Conclusion 20

We asked the Home Office why, despite spending large sums of public money on these large sites, many of them did not achieve the expected benefits. It explained that both the previous and current government had strategies to exit hotel accommodation for asylum seekers.63 The Home Office explained that the urgency behind its actions stemmed from a significant increase in asylum claims, rising from 20,000–40,000 annually to nearly 100,000.64 It said this surge in demand drove the push to find alternative accommodation, accelerating the pace of its work. The Home Office admitted it had prioritised speed over assurance when acquiring the Northeye site, a lesson it again emphasised it is now learning. It said that it focused on quickly acquiring and preparing large sites as long as 59 Committee of Public Accounts, Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership, Thirty–Fourth Report of Session 2023–24, HC 639, May 2024, para 12 60 Home Office News story, ‘Contract for Bibby Stockholm not renewed past January 2025’, dated 23 July 2024; Home Office News story, ‘Home Office will not use RAF Scampton for asylum accommodation’, dated 5 September 2024 61 Q 83 62 Q 4 63 Q 54 64 Q 54 17 the government policy required it. When the policy changed away from procuring large sites, the Home Office said it shifted its focus to meet the new priorities with the same pace.65