2.0 The delivery of asylum accommodation

2.1 The Home Office’s use and management of asylum accommodation contracts, including in response to growing demand and changing needs.

2.1.1 LAs acknowledge the current asylum accommodation contracts face significant challenges in terms of addressing the growing demand and changing needs of the asylum cohort throughout the UK. The contracts have struggled to cope with demand for dispersal accommodation, managing also through times of significant policy change, a pandemic and a housing crisis.

The use of contingency accommodation (primarily hotels) has become a longer-term accommodation option. As of September 2024, there were over 38,000 asylum seekers living in contingency accommodation. LAs indicated the overuse of contingency measures like hotels is reflective of a lack of long-term investment in sustainable housing solutions, systemic housing market pressure and a seemingly lack of intent from providers to venture into the less profitable areas of the UK.

2.1.2 The Institute for Public Policy Research report on ‘Transforming Asylum Accommodation’ notes that the average annual cost per person in the asylum system has increased significantly from around £17,000 in 2019/20 to £41,000 in 2023/24, with millions also being spent daily housing asylum seekers in hotels [1]. LAs feel there must be a better way to manage this demand led, statutory system within a reduced public purse cost. A system that focuses on integration, well-being and a fairer and more equitable system of dispersal for LAs.

2.1.3 Within North East Contingency Accommodation, local authorities have fed back hotels have a lack of space, communal safe space, cooking, eating and recreation in some facilities. In one Contingency Accommodation, there are no catering facilities on site or satisfactory communal space to eat, and it is being used as longer-term family provision despite there being availability for dispersed family housing across this period.

2.1.4 Overall LAs are keen to see more long-term planning and accurate forecasting to meet the fluctuating needs of the asylum system. Trend monitoring and realistic scenario planning should mean that resources could be allocated more effectively. Close collaboration with local authorities and other stakeholders is essential to align capacity with needs and deliver a more efficient asylum system in the future.

2.1.5 Local authorities have acknowledged the positive step regarding funding to support new areas housing asylum seekers. Full Asylum Dispersal grant seven (2024/25) provided payment of £3,500 based on net growth per newly occupied bedspaces [2]. Funding has allowed some local authorities (that specifically have fewer resources and support for asylum seekers) to build on local provision, look to promote integration and put less of a strain on mainstream services.

However, local authorities have fed back that while the funding is welcome, the fact that it is allocated on a year-by-year basis creates significant challenges. Without long-term funding commitments or advance notice, local authorities are unable to plan effectively, allocate resources and develop sustainable solutions including procurement of support services from wider VCSE partners. The uncertainty around local authority support and provision undermines the efforts to integrate asylum seekers and continue to build on community cohesion. The focus on growth as the funding criteria also does not factor in those at the high end of concentrations and occupation and the impact of flow in and out of these dwellings – funding is per property and not reflective of this ‘flow’ of persons.

2.2 The performance of providers delivering the current contracts on:

Identifying and delivering appropriate accommodation,
Engaging and working with stakeholders,
Safeguarding and supporting the welfare of people in asylum accommodation,
Managing and sharing data.

2.2.1 The majority of local authorities in the North East region that are over population in terms of the accommodation demand plans produced by the Home Office with significant clusters in certain areas. This has posed local integration challenges. There have also been some challenging central to local government relationships as many LAs have gone over plan. LAs feel strongly that the breaks were not put on soon enough to effectively manage the provider pipeline and the move to put LAs into a ‘maintain and replace’ position was not managed well by the Home Office. LAs are confused as to what ‘maintain and replace’ means with some asked for feedback on new properties when they had already gone over plan. Home Office has provided no written guidance on this and there are concerns about how consistently this is being applied across regions and LAs.

2.2.2 It has been noted by local authorities in the region that there is a specific challenge in terms of property placements and the model used. Providers concentrate their procurement of accommodation in low value areas which in turn are those wards most commonly with the highest deprivation. This has a disproportionate impact on local communities and services and can compound existing pressures.

