The Home Office is facing a growing backlog of foreign criminals awaiting deportation (Image: Home Office handout)
More than 1,500 convicted foreign criminals are living in taxpayer-funded asylum accommodation because they have not been deported, a Daily Express investigation can reveal. Labour is battling a growing removals backlog, with almost 20,000 foreign crooks living across Britain.
And an 11-month investigation by this newspaper can reveal around 1,509 offenders have been given free homes which have been found for them.
Critics said our findings reveal “that the Home Office is paying for illegal migrant criminals to be scattered in communities”.
The Home Office insisted that the decision to release a foreign criminal into the community is “never taken lightly”, before adding “suitable accommodation is sourced prior to their release to manage them effectively”.
This corroborates evidence given to MPs by asylum accommodation provider Serco, which revealed a “lack of returns agreements with certain countries means their nationals will never be deported”. They added: “These individuals are therefore transferred to asylum accommodation on an indefinite basis.”
Robert Bates, Research Director at the Centre for Migration Control said: “This is a mind-blowing report which reveals that the Home Office is paying for illegal migrant criminals to be scattered in communities around the country.
“It is an insult to the British public, who deserve a government that deports foreign crooks rather than housing them at our expense.
“These people have shown that they are a threat to our society and do not deserve the right to live amongst us. The asylum system is clearly broken beyond repair if it enables a grave injustice such as this to occur.”
The astonishing scandal can be revealed for the first time after the Daily Express forced the Home Office to disclose the numbers through Freedom of Information laws.
Officials repeatedly refused, saying the department was going to publish the datasets in the future. But this newspaper challenged that, declaring that the promise had been made in early 2025.
After repeated refusals, the case was referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office. And the Home Office finally admitted more than 1,500 foreign national offenders are living in asylum accommodation.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “It is shameful that Shabana Mahmood is putting up over a thousand foreign criminals in expensive hotels and flats at taxpayers’ expense.
Andy Burnham’s Government is ramping up use of dispersal accommodation (Image: Getty)
“Many will go on to commit yet more crimes.
“As Home Secretary, I would deport all these criminals.
“This is why the Conservative plan is so important – if we leave the ECHR we can ensure these despicable foreign criminals are all deported with no asylum claim, no modern slavery claim and no human rights claim.
“But Andy Burnham is too weak to do this – so these criminals will stay here being paid for by us.”
Reform’s Zia Yusuf told the Daily Express: “It’s outrageous that so many foreign criminals are living in taxpayer funded accommodation. These people have no right to even step foot in our country, let alone have the red carpet rolled out for them.
“Under a Reform Government, every single foreign criminal will be deported. Simple.”
The number of foreign criminals living in communities despite being eligible for deportation has soared from 3,943 in 2012 to 19,779 this year.
It has nearly doubled from 10,373 in the final three months of 2020.
Under Labour, the backlog of foreign criminals who have dodged deportation has increased nearly 10%, from 18,074 to 19,779.
Many countries refuse to take back their nationals. And human rights laws prevent the Home Office from booting out convicted criminals to countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan, Eritrea, Iran and Syria.
The Home Office, which repeatedly rejected attempts to obtain this data, said: “All FNOs who receive a prison sentence in the UK are referred for deportation consideration at the earliest opportunity.
“A record number of FNOs have been returned from the UK under this government, over 9,800 which is a 36% increase on the 7,185 returns recorded in the twenty-one-month period ending June 2024.
“The decision to release a FNO into the community is never taken lightly.
“The threat of harm to the public is carefully considered and suitable accommodation is sourced prior to their release to manage them effectively in the community, in addition to stringent reporting and electronic monitoring conditions.”
The admissions will prompt renewed fury over Labour’s asylum accommodation strategy.
The Home Office is moving asylum seekers out of hotels and into the “suburbs and shires”, with 68,719 asylum seekers living in houses, flats and bedsits – including large HMOs.
Five former military bases will also be used to house more than 5,000 migrants.
And Labour has faced fury for paying foreign criminals some £6.5 million between July 2024 and October 2025 to leave the country.
The grants, awarded under the Facilitated Return Scheme (FRS), were given to 4,625 people at an average of £1,405 each.
Criminals must apply for the grant and are eligible to receive up to £1,500 if they make their application while serving a custodial sentence.
This drops to £750 for those who apply after finishing their prison sentence or who were not sentenced to prison time.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has vowed to boot asylum seekers out of their accommodation if they commit crimes.
