Local authorities still lack a ‘meaningful say' in asylum accommodation decisions, a cross-party committee of MPs has warned.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which examines the value for money of Government projects, said there was ‘little evidence the Home Office fully understands the impact of its approach on local services'.
Its report continued: ‘This includes the additional strain placed on councils, such as Glasgow, by increasing numbers of people presenting as homeless after having left Home Office accommodation. While MHCLG [Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government] outlined several initiatives under development, including capital funding for local authorities, these remain small‑scale relative to the wider challenge of a general shortage of social housing across the UK.
‘The Home Office does not yet have a credible long‑term strategy for asylum accommodation and local authorities still lack a meaningful say over accommodation decisions.
‘We welcome some tentative signs of improved engagement with local authorities, but this remains inconsistent.'
The PAC called for the Home Office to detail how its long-term asylum accommodation strategy was being ‘developed in collaboration with local authorities, including how it is considering the incentives and support that may be needed to increase the supply of dispersal accommodation'.
Committee chairman Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said: ‘The focus on short term, reactive fixes' has left the Government chasing after pressures pushed from one part of the system to the next.
‘There is no clear strategy uniting these efforts, and engagement across departments and with local authorities is patchy at best.'
Labour has vowed to end the use of asylum hotels by the end of the current Parliament, but the PAC pointed out past attempts to use alternative sites have proved difficult.
Head of local government delivery at Reform UK, Ben Bradley, said: ‘Successive governments continue to ignore the knock on effects and long term impacts of asylum dispersal, such as the requirement for access to a range of local services, the impact on community cohesion and managing public safety, or the additional strain on already lengthy housing waiting lists. It's an added pressure, on top of the generally unsustainable nature of local government finances. That's why so many Reform councils are pushing back, fighting against dispersal hotels and HMO [houses in multiple occupation] accommodation, and signalling their intention to withdraw from non-statutory resettlement schemes.'
