The case for dignified asylum accommodation

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) recently released a compelling report highlighting the urgent need for a shift in how asylum accommodation is managed in the UK. With annual costs for housing and supporting asylum seekers in the UK now at a staggering £41,000 per person, up from £17,000 in 2019/20, the current system is unsustainable. However, the crisis extends beyond financial strain—it also challenges the UK’s commitment to the well-being of people seeking refuge.

For those seeking asylum in the UK, accommodation should be more than a roof over their heads; it should be a pathway to stability, safety, and dignity. Yet, reports of overcrowded rooms, unsafe conditions, harassment, and poor hygiene paint a troubling picture. As an immigration law firm committed to upholding the rights and welfare of asylum seekers, we find that IPPR’s recommendations offer not only a path to improved standards and reduced costs but an opportunity to uphold the dignity and well-being of all people seeking refuge.

Government responsibility and the need for adequate accommodation

It’s essential to recognise why asylum seekers are dependent on government-provided accommodation. By law, they are prohibited from working while their applications are processed, often a length process that can extend for years. In addition, most landlords require formal work status and references to secure private rentals, which asylum seekers cannot provide. This creates an obligation for the government to support asylum seekers with adequate housing, as they are prevented from supporting themselves through traditional means.

This framework makes it clear that asylum seekers are not taking advantage of public funds; rather, they are restricted by law from pursuing employment or rental opportunities, and they require this support as a basic necessity. This government responsibility goes beyond a mere provision—it must meet a standard of decency and safety that should reflect the UK’s commitment to human rights.

Legal standards and the moral case for dignified accommodation

In the UK, Section 96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 requires that accommodation provided to asylum seekers meets adequate standards. This responsibility lies with the government and its contractors, who are obliged to provide basic, safe, and hygienic living conditions. Yet, the experiences of many asylum seekers show that this obligation is far from consistently met. As highlighted by IPPR, the national approach to outsourcing asylum accommodation to private contractors has too often led to overcrowding, unsanitary living conditions, and even harassment. These conditions challenge the intent of this legal standard and place asylum seekers in conditions that fail to support their well-being.

Ensuring that providers meet these basic standards is not merely a matter of legal compliance. It is a moral imperative to provide dignified accommodation for those fleeing persecution. Decent accommodation is fundamental to the well-being, safety, and dignity of all people—values that should extend to every individual seeking refuge. The IPPR report makes a strong case for reforming the system to better meet these standards and to decentralise control, allowing regional bodies to oversee and improve conditions more effectively.

Decentralisation: enhancing accountability and legal compliance

IPPR’s proposed shift to a decentralised system would transfer control of asylum accommodation from private contractors to regional bodies, who could work more closely with local communities to identify suitable, affordable housing. But beyond cost savings, decentralisation holds promise as a means of reinforcing accountability. With local authorities managing accommodation, there would be greater opportunity for monitoring, adherence to standards, and responsiveness to issues as they arise.

As the report notes, regional management could allow for better oversight, especially when paired with substantial penalties for any breaches of accommodation standards. In this model, local authorities, working with advocacy groups and community organisations, would play a crucial role in holding accommodation providers accountable, ensuring compliance with health, safety, and welfare standards.

Insights from the migration policy advisory group

The migration advisory group to the report brings invaluable insights into the reforms necessary for creating a system that respects the rights of asylum seekers. As an advisor to this group, Seraphus director Christopher Desira states:

‘The Migration Advisory Group’s insights into this report offer a clear vision for much-needed reform to create a fair system that respects the rights of asylum seekers. As an advisor to this group, I extend deep appreciation to the IPPR for this timely, comprehensive report.

Having worked in asylum accommodation over two decades ago, I have witnessed firsthand the persistent challenges posed by outsourcing to private contractors—issues like overcrowding, safeguarding concerns, and substandard living conditions remain prevalent today. Moreover, the absence of a strategic approach to accommodation continues to push detention centres and prisons into use as inadequate alternatives.

This report marks an opportunity for change. Now more than ever, we need an accommodation system that fosters stability, safety, and dignity for those seeking refuge. At the heart of this should be a commitment to creating spaces that not only provide shelter but also prepare individuals to thrive within our communities. Let this be a turning point where we embrace people seeking safety with open arms and invest in their future.’

The 2026 contract break clause: a pivotal opportunity

The government has a unique opportunity to enact change when the current contracts end in 2029, with a critical contract break clause arriving in 2026. This deadline represents a window of opportunity for lawmakers, legal advocates, and community leaders to push for a more sustainable, humane approach to asylum accommodation. For immigration law firms, this is a moment to support reform efforts that honour legal standards while offering practical solutions that balance cost-efficiency with human dignity.

At Seraphus we believe that the UK has an ethical and legal responsibility to address these pressing issues. Implementing the recommendations put forth by IPPR, with the support of community groups, legal professionals and regional authorities, can help build a more humane, compliant, and effective asylum accommodation system.

Conclusion

As the report rightly argues, reforming asylum accommodation is both a fiscal and moral imperative. By decentralising the system and entrusting regional authorities with the care of asylum seekers, we can move closer to a model that upholds the human rights and well-being of all individuals seeking refuge. This approach represents a practical, legal, and humane solution that is long overdue.