The Home Office is paying for thousands of empty hotel beds reserved for people seeking asylum to avoid a repeat of dangerous overcrowding at a processing centre last year, MPs have heard.
Officials told the Commons public accounts committee the government department keeps a “buffer” of about 5,000 beds across the country in case of a sudden influx of Channel crossings in a bid to avoid a repeat of problems at the Manston processing centre in Kent.
The move follows legal claims from hundreds of asylum seekers who were illegally held at the centre in November. The cases could result in payouts of millions of pounds.
Manston was supposed to hold up to 1,600 people seeking asylum for about 24 hours while they underwent security checks. But conditions quickly deteriorated in the autumn after the numbers rose to 4,000. There were cases of infectious diseases including diphtheria and outbursts of violence.
At a public accounts committee hearing on Monday, the second permanent secretary, Simon Ridley, disclosed that 5,000 beds had been reserved by the Home Office in case of a surge in the number of people crossing the Channel.
When asked how the department was making sure people were processed quickly and within legal time limits on arrival in the UK, Ridley told the committee the Home Office was “making sure we’ve got a buffer that is close to 5,000 beds … so we’re carrying a large number of empty beds in order to let us move people out [of Manston]”.
“We have got excess beds that we are paying for that we can move people into immediately,” he said. MPs expressed surprise at the number set aside.
Sir Matthew Rycroft, the Home Office’s most senior civil servant, said: “We have to have a buffer somewhere because if we don’t, we know what happens, we have people for more than 24 hours in Manston.
“I hope the committee would support the suggestion of having a buffer.”
Home Office data shows that for 20 days between 11 October and 6 November 2022 the numbers on the site exceeded 1,600 – peaking at 3,965 on 30 October 2022. Between 15 August and 23 November last year, more than 18,000 new arrivals were processed through Manston, according to the department.
The disclosure of the Home Office’s “buffer” comes a month after David Neal, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, found that civil servants lacked a plan outlining where they would house a surge in asylum seekers at Manston.
“Worryingly, I have received no clear answer from senior officials or ministers as to where the tens of thousands of migrants expected this year will be accommodated,” Neal said in a report summary.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, wants to use barges and sites including converted military bases to house asylum seekers and reduce the £6m daily cost of hotel accommodation while people await a decision on their status. However, the plans have been beset with delays and legal challenges.
The Home Office hopes to stop using hotels “as soon as possible”, Rycroft said, but did not give the committee a target date. He insisted the department was “on track” to meet Rishi Sunak’s target of cutting part of the backlog of asylum cases waiting to be dealt with by the end of the year.
Abi Tierney, head of passports, visas and immigration, said the Home Office was “confident” it would have 2,500 caseworkers in post in September in a bid to speed up case decisions.
She said about 1,700 asylum decisions were being made by the Home Office per week and it was on track to be making 2,500 decisions a week by the end of July in order to meet the target.
Efforts to house asylum seekers on a barge moored in Portland, Dorset, have been delayed – five weeks after Braverman promised MPs it would be in place within a fortnight, the Bibby Stockholm vessel was still in Cornwall, where it had been undergoing refurbishment work.
The government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda in the belief that it will deter up to 65,000 people from crossing the Channel in small boats each year. The policy was rejected by the courts last month. Braverman is challenging the decision in the supreme court.
