Asylum hotels will be in use for years, borders watchdog warns – leaving Reeves' pledge in tatters
David Bolt told a committee of peers there was not enough housing stock to deal with the number of people in the system – as he also questioned the government 's ability to achieve Keir Starmer 's promise to 'smash the gangs'.
Ms Reeves has said her plan to end the use of hotels, by cutting the asylum backlog, hearing more appeal cases and returning people to their home countries, would save £1bn a year.
Asked by members of the House of Lords what the challenges would be to achieve the chancellor 's aim, Mr Bolt replied: 'I don't think it will be achieved, frankly.'
He said: 'The numbers within asylum system (are) not very tractable, they're very large numbers and it's very hard to see how they're going to be reduced significantly even over the length of Parliament.'
He added despite the Home Office appearing to be going in a different direction with getting more local authorities engaged in asylum housing: 'I think there's a more fundamental issue about accommodation, or at least housing stock, there simply isn't sufficient housing stock to be able to deal with the sorts of numbers in the system.
'I think it's really, really challenging.'
Mr Bolt, who previously served borders watchdog between 2015 and 2021, and returned as interim chief inspector in June last year, also told peers he wrote to ministers to say he 'wasn't convinced smashing the gangs was the right way of thinking about things' in tackling Channel crossings.
He said: 'It did seem to me the challenge was to change the risk reward ratio for those people involved in organised immigration crime, that's really a difficult thing to achieve, because it's relatively low cost, relatively low risk for the perpetrators and highly profitable.
'I'm not sure I feel very optimistic about the ability to smash the gangs and, in any event, it seems to me with organised crime, the best thing you can do is deflect it to something else you're less concerned about rather than expect to eradicate it.'
But he also agreed more needed to be done to tackle the issue in the UK and look at what is attracting people to come to the country.
Mr Bolt said: 'The availability of illegal working, that I think is one of the issues the Home Office has tried to focus on and tried to close down as best it can and will continue to have to work very hard on that.'
It comes after shadow home secretary Chris Philp posted a message on X on Tuesday saying he made an unannounced visit to an asylum hotel last Friday and found 'clear evidence' of illegal working for Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats.
A Downing Street spokesman said border security minister Dame Angela Eagle will meet food delivery companies next week, adding that the Government will not stand for the 'racket'.
Home Office figures show just 299 migrants made the journey to the UK by crossing the English Channel in 2018.
This year so far, more than 18,000 migrants have arrived via the Channel, in a record for this point in the year since data collection began in 2018.
The highest year of total arrivals on record was 2022, at 45,774.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Could a new party led by Jeremy Corbyn reshape politics?
The MP for Islington North – ex-leader of the Labour Party and informal spokesperson for the 'Alliance' group of independents in the House of Commons – could be staging a bit of a comeback. Jeremy Corbyn has been on ITV's Peston to drop the heaviest hint yet that he wants to start a new socialist party, and he's ready to lead it. Nobody expects him to be prime minister (albeit he's been underestimated before), but he could make an impact of sorts. What has Corbyn been saying? For some months, he's been talking about the need for an 'alternative' on the left of British politics, and the welfare bill fiasco offers an opportunity for him to explain Labour's current disarray. Last September, Corbyn addressed a meeting aimed at founding a new left-wing party, Collective; his faithful ally, the former Unite general secretary Len McCluskey, also attended along with various former 'independent' candidates. Now, Corbyn says the Alliance group of five independent MPs 'have worked ... very well together over the past year in parliament' and offer 'an alternative of a left independent party of socialist views'. He says a 'grouping will come together, there will be an alternative' because there is 'a thirst for an alternative view … which is about a society that deals with poverty, inequality, and a foreign policy that's based on peace not war.' Will Corbyn lead it? He's obviously the most experienced and high-profile of the five MPs. On the other hand, he'll be about 80 by the time of the next election. He says: 'I'm here to work – I'm here to serve the people in the way I've always tried to do.' Will it happen? Certainly. Corbyn and the others who left the Labour fold know there's no way back for them, and that, even if there was, they are electorally better off standing as independent candidates or standing for the new party, whether it's called Independent, Alliance, Collective or something else. Would it succeed? Polling suggests such a grouping might capture about 10 per cent of the vote on average, taking votes principally away from Labour and thus hugely widening the gap between the government and Reform UK. More in Common found Labour would drop from 23 per cent of the vote to 20 per cent, with Reform unchanged at 27 per cent. Greens would also lose some support to the new Corbynistas. In short, the net result would make a Farage government more likely. The new party's support, as now, would tend to be higher in constituencies with larger Muslim or student populations and places where there are lots of middle-class public sector workers. Some big Labour names would be vulnerable to losing their seats on current trends: Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham Ladywood) and Wes Streeting (Ilford North). Who are the Alliance Group? Aside from Corbyn there are four who campaigned mainly on