2.2.3 Local authorities have fed back concerns throughout the AASC contract regarding their lack of control of the location around procured properties. Local authorities are asked to provide feedback by the provider (including from other partners such as police) on properties they put forward within five working days. Local authorities have felt in the past that concerns have not been listened to by the provider or the Home Office who adjudicate on the progression of such properties if the provider wishes to proceed. Local authorities have provided examples of this to the Home Office.

The current asylum system does not acknowledge the impact of concentrations of properties in small geographical locations on the local area. When local authorities have raised this with the Home Office, they have been told that 1:200 cluster limit is borough wide, rather than down to a ward or neighbourhood level.

Local authorities have also regularly fed back about the impact of Housing in Multiple Occupation (HMO) applications in some areas often in close proximity. This has meant that whilst property numbers may not be high, the overall number of people is. Often this change has happened very quickly in a locality, and this can be challenging to manage in neighbourhoods for local authorities.

Typically, in the North East region, asylum populations are concentrated in a small number of wards per local authority. There has been a lack of focus on cohesion issues and management when identifying and delivering appropriate asylum accommodation, particularly in these areas. This is also still also relevant in the local authority areas that have seen increases over very short periods of time.

Local authorities have noted that the adjudication process around property procurement established by the Home Office often seeks ‘hard evidence’ rather than local authority and partner local knowledge and intelligence of an area.

2.2.4 Local authorities have noted that they receive active property lists and procurement requests from the provider. Local authorities do not receive information when properties come on stream and or accurate information on which ones cease to be taken forward as part of the procurement checks. This means it is very difficult for any local authorities to have complete knowledge on the scope of homes used and occupied by asylum seekers at any one time. Local authorities in our region have been able to evidence inaccuracies in the data provided by the provider to the LA. Intelligence on the estate is improving but a shared portal with live data would be something local authorities would support.

2.2.5 As mentioned previously, within the North East, local authorities have fed back on the common theme of over-procurement of asylum accommodation in areas which have lower property costs. These areas generally are already facing high levels of economic deprivation. While the approach may be cost effective for the provider, it creates significant challenges for both asylum seekers and the local communities at place. Shifting costs and pressures from central to local government.

2.2.6 As noted within 2.1, the Home Office has a high reliance on the use of contingency accommodation. While the North East sees lower numbers of contingency use than some regions, there are still concerns from the region around the high costs this generates for the public purse, unsuitable living conditions, mental health effects and the impact on local communities and public perceptions.

Local authorities have raised concerns around how the continued use of hotels has increased the vulnerability of asylum seekers and staff working at those sites in the region due to right-wing activity at the sites, unpopularity and perceptions of the wider public and in the media. The North East region has firmly been against contingency accommodation as a continuing provision in the region. The pace at which dispersed accommodation has been procured in our region suggests this is not necessarily needed as a long-term option.

There is also a heavy reliance on voluntary and community sector organisations support for people living in both dispersal and contingency accommodation. There is a general assumption that these organisations will meet supplementary needs that fall outside the contract without any funding.

2.2.7 LAs observed that current contracts appear to not be delivering in terms of cost, time and outcomes. An element LAs feel is underrepresented in the contracts and service is the little emphasis placed on asylum seekers insights and feedback and therefore continuous improvement built within the contract. This does not seem to feature heavily in the service components and LAs feel this should be pivotal. The NE accommodation provider has begun work in this area recently to gain asylum seeker insights but when asked by local authorities to share their results and learning they have not been willing to do so.

LAs indicated there has been a lack of ‘welcoming’ and ‘integration’ support it is not well resourced by the provider and often personnel changes. Generally, this work falls to other organisations such as local VCSE partners. NEMP has worked with a regional voluntary organisation to develop a range of Welcome resources that can be used by partners due to the gap in support available.

There has been some initiative offered by the private provider in this area to help plug gaps working closely with those with NEMP, those with lived experience and LAs local welcome information packs for each LA area for newly arriving asylum seekers. However, when they were asked to translate these into other languages for newly arriving asylum seekers, they would not progress this element which may limit its impact on arrival as asylum seekers have a lot of information to take in.

