In an effort to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, the UK government has announced that 900 people will be moved to military sites. Though this is a small fraction of the 32,000 currently housed in hotels, the Home Office hopes that up to 10,000 people might soon be accommodated in ex-military sites.
The first two sites are Crowborough army training camp in East Sussex, and Cameron Barracks in Inverness, where MPs and local councillors have already raised concerns about community safety and cohesion.
It wasn’t long ago that the previous Conservative government moved hundreds of asylum seekers to “large sites”, including ex-military facilities and the Bibby Stockholm barge.
Back then, Labour was in opposition and highly critical of the scheme. Now in power, Labour is not only adopting the policy but planning a significant expansion. But they are likely to face the same issues as previous efforts to move asylum seekers to large sites: dangerous conditions, community unrest and ballooning costs.
Before it closed in 2024, the Bibby Stockholm was plagued with accusations of physical and mental health harm, outbreaks of disease, and suicide.
According to Médecins Sans Frontières, Wethersfield asylum centre – opened on a former RAF airfield in 2023 – caused people “severe mental health distress”. Asylum seekers were moved out of the site after being exposed to risks of unexploded ordnance, radiological contamination, and poisonous gases.
Conditions in Napier Barracks in Folkestone were found to be unsanitary and overcrowded. The independent immigration watchdog described “decrepit” buildings unfit for habitation. Conditions were so poor that in 2021 the High Court ruled that the Home Office had employed unlawful practices housing people there during the pandemic.
Plans to close Napier and Wethersfield have been repeatedly postponed and it appears that there are growing numbers of residents again.
Barracks are extremely expensive. Whitehall’s spending watchdog found that they cost significantly more than expected, even exceeding the costs of asylum hotels. Although the Home Office originally estimated they would provide marginal savings, later estimates suggested that large sites could cost £46 million more than using hotels over the same period.
The watchdog found that this was due to high set-up and refurbishment costs coupled with the millions wasted on failed plans, such as RAF Scampton which had £60 million spent on it before the plan was scrapped.
Barracks also segregate and marginalise those who live there from communities, stoking tensions. Using barracks echoes earlier use of military sites to intern “enemy aliens” during the world wars. This imagery further demonises asylum seekers and is likely to compound community fears, opening the door to far-right exploitation, and anti-immigrant protests and violence.
Privatisation of asylum accommodation
The government is legally obliged to house asylum seekers in need while they await refugee decisions. Given the large backlog, this often now takes over a year.
Previously, such housing was predominantly provided through relatively cheap multiple-occupancy, self-caterered “dispersal” accommodation. This cost about £27 per person per night, compared to £170 for hotels.
The system was privatised 13 years ago, leading to prioritisation of profits and spiralling accommodation costs.
Although the privatised contracts were intended for the cheaper dispersal accommodation, a clause allowing short-term use of “contingency” accommodation such as hotels has been used by providers. With hotels offering companies lower financial risk and greater profit than dispersal accommodation, this costly “contingency” practice quickly became normalised.
Privatisation also meant that local authorities lost their power to manage and inspect accommodation, leading to poor conditions in hotels and other housing.
Although barracks and hotels have proven disastrous for people living in them, a handful of property tycoons have made fortunes. This includes repeat scandal-hit Serco, and the Essex businessman Graham King, whose £750 million fortune makes him one of the 350 richest people in the UK.
King founded Clearsprings Ready Homes, which in 2019 won 10-year contracts for providing asylum accommodation and transportation in Wales and the South. Clearsprings runs Napier and Wethersfield barracks, where security staff walked out over pay and work conditions just a few weeks ago.
The contract’s value has grown tenfold since being signed: from £0.7 billion to a whopping £7 billion. The company has seen a meteoric rise in profits; from under £800,000 in 2020, to £28 million in 2022, and £90 million in 2024.
Clearsprings’ profits are ballooning despite being accused of running squalid flats and providing accommodation under “terrible conditions”, with poor food and hygiene, and rationed period products and toilet paper. (The Conversation has approached Clearsprings for comment.)
It seems that, however poor the provision of accommodation by private providers, little scuppers the arrangements. Contracts are almost never terminated, and fines or penalties are rare. The Home Office has also done little to reclaim millions of pounds in excess profits owed by some providers.
What are the alternatives?
Moving asylum seekers to military sites is likely to prove as financially and politically costly to Labour as previous governments. So, what are the alternatives?
If large sites must be used, they should be neutral places such as empty student accommodation and office blocks, rather than punitive or contentious spaces like barracks and hotels. They must also provide kitchen access, to improve wellbeing and reduce catering costs.
Better would be a return to dispersal accommodation, which would save money and end the ghettoisation of asylum seekers. Beyond this, letting asylum seekers work would reduce their financial dependency on the state.
Ending the privatisation experiment and bringing asylum accommodation back into public management would restore accountability and oversight, improving both taxpayers’ value for money and conditions for asylum seekers.
Ultimately, the vilification of asylum seekers is happening in the context of a wider housing crisis. Unless the problems around overall housing supply and exorbitant rents are addressed, divisive politics around asylum housing will continue.
Melanie Griffiths has received funding from the ESRC and British Academy for migration-related research. She sits on the trustee boards of the NGOs Right to Remain and Open Door.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