In June, the handouts became “conditional” and will only be given to those “who genuinely need it and follow the law”.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “Nearly 10,000 foreign criminals including murderers and rapists have been removed since the last election – a 36% increase on the 21 months prior.
“Any foreign national who receives a prison sentence in the UK is referred for deportation and the earliest opportunity and will be barred from ever returning. In very limited circumstances, where they can prove they are destitute and need to comply with bail conditions, limited support will be provided temporarily ahead of their removal.”
1,500 Foreign Criminals Are Living in UK Asylum Homes – And You’re Paying the Bill
The presence of foreign nationals with criminal convictions in the United Kingdom’s asylum accommodation system has become a contentious issue in the national debate over immigration, public spending and border security. A claim that approximately 1,500 foreign criminals are living in asylum accommodation raises difficult questions about how the authorities assess risk, how criminal cases are handled and how taxpayers’ money is being spent.
For many members of the public, the issue is straightforward: people who have committed serious offences should be dealt with appropriately, and the government should be able to explain why individuals who pose a risk remain in publicly funded accommodation. Others argue that the subject requires careful distinctions between different types of criminal conviction, immigration status and the legal circumstances that prevent someone from being removed from the country.
The figure alone does not answer these questions. To understand the situation, it is necessary to establish what the number represents, when the information was collected, what offences were involved and whether the individuals concerned are awaiting immigration decisions, appealing deportation decisions or subject to other legal processes. Without those details, a headline figure can generate alarm without explaining the circumstances behind it.
Nevertheless, the wider questions surrounding asylum accommodation and public accountability deserve serious examination.
Why Are Asylum Seekers Housed at Public Expense?
The UK government has a legal responsibility to provide accommodation and, in certain circumstances, financial support to eligible asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute while their claims are being considered. The system is intended to provide basic support during the immigration process, rather than reward or punish individuals according to public opinion.
Accommodation arrangements vary. Some people live in shared housing, while others are placed in hotels or other temporary facilities when suitable alternatives are unavailable. The costs can include accommodation contracts, meals where provided, security, transport and the administration required to operate the system.
These arrangements have become controversial because of the pressure they can place on public finances and local communities. When asylum decisions take longer than expected, people may remain in accommodation for extended periods. Temporary arrangements can become expensive, particularly when hotel rooms are used instead of more suitable long-term housing.
Taxpayers are entitled to ask whether contracts deliver value for money, whether accommodation is being used efficiently and whether the government has a credible plan to reduce unnecessary expenditure.
However, the existence of public expenditure does not automatically establish that the system is being abused. A proper assessment must distinguish between legally required support, avoidable administrative costs and failures that could be addressed through better management.
What Does the Figure of 1,500 Actually Mean?
The headline figure is striking, but its significance depends on the definition of a foreign criminal and the circumstances of the people counted.
A person may be described as a foreign national offender because they have received a criminal conviction in the UK. That category can include offences of very different seriousness. A conviction for a relatively minor offence is not equivalent to a conviction for a violent or sexual offence, and neither category automatically establishes that someone presents an immediate danger to the public.
There is also a distinction between a person who has been convicted, someone who has been charged but not tried, and an individual who is suspected of an offence. These categories must not be treated as interchangeable.
The circumstances of immigration cases can also differ considerably. Some individuals may have completed a prison sentence but remain subject to immigration proceedings. Others may be challenging a removal decision, or their cases may involve legal barriers that the authorities must resolve before deportation can take place.
Consequently, a reported total of 1,500 should be examined alongside its original source, the relevant date and the precise population covered. It should not automatically be interpreted as proof that 1,500 dangerous individuals have been knowingly placed in the community without safeguards.
The government should publish clear information wherever possible so that the public can understand the scale and nature of the problem.
Public Safety Must Remain a Central Consideration
The most important question is whether the authorities have effective procedures for identifying and managing individuals who pose a genuine risk.
Criminal convictions can be relevant to immigration decisions, particularly where serious offences are involved. But immigration law, criminal sentencing and public protection operate through different legal processes. Completing a prison sentence does not necessarily settle a person’s immigration status, while an immigration decision does not replace the need to enforce criminal law.
Authorities responsible for accommodation should have appropriate procedures for assessing risk, sharing relevant information and responding to concerns. Where restrictions or safeguarding measures are legally required, they must be implemented consistently. Any allegation that serious offenders have been placed in unsuitable accommodation should be investigated on the evidence rather than dismissed or exaggerated for political effect.
