimed that key decisions about the UK's nuclear strategy were made through 'secret tunnel' processes that excluded even senior ministers. If true, this undermines the core principles of democratic governance of departments. The review's answer is to propose that a new National Security Council (Nuclear), a closed ministerial subcommittee, should meet twice a year to review progress; that is not oversight, it's entrenchment. There's a passing reference to potential 'enhanced parliamentary scrutiny under appropriate conditions' with no clarity on what that actually means, or how it would be applied, and no mention of expanding the role of Select Committees or publishing clearer data for Parliament as many nuclear Nato allies do. For an area of defence with the greatest cost and risk, the lack of democratic scrutiny is glaring and frankly a dereliction of duty. A missed opportunity Labour's Strategic Defence Review 2025 had a rare opportunity to correct course by managing it more transparently, more accountably and with greater strategic realism. Even those of us opposed to the nuclear enterprise in its entirety couldn't and shouldn't oppose increased scrutiny. That opportunity has been missed. READ MORE: Freedom Flotilla urges UK Government to 'protect' ship from Israel as it nears Gaza Instead of confronting the truth, the review restates familiar platitudes and leaves the public and Parliament no wiser about the scale cost, or consequences of the UK's nuclear commitment. The Defence Secretary, who heard these warnings first-hand from the opposition bench, is now in a position to act – he has chosen not to. So, the central questions remain for the UK Government: What is being done to stop the nuclear enterprise from distorting the wider defence budget? What safeguards ensure genuine democratic oversight of the UK's most dangerous and expensive defence programme? Until these are answered, Britain's defence policy will remain unbalanced, unaffordable, alarmingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all.


Times
3 hours ago
- Times
‘People smuggler' re-enters UK despite being stripped of citizenship
An asylum seeker who was granted UK nationality but was later stripped of his citizenship over his alleged links to a prolific people-smuggling ring has managed to return to the country using his British passport. The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is thought to have been on holiday in Iraq when he was served with a citizenship deprivation order by the Home Office because of his suspected involvement in 'serious organised crime'. Yet he was somehow allowed to re-enter Britain and is now contesting his removal on human rights grounds because he has a wife and children here. The alleged people smuggler has been granted anonymity by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac), the secretive court where he is appealing against the decision to strip him of British citizenship. He is referred to only as 'G5'.