Asylum hotels told to house foreign national offenders as staff take unconscious bias training
Hotel operators working for the UK government are being told to take in some residents with criminal histories — including arson convictions — while making sure staff complete annual courses in unconscious bias and cultural awareness. The instructions appear in a 117-page Home Office “statement of requirements,” released under Freedom of Information laws, that sets out how firms must run accommodation for asylum seekers.
The document uses the term “service users” for all residents and says providers must “acknowledge and agree” that some placements will be for ex-foreign national offenders on bail. In the same pack, managers are warned about higher insurance premiums, tougher fire safety needs and the likelihood of “more robust furniture” where risks are identified.
What the Home Office document says
At the core is a blunt reality: not everyone arriving at government-funded accommodation will be a straightforward asylum case. The paperwork spells out that a proportion may be former offenders — foreign nationals released on criminal or immigration bail while their cases move through the system. That can include people convicted of arson, which is why insurers are flagged early. For hotels, that means formal risk assessments, stronger fire precautions, and sometimes room modifications.
The guidance is detailed and prescriptive. Providers must keep a live incident log, escalate safeguarding concerns within set timeframes, and work to strict reporting rules with the Home Office. Staff in face-to-face roles must complete annual training in unconscious bias, ethnic diversity and cultural awareness, along with safeguarding, conflict de‑escalation and trauma-informed practice. Security personnel need appropriate accreditation, and frontline workers are expected to pass background checks before they start.
Why are ex-offenders ending up in this system at all? Some foreign nationals finish their criminal sentences but can’t be removed right away — because of ongoing appeals, documentation problems, country conditions, or legal rulings. If they’re destitute and on bail, they can be placed in government accommodation under existing law. The paperwork reflects that reality and instructs providers to plan for it.
For hotels, the operational knock-ons are practical as much as political. Insurers often ask for tailored fire strategies where any arson risk exists, potentially higher excesses, and specific mitigation measures. Managers talk about durable fixtures, clearer house rules, and a need for more uniform incident reporting to keep premiums under control. The document anticipates those needs and pushes operators to evidence the steps they take.
The training requirement, meanwhile, is stirring debate. Annual lessons in unconscious bias and cultural awareness are standard in many public contracts now. The aim is to reduce misunderstandings, prevent discrimination and improve service to residents from dozens of countries. Critics say it feels out of step when the same staff are told to handle higher‑risk cases. Supporters counter that the two things aren’t mutually exclusive: you manage risk and you treat people fairly at the same time.
The bigger picture: costs, risks and politics
This is playing out against an overloaded asylum system. Hotel use surged as claims rose and processing slowed. By 2023, official estimates put the hotel bill at around £6–8 million a day, with tens of thousands of people living in more than 300 sites across the UK. Ministers promised to end hotel use and shift to larger reception centres, barges and surplus military sites, but the transition has been patchy and contested in the courts and in local communities.
Tensions have spilled into the streets. In Epping, Essex, a High Court judge ordered the Bell Hotel to close within 24 days after violent protests around the site. The ruling piled pressure on the government’s hotel policy and highlighted the risks to residents, staff and nearby businesses when a placement becomes a lightning rod for anger.
Politics is never far away. Reform UK’s Nigel Farage seized on the FOI disclosure, arguing residents “are deeply fearful of the young men in these hotels” and claiming “none of them should be free to walk the streets.” Refugee organisations push back hard on that framing, warning that the term “ex-foreign national offenders” covers a wide range of cases — from non-violent offences to serious crimes — and that each person is risk‑assessed before placement. They also point out the vast majority of people in asylum hotels have no criminal record and are simply awaiting decisions.
Hotel operators sit in the middle. Some say premiums have jumped, brokers ask difficult questions about arson mitigation, and upgrades are needed to meet fire-safety expectations. Providers talk about clearer lines on who pays for security enhancements, whether specialist mental‑health support is available on site, and what happens when local opposition erupts. The Home Office document gives a framework: daily checks, on‑call managers, and coordination with local authorities and police — but execution still varies by region and contractor.
There’s also the legal side. People released on bail face conditions — reporting duties, curfews, electronic monitoring in some cases — and can be recalled if they breach them. Hotels are told to share information promptly with the Home Office, log incidents accurately and cooperate with enforcement where necessary. That cooperation is part of why the paperwork reads more like a manual for risk-managed housing than a typical hospitality contract.
Cost remains the drumbeat. The National Audit Office and parliamentary committees have repeatedly questioned whether hotels are value for money and whether slower asylum decisions end up driving costs higher. Moving away from hotels means building capacity elsewhere: large‑scale reception centres with on‑site healthcare, classrooms and screening, or quicker casework to reduce backlogs. Both options cost money in the short term. That’s the strategic bind new ministers inherit.
Community relations are another pressure point. Councils want early notice, better consultation and funding for local services — schools, GPs, public transport — when accommodation opens. Police forces ask for clear points of contact and intelligence sharing to deter disorder around sites. The Home Office blueprint nods to this with requirements for community impact assessments and complaints handling, but critics say local engagement often happens too late, once a site has already opened.
There’s a data story too. Returns of foreign national offenders have fluctuated over the past decade with charter flights, legal challenges and diplomatic hurdles all playing a role. When removals slow, more people remain in the community on bail — and some end up in the asylum estate if they meet eligibility rules. That’s how a niche line in a contract becomes a national talking point.
For staff on the ground, the job is part social care, part security, part customer service. You de‑escalate arguments about food or curfews, you make sure fire doors aren’t propped open, and you spot when someone needs help long before a minor incident turns into a major one. Training in cultural awareness and bias doesn’t fix everything, but managers say it reduces flashpoints — especially in multi‑lingual sites where misunderstandings can spread fast.
In short, the FOI papers lift the lid on what providers are already navigating: a system that mixes vulnerable people with complex legal statuses; contested public spending; and a political fight over how, where and how fast asylum cases are handled. Hotels were meant to be temporary. For now, they remain central — and the contract small print shows exactly what that means for the people who run them, and the communities that host them.