Why closing asylum seeker hotels could end in yet another farce

Plans to cut the number of hotels housing asylum seekers and shift the issue onto local councils risk inflaming the issue in a number of ways, explains Andrew Grice – and then there’s the nonsense of those made homeless being rehoused in the very same places they have just been kicked out of

There are more than 50,000 migrants currently being housed in hotels (AFP/Getty)

Ministers are to start winding down the use of hotels for asylum seekers by the end of this week, saying 50 of the 400 hotels will no longer accommodate migrants by 31 January, with another 50 contracts terminated by the end of March. It follows pressure from Conservative MPs in some of the areas where hotels are used. But, in a bizarre twist, local authorities have warned that some migrants who leave the hotels may end up homeless, leaving councils with no alternative but to house them… in the very same hotels.

Why does the government want to stop using hotels?

Apart from responding to concern about community tensions, it wants to reduce the £8m-a-day bill for the 50,000 or so migrants currently housed in requisitioned hotels. Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, told the Commons the practice was “one of the most damaging manifestations” of the impact of illegal migration on communities. He denied reports that his priority will be to stop using hotels in key election battleground seats such as Tory-held marginals in an attempt to reduce voters’ concerns about Rishi Sunak’s failure to “stop the boats”. Labour points out that, on the government’s own figures, it would cut the number of migrants in hotels by “a paltry 12 per cent”.