NEMP has also worked with the AASC provider who have gone beyond their contract to bring forward an innovative project to provide a welcome to newly arriving asylum seekers from a single point of contact VCSE in their area within the first seven days of arrival. The AASC provider asks for consent of asylum seekers to participate and share their details with a named single point of contact (SPOC) in a VCSE organisation. The SPOC will then provide a welcome call and offers of help and support to the new arrival. This has been a great addition in our region and does indicate how well it can work if providers work in partnership with the sectors. The provider does this at no additional cost to the Home Office and has been very inclusive in their approach with local partners and NEMP. LAs have a mixed experience with provider support staff on the ground due to lots of changes in staffing, local officers get pulled off to help at hotels and to cover other areas. These staff moves and changes can undermine local knowledge, connections and relationships. LAs do however indicates provider support staff are generally helpful in terms of their attitude and engage well at a local level. During the recent disturbances and protests the provider received positive feedback about their engagement and local response from several NE LAs.

2.3 How the Home Office works with other Government departments and local authorities on housing supply issues

2.3.1 LAs acknowledge that there is a housing crisis which adds pressure throughout the sector. The region has seen increasing homelessness pressures on local authorities and increasing costs for temporary accommodation. The asylum system can add some demand to local services such as housing. Local authorities have raised concerns around the consistency with wider government agendas. For example, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) stating the governments national commitment to eradicate rough sleeping.

LAs have felt the pressures again as the rate of asylum decision-making has continued to increase due to the backlogged asylum decision system (due to changes in government and policy). Lack of forward planning with the rate of decisions has increased these pressures to already struggling local authorities.

2.3.2 North East local authorities have most recently raised issues around south of England local authorities housing newly granted refugees in North East local authorities through discharge of their homelessness duties. This causes a range of issues in terms of providing support for new arrivals into the area who are placed without the local authority knowing and often in areas and properties that are substandard. Issues have been raised with the relevant Government departments.

2.3.3 In general, the region has seen local authorities, the Home Office and other government departments/schemes competing for the limited housing that is available on the market. The inflated competition has made it harder to secure appropriate accommodation to also meet local need and LAs statutory responsibilities.

2.3.4 MHCLG has provided the Local Authority Housing Fund (LAHF) to support local authorities in obtaining housing for those who are unable to find settled accommodation on resettlement schemes. This has meant that there is an increase of affordable housing supply, reduces the reliance on temporary accommodation, supports vulnerable groups and relieves pressures on local budgets. It would be useful moving forward if there was an expansion of this scheme and further funding available and that a similar fund could be provided to assist LAs with provision for unaccompanied children accommodation also.

3.0 The impact of current arrangements for asylum accommodation on local areas.

3.1 The Home Office’s approach to the distribution of asylum accommodation at a regional and local level.

3.1.1 There is a lack of geographical equity around meeting demand within the current asylum accommodation system. Within the North East, there is an over-provision of asylum accommodation when comparing to other regions.

As seen below in Table 1, the North East houses 7% of the asylum population (all accommodation types, dispersal, initial and contingency) compared to 4% of the general population. On the other hand, the South East houses 6% of the asylum population compared to 14% of the general population. Similarly, the South West houses 4% of the asylum population compared to 9% of the general population. Much of these figures are distorted by the inclusion of temporary/contingency accommodation options that predominates in regions outside the NE. It should be noted that based on initial and dispersal accommodation only, the North East houses 11% of the asylum population compared to 4% of the general population. This is the same proportion as it did in December 2020. The figures suggest the impact on this region of Home Office plans to deliver dispersal across a wider footprint and provide for a more equitable system has not impacted on this regions proportion of asylum seekers to date.

Table 1 – Regional asylum data (% of populations) [3]

When looking at all accommodation types, the North East has the second highest regional cluster % (1 asylum seeker to every 2000 of general population) of any region or nation. Looking at cluster or comparing to the general population for the asylum population is the most credible way to look at this comparatively. As seen below in Table 2, the North East is at 56% of cluster, compared to the South West at 14% of cluster, South East at 15% and East of England at 19%.

