Andy Burnham Will Push Ahead with Plans to Move Asylum Seekers to Middle-Class Areas Despite Higher Cost to Taxpayers
Prime Minister Andy Burnham is facing a fresh political row over his plans to spread asylum accommodation more evenly across Britain, after it emerged that his Government may be prepared to accept higher costs in order to place more asylum seekers in wealthier and middle-class communities.
Burnham has argued that poorer areas have carried too much of the burden of accommodating asylum seekers and that more affluent parts of the country should now “play their part”. The principle behind the policy is one of fairness: asylum accommodation, he argues, should not be concentrated overwhelmingly in communities that are already facing economic and social pressures.
However, the proposal has immediately created another dilemma for the Government. Moving asylum seekers into areas where rents are higher could increase the amount paid by taxpayers. At a time when Burnham is making the cost of living a central political priority, critics are questioning whether the Government should deliberately accept higher accommodation costs in pursuit of a redistribution policy.
The issue demonstrates just how difficult Britain’s asylum system has become. Ministers are attempting to reduce the expensive use of hotels while simultaneously ensuring that responsibility for asylum accommodation is distributed more evenly around the country.
A question of fairness
Burnham’s argument is straightforward.
For years, asylum accommodation has been concentrated disproportionately in poorer areas, where cheaper properties are available. The Government believes this has created an unfair situation in which some communities have carried a much greater share of the responsibility than others.
Official figures show that almost 100,000 people were receiving asylum support at the end of March 2026. Around 20,885 were living in hotels, while tens of thousands more were accommodated in other forms of housing.
Burnham believes that the distribution of these people should change.
His argument is not necessarily that wealthy communities should receive more asylum seekers simply because they are wealthy. Rather, he believes the country should have a system in which accommodation is not determined almost entirely by where housing happens to be cheapest.
That principle has also been defended by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has described a more balanced distribution as a matter of fairness. The Government is considering a “mixed model” involving military sites, medium-sized properties and private dispersal accommodation.
The price of redistribution
The difficulty is that housing is not equally expensive everywhere.
The Home Office currently operates rent caps for private asylum accommodation. These limits are designed partly to control costs and prevent the taxpayer from paying excessive rents.
But the same limits can make it difficult to place asylum seekers in expensive areas.
If the Government wants to expand accommodation in wealthier communities, it may therefore have to relax those restrictions. Ministers are reportedly considering higher rent caps to make private accommodation in more expensive areas available.
That could mean taxpayers paying more for essentially the same service.
The contrast is particularly striking because the Government has spent much of its political energy promising to control public spending and ease household financial pressures.
Burnham’s supporters would argue that a fairer distribution is worth paying for. His opponents will inevitably ask why taxpayers should be required to spend more simply to achieve a geographical redistribution of asylum seekers.
That question is likely to become increasingly prominent as the policy develops.
From hotels to cheaper accommodation
The Government has a powerful financial incentive to move away from hotels.
Private asylum hotels have been enormously expensive. According to figures reported in the debate over the policy, private asylum accommodation cost around £2.7 billion in 2024–25, with hotels accounting for much of the expense. The average hotel cost has been reported at around £144 per person per night, compared with roughly £23.25 for private accommodation.
That makes the Government’s wider strategy understandable.
Closing asylum hotels and moving people into ordinary housing or other forms of accommodation could save substantial sums of public money.
But there is a catch.
Cheaper accommodation is concentrated in particular parts of the country. If ministers insist on spreading asylum seekers more widely, they may have to accept that the cost per person will rise.
The Government is therefore being forced to balance two competing objectives: reducing the overall cost of asylum accommodation and distributing that accommodation more evenly.
Why middle-class areas?
The phrase “middle-class areas” has become politically charged.
For years, many communities in northern England, the Midlands and other less affluent parts of Britain have hosted significant numbers of asylum seekers. Some residents have complained that their communities are being asked to absorb disproportionate pressures while more prosperous areas appear relatively unaffected.
Burnham’s intervention is designed to challenge that imbalance.
He has argued that the poorest communities should not have to shoulder the largest share of asylum accommodation simply because landlords in those areas offer cheaper properties.
The principle is easy to understand: if asylum is a national responsibility, the responsibility should be national as well.
But the policy is already producing resistance in some affluent communities.
Residents in parts of Oxfordshire, for example, have protested against plans to use former military sites for asylum accommodation. The Government has also identified other former military locations in relatively affluent areas for accommodation.
This suggests that moving accommodation into wealthier areas will not automatically produce public acceptance.
The danger of a new political backlash
Burnham’s plan could therefore create a political problem of its own.
Communities that have previously had little direct experience of asylum accommodation may react strongly when new properties or sites are announced.
That could generate protests and provide fertile ground for Reform UK and Conservative politicians, who are already campaigning heavily on immigration.
Reform has built much of its support around the argument that Britain’s immigration and asylum system is out of control. A policy that visibly moves asylum accommodation into affluent constituencies could give the party an opportunity to portray Labour as imposing unwanted changes on communities that previously had limited exposure to the issue.
