Asylum hotels and other accommodation will cost the taxpayer £15 billion over 10 years – £4 million a day and more than triple the Government’s original estimate, the National Audit Office has revealed. The Mail has more.
Contracts were originally forecast to cost £4.5 billion over a decade from 2019 but are now expected to run to £15.3 billion over same period, after the Channel crisis exploded.
It means that on average the taxpayer will spend £4,191,780 a day on housing asylum seekers over the life of the contracts.
A separate breakdown from the NAO showed overall costs in 2024-25 were £1.67 billion.
That amounted to £4,567,123 a day on average, or £3,172 a minute.
Asylum hotels “may be more profitable” for companies holding the contracts than other types of housing, the Government’s official auditors said.
The Home Office awarded the 10-year contracts to three suppliers in 2019 – Clearsprings Ready Homes, Mears Group and Serco – which each operate two or three UK regions each.
They are responsible for finding a range of self-catering accommodation for asylum seekers who are dispersed across the country, and for sub-contracting hotels for tens of thousands of migrants coming across the Channel by small boat.
The report found Clearsprings is now set to be paid £7.3 billion over the 10 years from 2019 to 2029, the NAO said, while Serco is expected to get £5.5 billion and Mears will receive £2.5 billion.
Its study said: “The total reported profit of suppliers was £383 million between September 2019 and August 2024.
“In the first five years of the contract, available data from suppliers show annual profit margins ranging from a loss of 2% to a profit of 17%.
“This is equivalent to an overall 7% profit margin across the whole service.”
The report went on: “People accommodated in hotels account for 76% of the annual cost of the contracts (£1.3 billion out of an estimated £1.7 billion in 2024-25).
Worth reading in full.
Meanwhile, an investigation by the Conservatives has uncovered Left-wing activism among immigration judges and led to calls for those who breach the judicial code of conduct in this way to face removal. The Mail has more.
Immigration judges have been accused of potentially breaching the judicial code of conduct by advocating highly charged political views.
Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said the immigration courts – which can over-rule the Home Office in asylum cases and other types of immigration claims – had been infiltrated by “activist judges”.
Research compiled by the Conservative Party showed immigration judges have made political remarks about the system they are supposed to adjudicate upon impartially.
One judge works for an organisation which provides weekly advice sessions for migrants in northern France who are seeking to enter Britain illegally by small boat.
Another has publicly backed calls for changes in immigration law by a charity which previously played a key role in legal challenges against the Conservatives’ Rwanda asylum scheme.
Mr Jenrick expressed concern that some immigration judges’ activities indicated a “clear breach” of the judicial code of conduct.
The Tory frontbencher said: “If a judge’s record of activism means they would be expected to recuse themselves from hearing certain cases, their position is untenable.
“Their apparent conflicts of interests are otherwise a clear breach of the judicial code of conduct.”
He said the Chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), Helen Pitcher, should be removed for failing to ensure the organisation carried out “basic checks” to ensure the independence of the judiciary.
“These examples demonstrate the JAC is broken,” Mr Jenrick said.
“It is failing to uphold the independence of the judiciary.
“Either out of sheer incompetence, or in sympathy for the open borders views of some lawyers, it appears that basic checks aren’t being completed.
“The commission’s chair must be sacked.
“Without reform, we will continue to see activists elevated to the bench, and confidence in judicial independence will only erode further.”
He added: “If activist immigration judges step into the political arena, they should expect a political response.
“There must be accountability when judges display open borders activism and engage in political campaigning.
“Judges are not beyond legitimate scrutiny.”
One deputy judge in the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber, Rebecca Chapman, works for Refugee Legal Support, a charity which provides legal support and other help to migrants, including those based in France who are heading for Britain across the Channel.
She serves on the charity’s casework sub-committee and its human resources sub-committee, and was appointed a trustee in 2020.
Also worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.