Savings generated from closing asylum hotels should return to impacted communities to alleviate tensions, according to a comprehensive study. Officials warn that these hotels represent a stark symbol of perceived unfairness, contributing to protests and violence over recent years.
Tensions Stem from Accommodation System
Research involving residents from six English areas—Liverpool, Plymouth, Hillingdon, Derby, Tamworth, and Wakefield—reveals that most people do not oppose asylum seekers. However, the hotel-based system has emerged as a major flashpoint amid local economic struggles.
Dr. Lucy Mort, who led the study for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), explains: “From media coverage, one might assume widespread hatred toward asylum seekers, but views are often more balanced. Asylum hotels exacerbate issues in areas where high streets decline, living costs rise, and residents struggle—they symbolize that unfairness.”
Government Plans and Numbers
The government commits to eliminating all remaining asylum hotels by 2029, accelerating the process beyond previous timelines. Prime Minister Keir Starmer pushes for quicker action, including expanded use of military sites. Current figures show about 185 hotels across the UK, reduced from a peak of 400.
Recommendations for Community Support
Dr. Mort advocates rewarding host communities: “Areas that accommodated asylum hotels deserve recognition and benefits. Locals have lost assets like community spaces and jobs in hospitality. Investments must acknowledge these losses rather than just removals.”
The study proposes reinstating the Migration Impact Fund, a £35 million initiative from 2009 scrapped later, to aid high-migration areas with services, infrastructure, English classes, and integration programs. “Communities lack dedicated funding for cohesion work today,” Dr. Mort states. “Reinstating this fund would direct resources to local authorities.”
Improving Communication to Curb Misinformation
The IPPR report emphasizes clearer communication on asylum accommodations, as many areas report insufficient consultation. Limited or delayed information fuels rumors. A Tamworth resident notes: “Placing asylum seekers in a community hotspot is like painting a target on it—poor planning heightens tensions.”
Across all locations, updates on hotels arrived too late, too sparingly, or unclearly. The report urges faster closures alongside temporary housing for both asylum seekers and locals.
Mark Curl, 65, from Hillingdon and a former homeless individual, shares: “Asylum seekers aren’t in luxury—perceptions of room service are wrong. No one listens, and the system fails everyone.”
Marley Morris, IPPR associate director for migration, trade, and communities, concludes: “To reduce tensions, transform the asylum system by shifting from hotels to community housing that benefits residents long-term.”