Burnham may believe that a more even distribution is ultimately fairer. But politically, fairness can be interpreted very differently by different groups.
Residents may ask why their neighbourhood has been selected, whether local services can cope and whether they were consulted properly.
The Government will need convincing answers.
The wider immigration problem
The accommodation debate cannot be separated from the broader question of asylum applications and illegal migration.
Britain has spent years struggling with the consequences of large numbers of asylum claims, including the use of hotels to accommodate applicants while their cases are processed.
The Government has promised to reduce reliance on hotels and increase removals of people whose claims have been rejected. At the same time, ministers are attempting to process asylum cases more quickly and create a more sustainable accommodation system.
The latest approach therefore represents a shift in strategy rather than simply a housing policy.
If asylum applications and the number of people requiring support remain high, even a perfectly distributed accommodation system will continue to cost the taxpayer substantial sums.
This is why the Government’s ability to control the underlying numbers will be just as important as the location of accommodation.
A difficult message for taxpayers
The most politically sensitive aspect of Burnham’s plan is the possibility that taxpayers could knowingly pay more to implement it.
Governments routinely spend money to achieve policy objectives that are not purely financial. Fairness, regional equality and social cohesion can all justify additional expenditure.
But the Government has also made reducing household costs one of its central priorities.
Burnham has promised measures such as cutting VAT on domestic electricity and reducing transport costs. His Government is therefore attempting to present itself as a champion of ordinary household finances.
Against that background, an asylum policy that potentially increases public expenditure could be difficult to explain.
The Government’s response is likely to be that the alternative—continuing to rely heavily on expensive hotels and concentrating accommodation in a limited number of poorer communities—is itself inefficient and unfair.
The long-term objective is to create a cheaper and more sustainable system, even if some aspects of the transition cost more.
Can the policy actually work?
Much will depend on the availability of suitable housing.
The Government cannot simply decide that asylum seekers should be accommodated in affluent areas without finding landlords willing to provide properties, councils willing to cooperate and communities willing to accept the arrangements.
Higher rent caps could make properties available, but they could also create competition for housing in already expensive rental markets.
There is a legitimate concern that government-funded asylum accommodation could compete with local residents for limited private rental properties.
Ministers will therefore have to demonstrate that the policy does not make housing shortages worse for families already struggling to find affordable accommodation.
This will be particularly important in areas where rents are already high and social housing waiting lists are long.
Burnham’s political gamble
For Burnham, the policy represents a significant political gamble.
On one hand, he can present it as an exercise in fairness. He can argue that Britain cannot continue expecting the poorest communities to carry a disproportionate share of a national responsibility.
On the other hand, opponents can portray the policy as deliberately increasing costs and imposing asylum accommodation on communities that have not previously experienced it.
The Government’s handling of the policy will therefore matter enormously.
If it can reduce hotel use, lower the overall cost of accommodation and create a genuinely fairer distribution, Burnham will have a strong argument that the changes were necessary.
If costs rise without a corresponding improvement in the asylum system, however, critics will argue that taxpayers have been asked to pay more without receiving better results.
The bigger question of social cohesion
There is also a deeper issue behind the debate.
Britain’s asylum system has become a source of intense political tension. Some communities believe they have been ignored, while asylum seekers themselves can experience hostility, uncertainty and frequent relocation.
A more balanced system could potentially reduce the perception that asylum is something imposed only on poorer communities.
But redistribution alone cannot resolve the underlying political disagreement over immigration.
People who oppose high levels of migration are unlikely to be persuaded simply because asylum accommodation is spread more evenly. Similarly, those who support greater refugee protection will not necessarily accept every government decision about where accommodation should be provided.
The policy therefore needs to be part of a wider strategy involving faster asylum decisions, effective removals, better accommodation and stronger integration where people are ultimately allowed to remain.
A test of Burnham’s leadership
Andy Burnham has made clear that he is prepared to push ahead despite the prospect of higher costs.
That tells voters something important about his priorities. He is placing geographical fairness above the immediate objective of minimising every pound spent on accommodation.
Whether voters agree with that calculation will depend heavily on what happens next.
If the policy succeeds in ending the concentration of asylum accommodation in the poorest communities while reducing expensive hotel use, Burnham could claim a significant political victory.
If it results in higher bills, local protests and little reduction in the overall pressure on the asylum system, the policy could become a major vulnerability.
For now, the Government is attempting to pursue two goals that are difficult to reconcile: making the asylum system cheaper while making its distribution fairer.
That is the central challenge.
Burnham’s argument that wealthier communities should “play their part” may be politically powerful, but fairness comes at a price when housing costs vary dramatically between regions.
The Prime Minister is betting that taxpayers will ultimately accept that price if the result is a more balanced and sustainable asylum system.
The coming months will reveal whether that gamble pays off—or whether the attempt to spread the burden simply spreads the political controversy as well.