UK to close 11 asylum hotels amid reform push

Published: 12 April 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The United Kingdom government is preparing to close 11 asylum hotels next week. This move marks a significant step in a broader strategy to end hotel use entirely. The policy forms part of the Home Office pledge to phase out hotel accommodation during this parliamentary term.

The use of hotels to house asylum seekers began expanding during the Covid pandemic. At that time, authorities faced urgent capacity shortages across existing accommodation systems. Hotels were seen as a temporary solution, but their use has continued for several years. This has led to growing political debate and public concern across the country.

Government figures show that nearly 200 hotels are currently being used for asylum accommodation. These hotels collectively house around 30,000 individuals seeking refuge in the UK. A further 70,000 asylum seekers live in alternative settings, including shared housing and repurposed military facilities. The scale of the system highlights the pressures faced by authorities managing asylum applications.

Public reaction to hotel use has been mixed and sometimes deeply polarised. In some communities, protests have taken place outside hotels housing asylum seekers. Critics have claimed that migrants are receiving preferential treatment in these facilities. However, humanitarian organisations have consistently rejected this narrative, emphasising difficult living conditions.

Tensions have occasionally escalated into violence, raising concerns about community safety and cohesion. One of the most serious incidents occurred in Rotherham during August 2024. Protesters attempted to set fire to a hotel where asylum seekers were living. The incident drew widespread condemnation and renewed calls for better management of asylum accommodation.

Humanitarian organisations argue that hotels are unsuitable for long-term living arrangements. Groups such as the British Red Cross have highlighted serious welfare issues. In some cases, asylum seekers have lacked access to basic necessities and adequate healthcare support. Reports have also documented cases of health problems, including skin conditions like scabies.

A parliamentary investigation into the system described it as costly and poorly managed. The inquiry concluded that billions of pounds had been spent inefficiently on temporary solutions. This finding has intensified pressure on the government to implement more sustainable housing strategies. The closure of hotels is therefore seen as both a financial and humanitarian measure.

The Home Office is also preparing for long-term changes to asylum accommodation contracts. Officials are expected to host a private “industry day” event for current and prospective providers. Details of the event remain confidential, with participants required to sign non-disclosure agreements. This secrecy reflects the sensitivity surrounding future planning decisions.

The new contracts, known as Future Asylum Contracts Accommodation, will run from September 2029 to August 2036. There is also an option to extend these agreements until August 2039 if necessary. The total value of the contracts is estimated at approximately £10 billion. This investment aims to reshape the system and reduce reliance on hotels.

However, concerns have emerged from within the accommodation sector regarding these plans. Some providers fear that increasing the number of contractors could introduce inefficiencies into the system. There are also warnings that costs could rise if coordination becomes more complex. These concerns highlight the challenges of balancing reform with operational stability.

Another controversial aspect of asylum accommodation funding involves the use of overseas aid budgets. The government allocates part of its international aid spending to cover domestic asylum costs. This practice, known as “in donor refugee costs,” has drawn criticism from development organisations. Critics argue that it diverts resources away from vulnerable populations abroad.

According to official data, these costs decreased from £2.8 billion in 2024 to £2.4 billion in 2025. Despite the reduction, they still represent a significant portion of the UK’s aid budget. Campaigners have warned that this funding shift has serious global consequences. They point to reduced support for education and healthcare programmes in crisis regions.

Gideon Rabinowitz, representing the NGO network Bond, has been vocal on this issue. He argued that while asylum seekers in the UK deserve support, funding should come from domestic budgets. He warned that continued diversion of aid could undermine life-saving international programmes.

Rabinowitz highlighted the impact of funding cuts on countries affected by conflict and poverty. Education initiatives in Syria and healthcare programmes across Africa have already faced closures. He cautioned that deeper cuts planned for the coming years could worsen humanitarian conditions. These concerns have added another layer of complexity to the policy debate.

The Home Office has defended its approach, emphasising efforts to reduce costs and improve efficiency. A spokesperson stated that the government is working to discourage irregular migration. They also highlighted increased removals of individuals without legal rights to remain in the UK. These measures are intended to ease pressure on the asylum system.

Officials report that the number of people housed in hotels has declined significantly over the past year. The population has fallen by nearly 20 percent compared to previous figures. Since the peak under the former administration, numbers have dropped by around 45 percent. This reduction has reportedly saved close to £1 billion in public spending.

The government plans to relocate asylum seekers from hotels into more basic accommodation settings. These include converted military sites and shared housing facilities across the country. Supporters of the policy argue that this approach is more sustainable and cost-effective. However, critics warn that living conditions must remain humane and dignified.

The closure of 11 hotels represents only the first phase of a wider transformation. Over the coming years, the government aims to eliminate hotel use entirely. Achieving this goal will require careful planning and significant investment in alternative housing. It will also demand cooperation between central authorities and local communities.

For many asylum seekers, these changes bring uncertainty about future living conditions. While some may welcome improved housing stability, others fear displacement and disruption. Human rights organisations have called for transparency and accountability throughout the transition process. They stress that reforms must prioritise the welfare of vulnerable individuals.

The broader debate surrounding asylum accommodation reflects deeper questions about migration policy. It highlights tensions between economic considerations, humanitarian responsibilities, and public opinion. As the UK moves forward with its plans, these competing priorities will continue to shape the conversation.

Ultimately, the closure of asylum hotels signals a turning point in the government’s approach. Whether the new system will deliver lasting improvements remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the issue will remain central to political and social discourse in the years ahead.