1,500 Foreign Criminals Are Living in UK Asylum Homes – And Taxpayers Are Paying the Bill
Britain’s immigration system has reached another deeply uncomfortable moment.
More than 1,500 convicted foreign offenders are reportedly living in accommodation normally associated with asylum seekers, with taxpayers ultimately footing the cost.
The figure is shocking.
But the bigger scandal is not simply the number.
It is what that number says about the failure of Britain’s deportation system.
According to an investigation based on information obtained from the Home Office through Freedom of Information laws, around 1,509 foreign offenders who were eligible for deportation have been placed in asylum accommodation after being released into the community. The wider backlog of foreign criminals facing removal has reportedly reached almost 20,000.
That should force the government to answer a basic question.
Why are people who have already been convicted of crimes in Britain still being accommodated at public expense when the stated objective is to remove them from the country?
There may be legal and practical reasons in individual cases.
There may be countries that refuse to accept their nationals.
There may be documentation problems.
There may be ongoing appeals.
There may be cases where removal is temporarily impossible.
But when the numbers become this large, it stops looking like a collection of isolated administrative difficulties.
It starts looking like a system.
And systems have to be judged by their results.
The Home Office has insisted that releasing a foreign criminal into the community is “never taken lightly” and that suitable accommodation is sourced before release.
That may be an accurate description of the procedure.
But it does not answer the fundamental political question.
How long are these people expected to remain there?
If someone has served a prison sentence, has no right to remain in Britain and is supposed to be removed, accommodation should surely be temporary.
Yet evidence given to MPs by asylum accommodation provider Serco reportedly warned that a lack of returns agreements with some countries means certain foreign nationals may never be deported and can therefore be transferred into asylum accommodation indefinitely.
That is where the system becomes difficult to defend.
Britain can have immigration laws.
It can have deportation powers.
It can have prison sentences.
It can have removal agreements.
But if the government cannot actually remove people when the law says they should be removed, the credibility of the entire system is weakened.
This is not simply a question about accommodation.
It is about sovereignty.
A government must ultimately be able to decide who has the right to remain within its borders.
If that decision is made by British courts and immigration authorities, but cannot be implemented because another country refuses to cooperate, Britain faces a serious problem.
And British taxpayers end up paying for the consequences.
That is precisely why this issue is likely to become politically explosive.
Reform UK will seize on it immediately.
Nigel Farage has built much of his political career around the argument that Britain’s immigration system is no longer under proper control.
Every new revelation involving deportation failures strengthens that message.
Reform can point to the nearly 20,000 foreign offenders reportedly living in the community despite being eligible for deportation.
It can point to the 1,500-plus offenders reportedly receiving accommodation.
And it can ask why successive governments have failed to solve the problem.
That is a politically powerful question.
The Labour government will argue that the situation was inherited.
That may be true.
But governments eventually run out of time to blame their predecessors.
Once you take office, the backlog becomes your responsibility.
That is especially true for Andy Burnham.
He did not become Prime Minister promising to manage Britain’s problems.
He promised to solve them.
His political brand is built around intervention.
He wants a more active state.
He wants stronger government.
He wants public services to work.
He wants communities to feel that Westminster is delivering for them.
That makes the immigration system a particularly important test.
A larger state is not automatically a more effective state.
Spending more money does not automatically produce better outcomes.
If the government is paying for thousands of people to be accommodated because the deportation system cannot complete its job, then the public has every right to ask whether the machinery of government is functioning properly.
There is also an important distinction that should not be lost in the political debate.
A foreign criminal is not necessarily an illegal migrant.
Someone can be legally present in Britain, commit a crime, receive a prison sentence and subsequently become subject to deportation proceedings.
Similarly, not every person in asylum accommodation is a criminal.
The categories are different.
They should not be deliberately blurred.
But the reported figure remains serious because these are people who have already been convicted and are reportedly eligible for removal.
The government therefore needs to explain the precise circumstances behind the number.
How many are awaiting appeals?
How many are awaiting travel documents?
How many cannot be removed because their home countries refuse to accept them?
How many have been assessed as presenting a continuing risk?
How long has each group been waiting?
And, most importantly, what is the government’s plan to reduce the backlog?
Without answers to those questions, the public is left with a deeply frustrating impression.
People commit crimes.
They serve sentences.
They are supposed to be deported.
Yet instead they can end up living in publicly funded accommodation.
Meanwhile, ordinary families are facing high rents and housing shortages.
That contrast is politically toxic.
It creates the perception that the state is capable of providing accommodation to people who have no right to remain while British citizens struggle to find homes.
Whether or not that perception captures the full reality of the housing system, politicians cannot ignore it.
Perception matters.
And Reform understands that better than almost anyone.
The party can frame the issue as another example of “cash machine Britain” — a country where the taxpayer is expected to pay while the government struggles to enforce its own laws.