There are also practical questions about coordination. Immigration officials, police forces, prison authorities, local councils and accommodation providers may all hold information relevant to an individual case. Poor communication can create gaps in oversight, while unclear responsibilities can make it difficult to identify who is accountable when something goes wrong.
A transparent system should establish who is responsible for risk assessments, what safeguards apply and how complaints are investigated. Where failures occur, the public should receive a clear explanation of what happened and what corrective action will follow.
The Deportation Debate
The issue inevitably raises questions about deportation. Some members of the public argue that foreign nationals convicted of serious offences should be removed from the UK as soon as their sentences have been served. Others emphasise that removal decisions must comply with the law and take account of the individual circumstances of each case.
The legal position is not always simple. Appeals, protection claims, questions about the safety of return and practical difficulties obtaining travel documents can complicate removal. International obligations and domestic legal requirements may also affect whether deportation can proceed.
These factors do not mean that removal is impossible in every difficult case. They mean that the authorities must establish which legal requirements apply and explain why a particular decision has been made.
If individuals who are eligible for deportation remain in publicly funded accommodation because cases are not being processed efficiently, the government should identify the cause of the delay and address it. If removal cannot lawfully take place, the authorities should explain the relevant constraints as fully as privacy and legal requirements permit.
The objective should be a system that makes lawful decisions promptly, protects the public and avoids unnecessary expenditure.
Why Taxpayers Are Demanding Greater Accountability
Public confidence depends partly on whether people believe government spending is being managed responsibly. When households face high living costs, pressure on housing and difficulties accessing public services, large bills for asylum accommodation naturally attract scrutiny.
The debate is not simply about the cost of individual rooms. It also concerns the design of accommodation contracts, the speed of asylum decisions, the availability of suitable housing and the consequences of administrative delays.
Long processing times can increase expenditure because accommodation remains occupied for longer. Sudden increases in demand can also leave authorities relying on expensive emergency arrangements. A sustainable response therefore requires more than announcing a target for reducing hotel use.
The government needs accurate forecasts, effective procurement, sufficient caseworkers and a clear process for reviewing outstanding applications. It should also publish meaningful information about the costs of accommodation, the length of time people remain in the system and the results of efforts to reduce delays.
Where contractors fail to meet their obligations, the government should enforce contractual standards. Where public money has been wasted, independent scrutiny should establish why and determine whether further action is needed.
Taxpayers deserve evidence of progress rather than assurances that problems are being addressed.
The Government Faces Difficult Policy Choices
Ministers must balance several responsibilities: maintaining an orderly asylum process, protecting public safety, complying with the law and managing public money. These goals are connected, but they cannot always be achieved through a single measure.
Faster decisions could reduce the period during which applicants require accommodation, provided the process remains fair and accurate. Better coordination between relevant agencies could improve the management of cases involving criminal convictions. More effective use of suitable accommodation could reduce dependence on expensive temporary facilities.
At the same time, rushed decisions can lead to errors, additional appeals and further costs. Removing safeguards without considering individual circumstances could also create legal problems and undermine public confidence.
The government therefore needs to demonstrate that its approach is both firm and workable. That means setting clear standards, measuring performance and explaining how difficult cases are handled.
Opposition parties, journalists and independent watchdogs also have a role in testing official claims. Political scrutiny can help expose failures, but claims about criminality and immigration should be supported by reliable evidence and precise definitions.
What Should Happen Next?
If the reported figure of 1,500 foreign national offenders in asylum accommodation is accurate, the next step should be to establish the details behind it. The public needs to know when the figure was compiled, how the people were categorised, what types of convictions were involved and what safeguards or legal proceedings applied.
The government should explain how accommodation decisions are made for people with criminal convictions, how public safety risks are assessed and what happens when an individual becomes eligible for deportation. It should also identify whether administrative delays or contractual weaknesses are contributing to unnecessary costs.
Where serious failures are demonstrated, there should be clear accountability. Where legal barriers prevent an immediate removal, ministers should explain the circumstances without implying that every case can be resolved in the same way.
Ultimately, the asylum system must be judged by its results. It should process claims efficiently, protect people from genuine risks, respect the law and use taxpayers’ money responsibly.
A headline figure can draw attention to an important issue, but it cannot replace a detailed examination of the evidence. The public deserves accurate numbers, transparent decisions and a credible explanation of how the government intends to manage the system.
The central question is not simply who is paying the bill. It is whether the government can demonstrate that the money is being spent lawfully and efficiently, that risks are being managed appropriately and that decisions are being made without avoidable delay. Those are the standards against which the asylum accommodation system should be assessed.