The government tried to execute a hat trick earlier this week.
Monday began on a particularly sticky note, as a cross-bench of MPs unveiled a brutal report into the Home Office’s management of the asylum system.
The Home Affairs Committee accused the department of squandering billions of taxpayers’ pounds on mismanagement of asylum accommodation, and claimed flawed contracts and incompetent delivery were to blame for the chaotic system the UK is now faced with.
The MPs said they expected accommodation costs had tripled to more than £15 billion since hotels were first used to house asylum seekers.
Prime minister Keir Starmer quickly said he was “frustrated and angry” by the “mess” left by the Tory government (even though his government were, of course, elected 16 months ago).
“The government knows full well that this is an unsafe and inappropriate form of accommodation”
The following day, he announced they were moving 900 asylum seekers from hotels into disused military barracks as part of Labour’s drive to stop using asylum hotels altogether by 2029.
Even though this was a U-turn on Labour’s previous promises to focus on “smaller sites” and the private rental market, it was at least a response to their critics like Reform UK and the Conservatives who have long called for a stronger migrant crackdown.
With immigration and asylum now a prominent concern for Brits according to polls, it’s not too surprising Labour wanted to send out a sharp response.
Starmer told the BBC he was “really pleased” more asylum seekers would be housed on military bases “by the end of this year” after he told officials to “go faster, go further” to locate appropriate sites.
Defence minister Luke Pollard told the same broadcaster these barracks were not “luxury accommodation by any means” but “adequate for what is required.”
Indeed, much of this push to move asylum seekers out of hotels is driven by cost – even though the National Audit Office concluded in March 2024 that large military sites would only cost more than hotels to accommodate.
But human rights organisations have long warned against the use of such sites as an alternative – Freedom from Torture’s Natasha Tsangarides told HuffPost UK about the consequences.
“Every day, we see the impact that inappropriate and unsafe accommodation has on torture survivors,” she said.
With one in three asylum seekers believed to be survivors of torture, she said it was important they are housed in the community to help them recover.
The continued reliance on “unsafe and inappropriate accommodation” makes it clear the government is not listening to warnings from organisations like hers, Tsangarides said – noting the government have still not addressed the underlying problems of poor quality decision making.
Tsangarides, the associate director of advocacy for Freedom from Torture, said: “It’s frankly shocking because the government knows full well that this is an unsafe and inappropriate form of accommodation.
“There is a wealth of evidence in the public domain that points to why that is the case.
“For people who have fled torture, poor housing can be really re-traumatising.”
She warned that putting people in accommodation which could be “quite reminiscent of places where people themselves have been tortured” can trigger serious mental health difficulties, like flashbacks, anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation”.
“The government needs to be more responsible with this vulnerable population, and think of solution that really centre the safety and dignity of these people,” she added.
Asked if it was a case of choosing between hotels and military barracks, the expert said Freedom from Torture would call for the closure of both of them because they are “wholly inappropriate sites”.
“Another short-term measure from a system that urgently needs long-term humane reform”
Sile Reynolds, head of asylum advocacy at Freedom from Torture said: “Every day in our therapy rooms, we see first-hand the devastating impact unsafe and unsuitable asylum housing has on survivors of torture. These are men, women and children who are trying to recover after unimaginable cruelty.
“They need stability, privacy and safety – not another source of fear. Better quality and faster asylum decisions would allow the government to empty the hotels, while locally-tailored and resourced housing models would mean that refugees could rebuild their lives in thriving communities.”
The charity also pointed to fears the government could breach the UN Convention Against Torture unless it looks after its asylum seekers.
It warned survivors have “an internationally recognised right to rehabilitation, which aims to restore their physical, mental, social, and vocational abilities
for their full inclusion and participation in society”
“As a signatory to the Convention, the government must provide the means for as full rehabilitation as possible,” the charity warned in a report on housing asylum seekers this week.
Around 200 migrants are already suing the government over alleged inhumane treatment at another former military base at the Manston asylum processing centre under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Freedom from Torture recommended closing large sites and phasing out the use of hotels, and housing asylum seekers in communities across the UK instead.
The Scottish Refugee Council also slammed the news, calling it “another short-term measure from a system that urgently needs long-term humane reform”.
The government is undoubtedly under growing political pressure, especially amid the rise of anti-migrant Reform UK.
The MP for Inverness, Skye and Wester Ross Angus MacDonald also hit out at the decision to house asylum seekers at a Barracks in his constituency.
The Liberal Democrat told Times Radio this week: “I can think of no reason why they would want to put people there. It’s bad for the area. It’s bad for the migrants. It’s a no win situation.”
He added: “I’m sure it won’t be welcomed. What is the difference between a town centre migrant hotel and a town centre migrant barracks? It is a 10 minute walk to the high street.”
And Scottish first Minister John Swinney accused the UK government of a “poor approach” too, and warned there had not been enough engagement.
As immigration expert Zoe Gardner wrote in the Metro: “This is cruelty for cruelty’s sake – a desperate bid to signal hostility, not a real attempt to fix the system or deliver value for money or results.”
The Home Office has been approached for comment.