Table 2 – Regional asylum data (cluster limits and national ranking) [4]

This is a large differential and even with the Home Office indicating they are seeking to prioritise equity across the UK – the distance between the North of the country and other regions/nations continues to grow. LAs note that the current system and contract do not appear to be able to deliver fairness or equity for local authorities and indeed for asylums seekers most often placed in the most challenging and deprived areas of the UK.

It is acknowledged this is challenging work to manage and that over a five-year period, the UK has seen the demand within the asylum system rise. From September 2020 to September 2024, there has been an increase of over 18,000 within dispersal accommodation. However, LAs point out that the North East has housed 14% of the national increase as the smallest region in England, detailed below in Table 3.

Table 3 – Regional change from 2020 to 2024 [5]

3.1.2 In the North East region, there is a specific challenge for County Durham as they did not house asylum seekers prior to Full Dispersal being introduced in April 2022. As of September 2024, County Durham housed 388 services users within Dispersal Accommodation [6]. The area has the challenge that it consists of a small city centre, which is then surrounded by rural towns and villages with limited infrastructure such as public transport, healthcare services and voluntary organisations. Communities are less likely to be already multi-cultural which may make it harder for new arrivals to connect and integrate into the local community, with limited culturally appropriate shop facilities and places of worship. The speed of procurement in Durham does not appear to be equalled by the pace of new dispersing authorities elsewhere in the country.

3.2 The Home Office’s engagement and joint working with local authorities, local health services, NGOs and other local partners.

3.2.1 LAs raised concerns about the consistency and transparency of procurement checks. The Home Office has Standard Operating Process (SOP) for the procurement process. Feedback from the local authority and its partners is sought by the provider prior to procurement and this can either be accepted by the provider (and they then cease to progress procurement of that property) or it is not accepted, and it is then referred for adjudication to the Home Office who make the final decision on whether property procurement for asylum dispersal should proceed. It is not known by LAs how consistent the criteria are applied by the various providers and there are concerns as providers control this initial process, they may cherry pick those they seek to push through and those they do not. North East local authorities are interested to understand if all providers treat the procurement requests equally and accept the criteria/refute it consistently and similarly for adjudications.

3.2.2 During times of change or strain, communication and engagement is key to managing risk and ensuring partners can respond effectively. Local authorities in the region have provided an example where Home Office communication and engagement could have been more regular and comprehensive. For example, during the introduction of the Streamlined Asylum Process (SAP), communications to stakeholders and service users were slow and confusing. Briefings given via North East regional meetings were inadequate and lacked the technical and operational detail needed by local authorities to consider impacts initially. Local authorities and partners felt frustrated and that they were not listened to and requests for frequently asked questions were initially unheeded.

3.2.3 North East local authorities have fed back that they have good working relationships with local AASC provider staff which helps in resolving issues. However, these relationships are not able to overcome structural issues. As an example, there has been issues with moving service users with disabilities to alternative accommodation due to repair issues to another region from their existing accommodation. The provider was unable to provide the family with the means to attend hospital appointments the next day for severe health conditions.

3.2.4 Regarding the use of contingency accommodation, local authorities have noted that communication around standing up hotels has in the recent past been poor from the Home Office and the AASC provider. As an example, one hotel was stood up without any warning or communication with police and other partners. There has been some improvement following local authority feedback.

3.2.5 The North East region has seen multiple changes in its Home Office single points of contact both at an operating and senior level and who engages with the North East SMP Board. There is a frequent absence of any senior leader attending an SMP Board and Member Forum though there is regular attendance at other regional meetings from senior personnel. Frequent changes of Home Office staff can lead to inefficiencies and impairs relationship building which is so crucial to partnership working. There can be a lack of institutional memory that results in Home Office staff having to defend decisions made by people no longer working in their teams and without a detailed understanding of the local sensitivities. SMPs can assist with this but it is an inefficient way of having to work.

