The use of barges and cruise ships to house asylum seekers was ruled out by the Treasury while Rishi Sunak was chancellor, The Independent has learned.
Immigration minister Robert Jenrick told parliament that the government was “exploring the possibility of accommodating migrants in vessels” on Wednesday, but none have been purchased.
After Conservative MP Richard Drax told parliament the move should be “totally out of the question” and would “exacerbate tenfold” the issues seen in asylum hotels, Mr Jenrick insisted he “sees merit” in the use of large vessels and that they would “provide good value for money and decent accomodation”.
In a flurry of selective media briefings ahead of a damning report exposing how the UK now spends a third of its foreign aid budget on supporting refugees who are already here, government sources suggested that barges could be used instead of hotels as a “deterrent”.
But The Independent understands that formal research conducted by the Home Office during the Covid pandemic concluded that cruise ships and other vessels could be more expensive than hotels, and raised significant practical, legal and ethical issues.
The Treasury, then led by Mr Sunak as chancellor, ruled out floating asylum accommodation on cost grounds.
Scoping work by the Home Office warned that because asylum seekers could not be detained on vessels, there were significant practical issues in allowing them to move around busy ports and travel to schools, GP surgeries and other vital amenities.
A former minister said it was “ludicrous” for the current government to resurrect the policy, adding: “It’s just not viable.”
When cruise ships were considered while they were disused during the pandemic, some Conservatives had raised concern over the “optics” of using luxurious accommodation.
The focus has since switched to barges offering simple accommodation of the kind used for offshore construction and the oil industry, but berthing costs alone are understood to be a significant barrier.
Addressing parliament on Wednesday, Mr Jenrick told parliament that the cost of hotel accommodation had become “eyewatering” but did not acknowledge a watchdog report accusing the Home Office of driving up “soaring” spending with its own failings.
“The government will use military sites being disposed of in Essex and Lincolnshire, and a separate site in East Sussex,” he said.
“These will be scaled up over the coming months and will collectively provide accommodation to several thousand asylum seekers through re-purposed barrack blocks and portacabins.”
Priti Patel, the former home secretary, told parliament that the New Plan for Immigration drawn up by Boris Johnson’s government had suggested the creation of “Greek-style reception centres” that were not set up.
“Had we had those in place, we would not have this current situation,” she added.
Tory grandee Sir Edward Leigh immediately attacked the planned use of RAF Scampton in his Lincolnshire constituency, telling Mr Jenrick that the local council would immediately launch legal action against it.
He said the move would be a “bad decision … not based on good governance but the politics of trying to do something”.
The immigration minister said the policy was in the “national interest” and that the government would consult with local authorities and MPs.
Mr Jenrick said the prime minister was “showing leadership” by allowing the Catterick Garrison barracks in his constituency to be used for asylum seekers, although The Independent understands he previously vetoed the proposal.
He added: “We continue exploring the possibility of accommodating migrants in vessels as in Scotland and the Netherlands.”
In a report published earlier on Wednesday, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) found that the Home Office’s failure to address a “critical shortage” of accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers, driven by its record asylum backlog as well as rising Channel crossings, was driving costly spending on hotels.
The watchdog warned of “poor value for money”, saying that different government arms operating different refugee schemes had “found themselves competing for the same hotel contracts, driving prices up”.
The Home Office told the watchdog it was spending £120 per person per night in hotels, including catering and other services, compared to £18 for longer-term accommodation in houses and flats.
“While the Home Office has recently started planning long-term solutions, the short-term nature of its response to date has contributed to the spiralling costs,” the ICAI said, warning that the government did not “effectively oversee the value for money” from lucrative private accommodation contracts.
Parliament is currently considering the Illegal Migration Bill, which the government claims will “deter” Channel crossings by enabling it to detain and deport anyone arriving via small boat.
The government has not published the official impact assessment for the bill or information on how much the plans will cost, amid questions over immigration detention capacity.
Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said the use of either military bases or barges would be “entirely unsuitable” for vulnerable men, women and children.
“They are also unworkable and will add yet more cost and chaos to the system,” he added.
“The use of unsuitable contingency accommodation is a direct consequence of the chronic delays and huge backlog in the asylum system. There would be no need for hotels if cases were processed promptly and effectively.”