That message is likely to resonate with voters who already feel that immigration has become too expensive and poorly managed.
But there is a danger in turning the entire debate into a simple slogan.
The solution cannot simply be “deport everyone”.
Deportation is a legal and diplomatic process.
Britain needs agreements with other countries.
It needs valid documentation.
It needs courts to process appeals.
It needs to comply with human-rights obligations.
And it needs to ensure that people are not sent somewhere where removal would be unlawful.
These restrictions may frustrate voters.
But they exist for a reason.
A serious government has to operate within the law.
The challenge is making that lawful system work efficiently.
That is where Britain appears to have struggled.
If countries refuse to accept their own nationals, Britain needs diplomatic pressure.
If documentation is delaying removals, the government needs better administrative systems.
If appeals are taking too long, the process needs more resources and capacity.
If criminal offenders are being released into accommodation for indefinite periods, ministers need to explain why.
None of these problems are impossible to solve.
They require political will.
And that is where Burnham will face his greatest test.
He has inherited a state that is already under enormous pressure.
The asylum system is expensive.
The prison system is overcrowded.
The courts are under strain.
Local authorities face financial difficulties.
Housing is scarce.
And immigration remains one of the most divisive issues in British politics.
There is no easy solution.
But there is a simple principle.
If someone has no legal right to remain in Britain and the courts have confirmed that they should be removed, the government should make every reasonable effort to ensure that removal happens.
Otherwise, the law becomes little more than a statement of intent.
That would be dangerous.
A functioning immigration system requires both compassion and control.
People who genuinely need protection should receive it.
People who have a lawful basis to remain should be treated fairly.
People who commit crimes should face the consequences.
And people who have no legal right to remain should, where legally possible, be removed.
Those principles are not mutually exclusive.
Indeed, they are necessary for public confidence.
The government’s biggest problem is that public confidence is already weak.
Every failed deportation.
Every long-running backlog.
Every new accommodation contract.
Every report of people remaining in Britain indefinitely provides ammunition to those who argue that the system is broken.
And once voters lose faith in the system, rebuilding that confidence becomes extremely difficult.
That is why the reported 1,509 figure matters.
It is not simply a number.
It represents a series of individual cases.
Each case may have a different explanation.
But collectively they reveal a government system struggling to turn decisions into outcomes.
That is the real issue.
Britain does not simply need more immigration rules.
It needs an immigration system capable of enforcing the rules it already has.
The Burnham government now has a choice.
It can treat this revelation as another problem inherited from previous governments.
Or it can treat it as a warning that its own promises about stronger government will be judged against reality.
If Burnham wants to demonstrate that his administration is different, he should publish a clear plan for the foreign-offender backlog.
Set out the numbers.
Explain the legal obstacles.
Identify the countries where returns agreements are missing.
Increase diplomatic pressure where necessary.
Speed up cases where the law allows it.
And publish regular figures showing whether the backlog is falling.
Transparency would make an enormous difference.
Because the worst outcome is not merely that taxpayers continue paying for accommodation.
It is that nobody knows how long the situation will continue.
The public should not have to rely on newspaper investigations to discover the scale of the problem.
The government should be able to explain it itself.
There is also a lesson for Reform.
The party will undoubtedly use this story to demand tougher deportation policies.
That is legitimate.
But if Reform wants to become a governing party, it must explain how it would actually deliver those policies.
Which countries would it negotiate with?
What agreements would it seek?
How would it deal with countries that refuse?
How would it handle legal appeals?
How much would the policy cost?
What happens when removal is legally impossible?
The British public deserves answers from both sides.
There is little value in competing over who can sound toughest.
The real competition should be over who can make the system work.
The reported 1,500-plus foreign offenders living in asylum accommodation should therefore be treated as a warning rather than merely a political headline.
It exposes the gap between having a policy and implementing it.
It exposes the cost of administrative failure.
And it exposes the uncomfortable reality that Britain’s immigration debate cannot be solved simply by announcing tougher laws.
The laws must be enforced.
The agreements must work.
The bureaucracy must function.
And the government must ultimately be able to deliver the decisions made by its own courts and institutions.
That is the standard Andy Burnham should be held to.
Not whether he can make another dramatic speech.
Not whether he can blame the previous government.
And not whether he can defeat Reform in the next opinion poll.
The question is much simpler.
Can his government make Britain’s immigration system work?
If the answer is yes, the backlog should begin to fall.
If the answer is no, the political consequences will be enormous.
Because taxpayers will continue paying.
Communities will continue asking questions.
Reform will continue gaining ammunition.
And voters will continue wondering how a country can have the power to order deportations but apparently lack the ability to carry them out.
That is not merely an immigration problem.
It is a test of whether the British state can enforce its own decisions.
And Andy Burnham now has to prove that it can.