Prime Minister Andy Burnham has backed plans for more asylum seekers to be housed in wealthier parts of Britain as his government seeks to spread asylum accommodation more fairly across the country, even though the change could cost taxpayers more. The policy direction emerged this week, but there is no automatic order moving asylum seekers into every affluent neighbourhood, and residents should rely on confirmed Home Office or local council information about any accommodation proposed in their area.
The Telegraph reported that Downing Street accepts that using accommodation in more affluent areas is likely to be more expensive because private rents tend to be higher. However, the government believes poorer communities should no longer carry a disproportionate share of asylum accommodation.
The issue is becoming an early test for Burnham, who took over as prime minister in July after becoming Labour leader. New Daily Prime previously examined the immigration and public spending challenges facing Burnham as he prepared to enter Downing Street.
Burnham says wealthier areas must play their part
Burnham has argued that Britain’s asylum system should not repeatedly place people in some of the country’s poorest communities while wealthier areas take relatively few.
Immigration Minister Anna Turley backed that position on Wednesday, saying some poorer communities had already taken their “fair share”. She said ministers would consider local infrastructure, available accommodation and what individual communities could reasonably manage before decisions were made.
That distinction is important. The government is not proposing that every middle-class neighbourhood must receive a fixed number of asylum seekers. Decisions on where people are accommodated remain dependent on suitable properties, government contracts, available infrastructure and Home Office assessments.
The debate comes as the government changes how it houses people waiting for decisions on asylum claims. Asylum accommodation is temporary housing provided to eligible people who would otherwise be destitute while their claims are considered; it is separate from ordinary council housing.
That difference also matters amid the wider political argument over foreign nationals and council housing, which involves different eligibility rules and should not be confused with Home Office asylum accommodation.
Government moves away from asylum hotels
The controversy comes as the Home Office accelerates plans to stop using hotels for asylum accommodation.
On 12 August, the government announced that another 13 asylum hotels in England had been closed and returned to their normal use. Together with earlier closures in April and June, fewer than 160 hotels remained in use, according to the Home Office.
Ministers say they increasingly want to use larger, more basic accommodation, including former military sites. The government said discussions or planning processes were under way for three additional former Ministry of Defence sites that could eventually accommodate about 3,750 asylum seekers.
The Home Office estimated that the latest 13 hotel closures would save taxpayers £51 million, taking expected savings from hotel closures this year to £224 million. It also said asylum accommodation costs had fallen by almost £1 billion since the 2024 general election.
However, spreading asylum seekers more widely into private accommodation in higher-cost areas could work in the opposite direction by increasing some rental bills. The Telegraph reported that the government was prepared to accept additional costs because it regarded a fairer geographical distribution as a matter of principle.
Military site plan faces local concern
Ministers are also facing resistance over plans for former military facilities.
One proposal could see up to 1,250 asylum seekers housed at a former military site near Piddington in Oxfordshire. Turley has defended the proposal, saying the site would be separate from the village and would provide essential facilities for those accommodated there.
Such proposals are not necessarily immediate or automatic. Some sites require planning approval or further discussions before they can open. The Home Office confirmed, for example, that planning permission was being sought for MOD Bicester and MOD Barnham, while discussions were continuing over MOD Linton-on-Ouse.
The dispute comes against the backdrop of wider changes to UK immigration rules, with immigration, asylum accommodation and Channel crossings remaining politically sensitive issues for the new government.
For Burnham, the challenge is to reconcile three competing pressures: reducing the cost of asylum accommodation, avoiding an excessive burden on poorer communities and responding to concerns in places selected for new facilities.
The government argues that a broader distribution is fairer. Critics are likely to focus on the extra cost and the impact on communities chosen to accommodate asylum seekers.
What is clear is that Burnham’s approach signals a change in emphasis: ministers want more parts of Britain, including wealthier areas, to share responsibility rather than continuing to concentrate asylum accommodation in communities that have traditionally hosted larger numbers.
Related news
