Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 15
15
The Department explained that its aim was for as few service users as possible to...
Conclusion
The Department explained that its aim was for as few service users as possible to be accommodated in hotels and that those who do spend as little time as possible in hotels once they are there.37 The Department expected providers to move people with straightforward needs into dispersed accommodation within 35 days of their arrival.38 In its letter to us after our evidence session, the Department told us that on 1 October 2020, 428 school-age children had been in hotels for longer than 35 days.39 The NAO found that the Department penalises providers for each accommodation request and move every month that exceeds agreed timescales, rather than each day, and so providers may not be incentivised to move people out of hotels or initial accommodation once they had been there for longer than 35 days.40 We asked the Department why it had allowed this to be the case. The Department said that providers need to consider the vulnerabilities and support needs of individuals, meaning that it was not always appropriate to prioritise those asylum seekers that have been in hotels the longest.41
Government Response
A response document is linked to this report, dated 25 March 2021. Response attribution to this conclusion has not been verified. Read the response document ↗