Starmer ‘angry’ over asylum accommodation ‘mess left from last government’

The Prime Minister has said he is “frustrated and angry” about the “mess” inherited by the Labour Government as he sought to blame Tory predecessors following a report on Home Office failings over asylum accommodation.

A committee of MPs published a report on Monday that said billions of pounds had been “squandered” on asylum accommodation by Home Office mismanagement.

The Home Affairs Committee warned ministers must set out a clear strategy of how to reduce the use of asylum hotels and have a chance to end the “current failed, chaotic and expensive” system that has wasted taxpayers’ money.

Committee chairwoman Dame Karen Bradley told Sky News on Monday that the Home Office “isn’t fit for purpose” and should be “split up” into two separate departments for managing borders and crime because they “need different skill sets”.

Asked for his response to the call, Sir Keir Starmer said: “Well, we inherited a huge mess in relation to pretty well all departments in Government, and that includes the Home Office.

“If you take the issue of asylum hotels, for example, we had years under the previous government where they didn’t process claims, so tens of thousands of people didn’t have their claims processed.”

He said the Government is processing claims more quickly and there are more removals of those with no right to be in the UK.

He added: “So, we’re taking the action. But I can’t tell you how frustrated and angry I am that we’ve been left with a mess as big as this by the last government.”

Earlier on Monday, Downing Street also said there are “no plans” to break up the department.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch also accepted “mistakes had been made” in the Home Office under the previous government.

Asked whether the Conservatives need to accept some of the responsibility after the Home Affairs Committee findings, she said: “Well, yes.

“This is why it’s one of the first things I did when I became leader was acknowledge mistakes had been made but we had an answer to this, which was the Rwanda scheme.”

Mrs Badenoch said not everything her party did was perfect but that Labour should not have scrapped the Rwanda scheme which “removed the deterrence” for small boat crossings.

The report published by MPs said the Home Office has failed to share a long-term strategy for asylum seeker accommodation and repeatedly cut corners in its “chaotic” response to the pressures.

Expected costs of Home Office accommodation contracts for 2019-2029 have since tripled from £4.5 billion to £15.3 billion, after a “dramatic increase” in demand following the pandemic and rising numbers of those arriving by small boat among the factors.

The report said: “The Home Office has undoubtedly been operating in an extremely challenging environment but its chaotic response has demonstrated that it has not been up to the challenge.”

The Government has promised to end the housing of asylum seekers in hotels by 2029 amid mounting pressure over rising costs and a backlash in local communities.

But the committee warned in its report that a promise to appeal to popular opinion without a clear plan for alternative accommodation risks “under-delivery and consequently undermining public trust still further”.

“The 2026 break clause and end of the contracts in 2029 represent opportunities to draw a line under the current failed, chaotic and expensive system and move to a model that is more effective and offers value for money,” it added.

Housing Secretary Steve Reed told Sky News on Monday morning that the use of hotels will be eliminated “within the lifetime” of the Labour Government.

He said progress on ending the use of hotels for asylum accommodation will be announced “within weeks” and the Government was looking at “modular” forms of building to ensure sites could go up quickly.

Mr Reed added: “We want to get it right, but the intention is to get those former military bases is one example of it, where we could use big sites and get people on there and end the use of hotels entirely.

“That’s where we want to get to.”