LAs observed that more recently a new Home Office team was deployed to the region without consultation with the SMP and North East local authorities prior to start up. They were invited to a regional meeting with LAs who fed back about the likely duplication and existing pathways and fit. This Asylum Seeker Move on Liaison Officer (AMLO) team was based in a hotel in the region and started to deliver a similar service already provided by the local authority and local VCSE without recourse to the local authorities existing teams and pathways with VCSE partners. There was no attempt to co-design services, as does seem to have happened in some local authority areas.

LAs fed back AMLO is an example where central government would be better to focus on enabling and devolving delivery and supporting local infrastructure working with SMP, local authorities and VCSE. This is the way to develop sustainable solutions and pathways, rather than looking to deploy centralised Home office staff into localities. AMLO should be used as a sticking plaster for current local capacity gaps due to rapid increases in decision making with a plan for the Home Office to then work with SMPS and LAs to support and enable local devolved sustainable infrastructure.

NEMP has helped support and built partnerships with local authorities and the VCSE in its region and with the provider - this is a far more sustainable way to offer move on support that benefits local organisations, provides services closer to the customer, who understand their needs and local service offers better. Home Office staff should be deployed on an emergency basis and energies in terms of move on should be on improving Home Office internal processes and providing means for effective escalation when local partners hit a wall, they cannot resolve themselves (such as wrong dates of birth, lack of provision of the 56 day window which is still not happening in practice).

Projects such as Local Authority Liaison Officer (LAASLO) for the local authorities and NE RSIE (Regional Transitions Outcome Fund) pilot which was a housing, employment and ESOL partnership offered more localised solutions to deliver not just effective move on but broader integration outcomes.

3.2.6 Generally, local authorities’ feedback from Home Office engagement is that most of the time, actions/plans are done to local authorities, rather than with local authorities and local partners. The recent Asylum Accommodation plans is an example of this which was provided to local authorities. There is a lack of practical co-design and consultation.

3.3 The Impact of the current approach to delivering asylum accommodation on local services.

3.3.1 The North East region has seen rapid growth in newer areas of dispersal, such as County Durham and Northumberland. As noted in 3.1.2, this has put strain on more rural local authorities that previously had less asylum provision in place. The funding that is provided to local authorities as indicated does not reflect people moving in and out of the system – rather only the number of asylum seekers at one period of time in occupied properties.

3.4 The Home Office’s approach to working with local partners to support people who have been granted refugee status and are leaving asylum accommodation.

3.4.1 Currently, the AIRE contract means that advice and guidance is offered over the phone. Vulnerable individuals often find this process challenging and may experience long wait time and they may need to try multiple times at various times of the days. Although there are other remote options it makes access more difficult. It is also essential to complete the feedback and outcome loop as the advice line relies on service users calling back in if things do not progress. This was highlighted as part of the initial consultation on AASC by local authorities; it results in the responsibility often falling upon local voluntary organisations, which often have limited or no funding for this task of advocating and supporting asylum seekers to re-report and chase.

3.4.2 Most recently, the Home Office has temporarily extended the move on ‘grace period’ from 28 days to 56 days from the point of Asylum Decision letter. This change is welcomed throughout the region. However, local authorities have fed back a range of issues regarding receiving notifications of at the point of decision – with high numbers not seeing the 56 days in practice. This means that local authorities have less time and opportunity to prevent homelessness and puts further pressure on the need for temporary accommodation throughout the region.

One North East local authority has provided evidence to the Home Office of 31 discontinuations across a two-week period with only one being 56 days and an average of 37.9 days across all cases. This is one example but the wider North East local authorities confirm this position is consistent across the region. So far, the pilot is failing to achieve its aims and local authorities are reporting the information they are receiving is not sufficient for them to be able to make contact with refugees (only partial postcodes for example).

3.4.3 The Home Office has also recently moved from the use of Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) to e-visas. This has posed a range of issues in the region and even across the UK. Some of the issues that the region saw included (but are not limited to):

Institutions such as banks refusing to accept e-visas,
Unclear messaging around discontinuation pauses,
Technical issues within the system.