the Palestinian issue and in protest at Labour's stance, and all beat Labour candidates and MPs over the party's position on Gaza: Shockat Adam (Leicester South) who dislodged Jonathan Ashworth; Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr); Adnan Hussain (Blackburn); and Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley). If grouped together, they number as many MPs as Reform UK or the Democratic Unionist Party; as a formal party, with electoral funding, they could wield more influence. Would they attract Labour MPs to defect? Quite possibly, especially if the Labour leadership keeps taking the whip off its leftist or pro-Palestine rebels so they feel they have nowhere else to go. Does Corbyn's grouping have any rivals on the left? Lots of Marxist sects, but at the moment it's mostly the Greens and the Workers Party of Britain, led by George Galloway, who are in the same sort of territory. Who knows what could happen there. They could compete with each other and split the radical vote; or cooperate Germany-style and maximise their parliamentary representation as a Red-Green coalition. The Workers Party of Britain ran Angela Rayner a close second in the last general election, although Galloway lost Rochdale to Labour. He might like a rematch with Labour member Paul Waugh. What might the new Corbyn party be like? To some degree, it would resemble Labour under Corbyn: a fairly clear alternative on most issues, a hopeless muddle on others – prone to splits, big on rallies and trade union links, at odds with the media and plagued by accusations of antisemitism. What do the five MPs agree on? Working to end the suffering of the Palestinian people, and left-of-centre economics. One particular matter that will take up their time in the coming months is the legal definition of Islamophobia and, indeed, the disgusting wave of anti-Muslim hatred that appears on social media and elsewhere. This rise in racism is a distressing trend for anyone, but especially so for Muslim people. The grooming gang scandal has worsened the problem. What are their differences? Depending on how far Galloway gets involved, these could include the extent of their support for a two-state solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict; policy on the war in Ukraine; the EU; and 'culture war' controversies such as trans rights. Any other problems? The group's emergence as a party could exacerbate communalism in local politics in the big cities, based on ethnic or religious rather than class differences. The even more horrific prospect is that they allow a Farage-led government into power with all that entails for legitimising Islamophobia.
Telegraph
43 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Parliamentary privilege allows pro-Palestine Action MPs to voice support
MPs who voice support for Palestine Action in the Commons will be shielded from prosecution under terror laws by parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary convention dictates that no MP can be prosecuted for anything they say in the Commons chamber, Westminster Hall or formal committee of the House even if they voice support for a proscribed organisation such as Palestine Action. It also protects MPs from being sued for defamation or libel. It means any MP will be free to support or even encourage backing for Palestine Action, even though saying it outside the Commons would leave them liable for up to 14 years in prison. Nine Labour MPs were among the 26 members who voted against the Government's move to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, putting it on a par with Hamas, al-Qaeda and Islamic State. The group of Labour MPs included Diane Abbott, the veteran Left-winger, Clive Lewis and Richard Burgon, who served in Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet. Mr Corbyn, who sits as an independent, also voted against proscribing Palestine Action, along with fellow independent John McDonnell, his former shadow chancellor. The Commons voted by 385 to 26 in favour of proscribing Palestine Action. On Thursday, the Lords backed it without a vote. A so-called regret motion proposed by a Green Party peer criticising the measure was rejected by 144 votes to 16. It is unclear when the ban, which needs final sign-off by the Home Secretary, will come into force as the group is mounting a court challenge to temporarily block the move with a hearing scheduled on Friday, pending further proceedings. Two planes were vandalised at RAF Brize Norton on June 20 causing £7 million worth of damage, in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Four people have been charged by counter-terrorism police over the incident and were remanded in custody following a court appearance. Commons officials confirmed that any MP speaking in support of the group would be exempt from prosecution under parliamentary privilege. Guidance for MPs states: 'This allows you to speak up on behalf of constituents, express an opinion, or condemn corruption, malpractice or even criminal activity without fear of legal action, as long as you do so in proceedings of the House. 'This protection extends to written proceedings: for example, written and oral questions, motions, early day motions, and amendments tabled to bills and motions. 'Anyone giving evidence to a committee of the House also has this protection, which is a safeguard for witnesses and also ensures that select committees are not obstructed in their inquiries by threats of legal action, or any other kind of threat against witnesses.' Lord Hanson of Flint, the Home Office minister, said: 'I will always defend the right of British people to engage in legitimate and peaceful protest and to stand up for the causes in which they believe. 'But essential as these rights are, they do not provide a blank cheque for this particular group to seriously damage property or subject members of the public to fear and violence. We would not tolerate this activity from organisations if they were motivated by Islamist or extreme Right-wing ideology, and therefore I cannot tolerate it from Palestine Action. 'By implementing this measure, we will remove Palestine Action's veil of legitimacy, tackle its financial support, degrade its efforts to recruit and radicalise people into committing terrorist activity in its name.' However, Mr Corbyn warned that the ban would have a 'chilling effect' on protests, adding: 'Surely we should be looking at the issue that Palestine Action are concerned about, and the supply of weapons from this country to Israel, which has made all this possible. If this order goes through it will have a chilling effect on protests.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
