Inspection report published: An inspection of contingency asylum accommodation (November 2023 - June 2024)
This inspection examined the Home Office’s use of contingency asylum accommodation for asylum seekers.
This inspection examined the Home Office’s strategies for dealing with an increasing demand for contingency asylum accommodation while needing to reduce the associated costs, in particular the costs of using hotels to accommodate those seeking asylum. In addition, it explored the Home Office’s processes and practices for assuring the performance of the private companies contracted to provide asylum accommodation, and the delivery of support and services to the “service users”.
The inspection was initiated by my predecessor, David Neal, and the bulk of the evidence was gathered between November 2023 and January 2024. However, it was not possible to complete the inspection in the usual manner as there was no Independent Chief Inspector in post from 21 February to 3 June 2024.
In June 2024, I asked the Home Office for some additional information and updated evidence. I also visited the Bibby Stockholm, Wethersfield and Napier Barracks to see the accommodation at first-hand and to talk to those working and accommodated at those sites.
My report identifies improvements I believe the Home Office can and should make, including in relation to strategies and plans, stakeholder engagement, governance, contract compliance and assurance checks, record-keeping and data quality, the provision of purposeful activities, safeguarding vulnerable people, organisational learning, and communication.
In most cases, the underlying issues, such as poor or non-existent data, are not unique to contingency asylum accommodation and have featured in many previous inspection reports. In the case of assurance checks, previous recommendations have not been implemented. Aside from not holding the accommodation providers effectively to account, this means that “service users” have widely differing experiences of contingency asylum accommodation.
However, I would like to draw particular attention to one long-standing, systemic issue that this inspection has again exposed.
Lack of meaningful engagement with stakeholders and poor communication (“one-way”, telling rather than listening) from the Home Office about policies, practices and plans has been a recurring theme of inspections over many years. It is clear that the Home Office still has a long way to go to build trust and confidence in its willingness to be open and honest about its intentions and performance and any reluctance to share information, whether real or perceived, will be seen as evidence that it is not. Timing is all-important, and while there are risks in engaging early, it must avoid any hint of “too little, too late”.
The need for effective engagement and communication also extends to the “service users”. Others have reported on the impact on the mental health and wellbeing of asylum seekers, and in particular those accommodated at Wethersfield and on the Bibby Stockholm, of not knowing what will happen to them. This was all too evident through this inspection.
In 2021, I wrote to the Home Office recommending that it create the means to keep individuals who had claimed asylum informed about where their claim was in the process. This was what each of them wanted to know more than anything else, and it has become even more of an issue with the removal of the six-month Service Level Agreement (SLA) for asylum decisions, backlogs and lengthening decision times, and legislative changes.
I accept that with the numbers now in the asylum system this is a difficult time to introduce a new service that provides updates on individual claims, for example through text messages, a ‘hotline’, or an indicator on GOV.UK of current average waiting times. However, it is something that the Home Office should be striving to do as soon as it is practicable. The reintroduction of an SLA would be a start.
This report makes nine recommendations. I am pleased that these have all been accepted, either in full or in part, and that in the latter cases the department has provided a clear explanation of why it is not accepting the recommendation fully and what it is doing towards addressing the spirit of the recommendation if not the letter. This is a complex area with lots of moving parts, and the ICIBI will no doubt wish to return to it at some point to consider and report on the various initiatives identified in the government’s response.
Concerns over delays in the publication of ICIBI reports are well-known. I am therefore particularly pleased that this report has been published promptly. It was sent to the Home Secretary on 3 September 2024, so publication today is within the agreed 8-week timeframe. I am hopeful that this will continue.
David Bolt, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration
24 October 2024