Home Office is starting to address some these issues e.g. working with the banks but has been stilted and Home Office staff appear to be catching up after implementation. One of the main problems faced is the pressure on support services. Due to a lack of translation services, there are concerns around not having a computer or an appropriate phone and the sheer amount of work that the change process entails.

The Home Office has provided national funding (Migrant Help in England) but there have been reports about long wait times on the helpline to be able to access the technical team. Local authorities have also fed back that Migrant Help would not answer queries without service users present. This makes it quite difficult progressing queries and no alternatives were provided e.g. could LAs seek written consent and provide this so they could receive the advice on their behalf.

The Home Office has also provided regional funding for organisations to provide support around e-visas. However, this support is mainly in the north of the region, leaving no/little support in for those in the south of the region.

3.4.4 Over the last few years, the Home Office has funded a range of move on support programmes which the North East has taken part in, such as the Refugee Transitions Outcomes Fund (RTOF) and the Refugee Employability Programme (REP). RTOF was in place for approximately two and a half years and REP is in place for approximately a year and a half. RTOF was extended due to the success of the programme. However, the region saw no evidence of the success of the NE RTOF pilot being evaluated. As indicated above NE RISE was very successful and helped sustain local VCSE. From the North East perspective it provided local responsive services and support for asylum seekers in our region as well as building capacity in the voluntary and community sectors. It is an example of how the Home Office shifts its programmes and projects regularly. It can be very difficult to see how evaluation and learning has progressed and indeed communicated to its partners.

Summary of the North East Region Submission to the Home Affairs Committee Inquiry into Asylum Accommodation

February 2025

This summary contains a list of headings that have been expanded on in the full submission.

The delivery of asylum accommodation

The Home Office’s use and management of asylum accommodation contracts, including in response to growing demand and changing needs

LAs acknowledge that the current contracts face significant challenges in terms of addressing growing demand and changing needs of the asylum cohort.
LAs have raised issues with the use of contingency accommodation as a long-term accommodation option.
LAs acknowledge positive steps regarding funding. Feedback has shown that this would be more effective as long-term funding.

The performance of providers delivering the current contracts on:

Identifying and delivering appropriate accommodation
Engaging and working with stakeholders
Safeguarding and supporting the welfare of people in asylum accommodation
Managing and sharing data

LAs have raised concerns around the majority of the North East region being over population in terms of accommodation demand plans and significant clusters.
LAs have fed back concerns around lack of control of the location of procured properties.
Intelligence on the estate is improving but a shared portal with live data would be something LAs would support.
LAs note that welcome and integration support usually falls to VCSE organisations to fill this gap.

How the Home Office works with other Government departments and local authorities on housing supply issues

LAs acknowledged the housing crisis which adds pressure throughout the sector.
LAs have raised issues around south of England LAs housing newly granted refugees in the NE through discharge of their homelessness duties.

The impact of current arrangements for asylum accommodation on local areas

The Home Office’s approach to the distribution of asylum accommodation at a regional and local level

LAs have fed back on the lack of geographical equity of the current asylum system. The NE houses 7% of asylum in all accommodation types, compared to 4% of the general population.
The NE has the second highest regional cluster of any region or nation.
The NE has housed 14% of the national increase since 2020.

The Home Office’s engagement and joint working with local authorities, local health services, NGOs and other local partners

LAs have raised concerns about the consistency and transparency of procurement checks.
Good working relationships with local AASC staff, but LAs have fed back in general structural issues.
The region has fed back around multiple changes in Home Office single points of contact.

The impact of the current approach to delivering asylum accommodation on local services

LAs have noted strain on more rural areas/new areas of dispersal.

The Home Office’s approach to working with local partners to support people who have been granted refugee status and are leaving asylum accommodation

LAs acknowledge that the AIRE contract being delivered over the phone is difficult for vulnerable service users.
LAs have welcomed the temporary change from 28 days to 56 days, however, have raised issues around many LAs not seeing 56 days.
LAs have fed back issues with e-visa roll out including institutions refusing to accept e-visas and technical issues within the system.
Longevity of move on funding.

Feb 2025