The Labour government is preparing to convert military sites into temporary accommodation for asylum seekers, a move ministers say will help close controversial asylum hotels but which officials warn could cost more than the current hotel arrangements.
New Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is expected to set out plans for the use of barracks and other military land in the coming days as ministers press to shut asylum hotels. Officials and former government reviews have raised questions about the financial, legal and safety implications of moving large numbers of vulnerable people to former military facilities.
Ministers have told officials to work with military planners to identify sites where temporary, prefabricated modular accommodation could be built and operated. Defence staff have been embedded in the Home Office's Border Security Command to assess both military and non-military locations, officials said, and temporary units similar to "rapid deployment cells" used after the Covid-19 pandemic are being considered.
The shift comes after repeated criticism of the current use of hotels, which the government says it wants to close. The government is under pressure from local communities protesting the placement of asylum seekers in roadside hotels and from ministers who argue that more controlled, consolidated sites would be more efficient. The Finance Ministry's figures show the current hotel system costs several million pounds a day, and some ministers argue that closing hotels would restore public confidence.
But ministers and civil servants caution that moving people onto military land carries significant extra costs and risks. The Home Office currently spends about £5.77 million per day on asylum hotels, a figure often cited in debate over alternatives. Previous attempts to convert military sites ran significantly over budget: a Conservative project to convert two sites exceeded its budget by about 12 times, and a National Audit Office review of four large sites under the previous government found they cost tens of millions more than planned on top of the roughly £3 billion already spent on hotels.
Officials have flagged structural and environmental concerns on some military estates, including the presence of asbestos and land contaminated by military-grade chemicals and unexploded ordnance. Many former bases are distant from public transport, healthcare and schools, meaning the Home Office would likely have to arrange bespoke transport and services to meet its legal duties to provide a minimum standard of care and support for asylum seekers.
There are also legal and safeguarding risks. In March, the High Court ruled the Home Office had acted unlawfully by housing three vulnerable asylum seekers at the former RAF Wethersfield, after an inspection found widespread disorder and instances of violence at the site. The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration had raised repeated warnings about conditions at the base. Health specialists and charity workers have warned that relocating people with acute mental health needs to isolated, temporary accommodation could exacerbate harm; inspectors recorded 14 suicide attempts at Wethersfield over a six-month period last year.
Defence and Home Office ministers have pointed to other former bases as options. Defence minister Luke Pollard said military planners were reviewing all sites, including RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire, which was considered under a previous Conservative proposal that would have cost about £50 million to house up to 2,000 people before being scaled back and later shelved by Labour in 2024. Local residents and heritage groups have strongly opposed past proposals for Scampton, citing the site's historic significance and concerns about impact on local services.
The Home Office says lessons have been learned from earlier conversions. "The department learnt a lot of lessons from the previous government's experiments with military land," a Home Office spokesperson said, adding that any new programme would aim to avoid past mistakes.
According to The Times, sources close to Ms. Mahmood have said she views the issue as one of public confidence rather than cost, and that she is prepared to defend the policy in court if necessary. Ministers are reportedly pressing ahead despite warnings from officials that the overall bill could exceed the cost of keeping the hotel network in place.
Legal challenges and public opposition are already shaping the debate. A Court of Appeal decision recently allowed the Home Office to continue to house 138 asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel in Epping beyond a previously granted injunction, prompting renewed protests in Epping and demonstrations in other towns including Chichester, Cheshunt and Bournemouth. Local councils and campaigners have repeatedly sought judicial review of placements, arguing that consultation and welfare considerations have been inadequate.
Officials say any move to military sites will require significant upfront investment in accommodation units, site remediation, healthcare provision and transportation, as well as rigorous safeguarding arrangements. Independent auditors and some ministers warn that, given the past record of cost overruns and legal rulings, the government will need detailed plans and transparent costings to avoid repeating errors.
As the Home Office finalises proposals, ministers face a complex balancing act between political pressure to end the use of hotels, operational challenges in finding suitable sites, legal duties to protect vulnerable people, and scrutiny over taxpayer cost. An announcement by the Home Secretary is expected in the coming days, with officials prepared for further legal and public scrutiny as plans move from assessment to implementation.