Almost everyone hates the way people seeking asylum are housed.
People stuck in the system must contend with often derelict and dangerous dispersal properties or inappropriate hotels that create dependence and segregation.
Councils find themselves cut out of decisions affecting their areas and are regularly outbid by cash rich Home Office contractors for desperately needed temporary homes.
And communities are starved of much needed investment in permanent social housing and public services that are used by all those living in them.
Only the directors and shareholders of the vast web of companies raking in colossal profits from government accommodation contracts benefit from this system.
This same profiteering exists in the delivery of temporary housing for people at risk of homelessness. MHCLG figures show temporary accommodation costs town halls almost £3 billion a year.
Put that on top of the £1.5 billion a year handed to Home Office contractors, and that's a lot of public money being spent from revenue budgets that ends up largely in private hands and leaves no lasting benefit for communities.
For years charities have raised the acute issues posed by the living conditions in asylum accommodation. What a better system could look like has now become a subject for policymakers, think tanks, and housing experts.
In 2024 three reports – from the Commission for the Integration of Refugees, from Soha Housing chief Kate Wareing, and from the Institute for Public Policy Research – pointed to local or ‘decentralised' delivery.
Many local authorities – especially those with high numbers of people seeking asylum in their area – wanted to see dispersal reformed so that all parts of the country were doing their fair share.
This is not a new idea. Up until full national privatisation in 2012 councils delivered housing people seeking asylum.
And when concerns grew about the state of the privatised system in 2017, the Home Affairs Committee, then chaired by former Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, also called for local delivery.
There are signs the Government is now listening. At the end of last year, it announced four pilot schemes to trial models for asylum housing with more local authority involvement.
One of these was a £500 million capital fund for councils to purchase temporary housing for people seeking asylum that would later be absorbed into social housing stock for the wider population.
This focus – on bringing more homes into social use – echoes what councils told us when researching our new report, Laying the Foundations.
For this report, we spoke to 38 local authorities in England to ask them what they thought were the problems of, and solutions to, local delivery, and what were the benefits.
The findings will surprise few people. Councils would need comprehensive and long-term funding, access to more homes, more transparency from government including access to data, and a clear framework on how a new system would operate.
Many local authorities – especially those with high numbers of people seeking asylum in their area – wanted to see dispersal reformed so that all parts of the country were doing their fair share.
And to counter the fear of resident backlash, it was vital that funding was made available to support work with community partners that improves inclusion and cohesion.
Councils also want government to give people seeking asylum the right to work. Officers we spoke to said lifting the ban would support self-reliance, access independent housing, contribute positively to the local economy, and help foster inclusion.
It's crucial government listens to local leaders and makes sure reform of housing is designed and planned with councils, as well as charity partners and refugees themselves.
Change is not a simple administrative shift. It will take time because there are broader challenges, such as the housing emergency, that need to be tackled.
We cannot expect political support for a sustainable and successful system for housing people seeking asylum without fixing the broader housing crisis.
And town halls are understandably cautious about an issue that has become politically toxic, a toxicity enabled and inflated by government and other political leaders.
But done correctly, a new system could bring fundamental benefits to communities and people seeking asylum: new homes, new investment in services and jobs, local oversight, and the end of hotels.
Councils told us they could align asylum housing with homelessness and other services in a desiloed, single system for all people in need in their community – the kind of joined-up thinking that wasn't possible under the current system.
And it could bring more inclusive communities. As one officer put it: ‘By working together … councils can test new ideas and learn from each other. That's how we create a system that works for everyone.'
Tim Naor Hilton is chief executive, Refugee Action
