![A man seeking asylum stands outside a London hotel in protest at the condition of his accommodation](https://media.guim.co.uk/eaa0d88d3039905a2cc1d39f6bb7c3a39337820a/57_505_5697_3420/1000.jpg)
Tens of thousands of asylum seekers forced to live in hotels in the UK while their claims are being processed will have their allowance cut to just £1.25 a day, the government has said.
Support payments for those in hotel accommodation will be cut from £9.58 a week to £8.86 a week in the new year, in a decision refugee charities have called “unfathomable”.
The change was disclosed in a form of legislation called a statutory instrument, which was quietly released by the Home Office last week.
There has been a growing backlash among Conservative backbenchers over the £8m a day cost to the taxpayer to house people seeking asylum.
Ministers promised to end the use of hotels in May 2021 but were struggling to set up the Rwanda deportation plan that they hoped would deter small boats from crossing the Channel.
Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said the change in the rules would plunge more people seeking asylum into poverty and destitution.
“They are constantly struggling to afford even basic essentials, such as basic toiletries and paying for travel to attend Home Office appointments, at a time when the cost of living is rising. This has a real impact on the mental health and wellbeing of men, women and children who are already coping with trauma and anxiety,” he said.
“With thousands of people waiting for a decision on their asylum claim, unable to work and forced to rely on the Home Office for everything, the payments should reflect actual need and be increased to a level that makes dignified living possible so people can support themselves and their families.”
People seeking asylum are not allowed to work, pay taxes or arrange their own accommodation while their claims are being processed.
Those living in hotels do not pay for accommodation, meals and toiletries. But costs such as travel, over-the-counter medications, mobile phone data, clothes and other essentials must be met by the weekly allowance.
About 50,000 people are being forced to stay in adapted and restrictive hotels on a tightly controlled sustenance budget while waiting for a decision.
The cut in their allowancefollows a decision by the Home Office to use a new method called disaggregated CPI to calculate the change in prices of goods determined to be needed to meet essential needs.
David Neal, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, who has not had his contract renewed by ministers, has raised concerns that children living in hotels were missing developmental milestones linked to poor diet, with children and babies failing to thrive.
He blamed the slow processing of asylum claims by the government as the main reason behind the use of hotels. “Speeding up decisions on asylum claims must be the medium-term objective of any government, providing hope to applicants with legitimate claims, and some level of certainty to the tens of thousands stuck in limbo,” Neal said.
The government has also resisted pressure from Conservative MPs to allow asylum seekers to work while waiting for their claims to be processed.
Dominic Raab, the former deputy prime minister, has said he would be “open-minded” about the proposal. The Tory MP for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, David Simmonds, has been at the forefront of a campaign to allow asylum seekers to work and aid integration.
Asylum seekers in self-catering accommodation will receive an increase in their weekly allowance from £47.39 a week to £49.18. Pregnant women and families with children aged three and under will also receive an increase.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “The level of the allowance given to individuals is reviewed each year to ensure it covers essential living needs. This year weekly allowances have increased for many, including pregnant women and young children.
“We continue to meet our legal obligations by providing support and accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. “