Asylum hotel costs have risen by more than a third (Image: Getty)
Andy Burnham has faced scrutiny over the Government’s pledge to end the use of asylum hotels, with the latest figures showing the average cost per person has risen despite the number of hotel residents falling.
The cost of housing asylum seekers in hotels has surged by more than a third despite the Government’s pledge to end their use, with taxpayers now spending an average of £199 per person per night.
Get the day’s biggest headlines in UK and World news and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Figures from the Home Office show the average cost is up 37% cent from the £144.98 figure provided by the department last October.
The latest cost works out at around £1,393 per person a week (Image: Getty)
That works out at around £1,393 per person every week, adding to pressure on ministers over the cost of asylum accommodation.
The increase comes as the Government continues its programme of closing asylum hotels. Home Office Minister Anna Turley told the Home Affairs Committee that the higher average cost was partly due to hotels being shut in phases.
She said that as occupancy falls ahead of a hotel’s full closure, the department can still be paying for unoccupied rooms, pushing up the average cost per person remaining.
The number of people housed in asylum hotels has nevertheless fallen sharply.
Some 16,021 people remained in hotels at the end of June, according to the figures provided, compared with 36,273 at the end of September last year.
The number of hotels in use also fell from 200 at the end of September to 160 by the end of June.
The Government has committed to ending the use of asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, with ministers moving people into alternative accommodation including former military sites.
Alternative accommodation is considerably cheaper than hotels, with rented “dispersal” accommodation, including houses in multiple occupation, costing around £25 per person per night.
The latest figures mean the Government is reducing the number of people in hotels while the average cost of housing those who remain has increased.
The Home Office said: “The Government is closing every asylum hotel, saving taxpayers over £1billion on asylum support since the election.
“Numbers in asylum hotels have been slashed by 50 per cent in the last year and 71 per cent since the peak in September 2023.
“We are working to fairly house asylum seekers across the country, moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation, including former military sites which are designed to be self-contained to reduce impact on the local community.”
The issue has become politically sensitive for Labour, which has pledged to end hotel use entirely.
The figures emerged amid criticism over plans to exempt taxpayer-funded asylum accommodation from a new overnight visitor levy.
Regional mayors are being given powers to impose the levy on stays in hotels, B&Bs and holiday lets across England, but asylum accommodation will be exempt because it is classed as temporary accommodation.
Beyond hotels, another 73,068 asylum seekers were being housed in other forms of taxpayer-funded accommodation at the end of June.
POLL: Should Andy Burnham scrap the 2050 net-zero target?
A fresh political debate has erupted over Britain’s 2050 net-zero target after he was “determined” to meet the 2050 commitment, arguing that climate change is already affecting people across Britain. His comments followed a summer of record heat, wildfires and extreme weather, Prime Minister Andy Burnham reaffirmed his commitment to reaching net zero, despite growing pressure from politicians who want the policy reconsidered.
Burnham recently stated that he was “determined” to meet the 2050 commitment, arguing that climate change is already affecting people across Britain. His comments followed a summer of record heat, wildfires and extreme weather, while his government announced almost £30 million in support for community-led renewable-energy projects.
The issue has nevertheless become increasingly politically controversial. A cross-party Commons committee has recommended dropping the phrase “net zero”, arguing that the terminology has become unpopular with sections of the public. Conservative and Reform UK politicians have also questioned the current target and called for greater use of domestic oil and gas.
For Burnham, the debate creates a difficult balancing act. He has linked the green transition not only to climate policy but also to economic development, arguing that renewable energy and community ownership could help reduce energy costs while supporting local economies. In his recent statement, he said Britain needed to change the way it travels, builds homes and produces energy.
Critics take a different view. They argue that the transition to net zero can impose significant costs on households and businesses, particularly if energy prices remain high. Some politicians believe the government should prioritise cheaper energy and domestic fossil-fuel production rather than maintaining the current timetable.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about climate science. It is also about energy bills, jobs, industrial policy, investment and the pace of economic change.
Burnham is facing particular pressure over two proposed North Sea developments, Jackdaw and Rosebank. A decision on the projects has been delayed, and environmental campaigners have argued that approving new oil and gas projects would conflict with the government’s commitment to net zero.
Supporters of domestic oil and gas development, however, argue that Britain will continue to require energy during the transition and that domestic production could contribute to energy security. The disagreement illustrates the central political challenge facing Burnham: how to pursue long-term climate objectives while addressing immediate concerns about energy affordability and security.
Public opinion is also more complicated than a simple pro- or anti-net-zero divide. Recent polling cited by the Guardian found that voters in some working-class communities are concerned about climate change but also worry that net-zero policies could unfairly increase costs for ordinary households. The same research suggested that the key test for energy policy may be whether it helps bring household bills down.
That makes the wording of the political question particularly important.
Should Andy Burnham scrap the 2050 net-zero target?
There are arguments on both sides.
Those supporting the target argue that abandoning it could weaken Britain’s long-term climate strategy and discourage investment in renewable energy, clean technology and low-carbon infrastructure. They also point to increasingly visible extreme-weather events as evidence that climate risks cannot simply be postponed.
Those who want the target changed argue that the government should put affordability and energy security first. They question whether the current timetable is economically realistic and believe Britain should retain greater flexibility over oil, gas and other energy sources.
There is also a third position: maintaining the 2050 target while changing how the country gets there. This could mean focusing more heavily on technological innovation, domestic energy production, nuclear power, renewable generation and policies designed to reduce household costs.
For Burnham, this middle ground may be particularly significant. His recent remarks suggest that he does not intend to abandon the target. Instead, he is attempting to connect net zero with economic renewal and local ownership of energy infrastructure.
The political consequences of the issue are difficult to predict. Recent Ipsos polling found Labour on 27%, compared with 23% for Reform UK, although the poll also found that around seven in ten respondents were dissatisfied with how the government was running the country. The poll was conducted among 1,031 British adults between September 10 and 15, 2026, and represents a snapshot of opinion rather than a prediction of an election result.
That context makes the net-zero debate especially relevant. Energy policy can affect voters directly through household bills, transport costs, heating and employment. At the same time, climate policy involves decisions whose consequences extend over decades.
The question facing Burnham is therefore not simply whether Britain should have a net-zero target. It is how quickly the country should pursue it, who should pay for the transition, what role domestic oil and gas should play, and whether green investment can deliver tangible economic benefits.
The 2050 target itself was established under UK legislation in 2019, when Britain committed to reaching net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.
Burnham has now made his position clear: he intends to retain that commitment. The political debate, however, is unlikely to disappear.
As Britain considers its future energy strategy, voters will ultimately have to weigh competing priorities: climate action, affordability, energy security, economic growth and the costs of transition.
POLL: Should Andy Burnham scrap the UK’s 2050 net-zero target — or should the government maintain the commitment while changing how it is delivered?