EU targets 90% cut in emissions by 2040 as green groups cry foul
The EU should slash its planet-heating pollution by 90% by 2040, the European Commission has announced, in a proposed change to its climate law that falls short of what its scientists have advised. The much-awaited target to cut emissions, which is measured against pollution levels from 1990, is a significant milestone on the EU's path to decarbonise its economy by 2050. Green groups, however, are furious that it leaves room to count foreign carbon credits, such as planting trees and saving forests, that researchers have often found are ineffective. The announcement of the legally binding target, which comes as much of the continent swelters in a scorching days-long heatwave, had been delayed by months after pushback from member states that found the headline figure of 90% too ambitious. Wopke Hoekstra, the EU climate commissioner, said the discussion around the target had been 'politically sensitive' but defended measures introduced to win over national capitals. The new approach to reaching the target allows the use of domestic carbon removals through the EU's emissions trading system and offers more flexibility across different sectors of the economy. It also opens the door for limited use of carbon offsets from 2036. Critics, including scientists, have raised fears of junk offsets that are impossible to verify or that claim carbon savings for projects that may have gone ahead anyway, a concept known as 'additionality'. 'If we don't manage to do it in a way that is verifiable, certifiable and additional, then you could raise questions on whether it is actually effective,' Hoekstra said. 'But humanity has done more difficult things than this, and I am absolutely convinced that we will pull it off.' The European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change had recommended the commission aim for slightly steeper cuts of 90-95%. It emphasised it should achieve them through 'domestic action', which would exclude the use of carbon offsets. The advisers said such a level of ambition was feasible and would increase the fairness of the EU's contribution to global climate action. Mohammed Chahim, a Dutch lawmaker and climate lead for the centre-left Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) grouping, said the proposals were little more than window dressing and raised questions about climate justice. 'Europe risks shirking its responsibilities – polluting at home while planting trees abroad to buy a clean conscience,' he said. An EU official defended the proposal, saying the use of international credits was 'politically pragmatic and economically rational'. The target would allow carbon credits to make a 3% contribution to emission reductions, in line with Germany's position, and would be allowed only in the second half of the next decade. The official said they would 'strongly advise' against buying credits in the current voluntary carbon market, but new carbon trading rules finalised at the Cop29 climate conference in Baku last year provided a very different context. 'Still, a lot of work is needed to get all this right,' they added. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion The target would need to be agreed by member states and passed by the EU parliament before being translated into a target for 2035 under UN climate treaties. The EU has to submit a new climate action plan before Cop30 in Brazil in November. Teresa Ribera, the EU's green transition chief, pointed to forces feeding climate scepticism, polarisation and delay to explain the extra flexibility that some member states had asked for. 'The world at the beginning of 2024 is not the world of today,' she said. 'We still had a huge majority – including one of the biggest countries – supporting multilateralism. This is not the case any more.' The target comes amid a broader rollback of environment policy in the EU, which campaigners say is gaining momentum. The deregulation drive has shocked observers with its scale and speed. Some industry groups were also dismayed by the proposal. The European federation of industrial energy consumers (IFIEC) said it supported the goal of climate neutrality by 2050 but found the proposed 90% target 'a disproportionate and unrealistic' acceleration of the ambition. 'An overly steep reduction curve ignores this reality and runs the risk of accelerating de-industrialisation in Europe and massively importing CO2 emissions,' said Hans Grünfeld, president of IFIEC. Green groups said the target fell short of the EU's responsibilities as one of the world's biggest historical emitters of greenhouse gases. 'The European Commission will try to portray this as an ambitious step forward, but the reality is we are fast running out of room to achieve the Paris agreement,' said Colin Roche, climate justice and energy coordinator at Friends of the Earth Europe. 'This target is in line neither with climate science nor with climate justice.' Thomas Gelin, a campaigner at Greenpeace EU, said the EU had a historical responsibility to cut emissions at home. 'The EU's 2040 climate targets should drive a shift away from fossil fuels, starting with an EU ban on new fossil fuel projects, towards renewables and energy saving, to cut people's energy bills, make their homes easier to heat and cool, and clean the air they breathe,' he said. 'Instead, the European Commission relies on dodgy accounting and offshore carbon laundering to pretend to hit the lower bound of what its climate scientists advise.'
