Defence minister admits army barracks housing may cost more than hotels

(INVERNESS, EAST SUSSEX) The UK government’s plan to move asylum seekers out of hotels and into military barracks could cost more than the current hotel system, the Defence Minister admitted, setting up a heated debate over policy, money, and community impact. Defence Minister Luke Pollard said on national television that placing people on military sites may be pricier than hotels, even as he insisted the public wants hotels closed as soon as possible.

Policy shift and cost debate

The Home Office has confirmed it intends to place about 900 male asylum seekers at two military sites:

• Cameron Barracks in Inverness — about 300 people
• Crowborough Training Camp in East Sussex — about 600 people

Officials say the first transfers are expected by the end of November 2025 and that more disused sites may follow. Both locations previously hosted Afghan families evacuated after the 2021 Kabul withdrawal, with that resettlement ending earlier in 2025.

Ministers also plan to add pop-up modular units on some sites — similar to those used for prison overcrowding — to expand rooms quickly. The Defence Minister stressed these are not luxury facilities but argued they are necessary to cut the state’s hotel use. Yet he also accepted the change does not promise savings, stating on ITV’s Good Morning Britain that military barracks may carry higher costs than hotels.

That admission matches the National Audit Office (NAO) in March 2024, which concluded large sites like military bases would cost more than hotels. The NAO said the Home Office overestimated how full the sites would be and underestimated setup and repair costs. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the NAO’s findings have weighed heavily on ministers, who now must balance speed, safety, and costs while answering worried local leaders.

As of June 2025, around 32,000 asylum seekers were still living in hotels. That is down from a peak above 56,000 in 2023, but remains 2,500 higher than at the same time in 2024. The price tag is large: in 2024–25, hotels averaged £170 per person per day, compared with £27 for other types of accommodation. Even so, ministers cut nightly hotel rates from £162 to £119 between April 2024 and March 2025 by placing more people in each hotel and closing others.

• Campaign groups say room-sharing and similar steps hurt people’s well-being.
• The government argues it must move faster because communities are tired of hotels being used long term and because hotels were never meant to be long-stay accommodation.
• The NAO warning and the Defence Minister’s remarks suggest the shift to bases will not be the simple fix many hoped for.

Important: the move involves trade-offs between cost, speed, and humane treatment. Higher upfront setup costs and lower-than-expected occupancy can make per-person prices rise quickly.

Political pressure and local concerns

A parliamentary committee on 27 October 2025 called the hotel policy “failed, chaotic and expensive,” accusing the Home Office of wasting billions through poor management. The committee warned that military sites could cost more than hotels, bring safety and legal risks, and meet strong local opposition.

• Expected accommodation contract costs (2019–2029) have tripled from £4.5 billion to £15.3 billion, driven by rising demand.
• Prime Minister Keir Starmer has told colleagues he is “frustrated and angry” about the asylum system inherited by Labour, according to reports cited in Parliament.
• He has said he wants hotels closed within a year, a target faster than the public pledge to end hotel use by 2029.

At the local level, residents and councils in Inverness and East Sussex are bracing for changes:

• Cameron Barracks sits close to residential areas.
• Crowborough Training Camp is an established military site with a long history.
• Both communities remember the 2021 Afghan evacuations, when families were housed on site under time pressure.

Local service providers say they need early notice on:

• healthcare arrangements
• schooling for any dependants who may visit
• transport planning
• community safety planning

Government officials say they will consult and that site plans will include security, medical access, and support. They note extra modular units could help handle increases, but many details depend on ongoing assessments. The Defence Minister added that final costs are still being worked through and that ministers want to “go faster” to close hotels and satisfy public demand.

Impact on asylum seekers and advocates’ concerns

For asylum seekers, the move raises several tough questions:

• Some worry about isolation and the lack of privacy in a barracks setting.
• Others point to safety issues reported at large sites in the past.
• Advocates say predictable, humane accommodation helps people recover from trauma and prepare for legal interviews.
• They caution that large, remote sites can deepen anxiety and delay chances of integration if claims succeed.

Officials stress that rules and support remain in place for those moving to bases. People with pending claims can get support under asylum support rules, which cover basic needs and housing. For official guidance, see the Home Office page on asylum support.

Key facts at a glance

Risks, trade-offs and next steps

• The government’s promise to add modular units shows how tight capacity has become, but the NAO’s warning about setup and refurbishment costs looms large.
• If occupancy falls below expectations, the per-person price could rise quickly, making barracks more expensive than hotels.
• The next weeks will test the balance between speed and care:
  1. Can the government staff sites properly and keep them safe?
  2. Can people be moved through the asylum process without delays?
  3. Will communities receive clear timelines and transparent risk assessments?

If the answers are yes, the promise to close hotels may hold. If not, both the public and asylum seekers could face another cycle of costly short-term fixes, while communities in Inverness and East Sussex shoulder the strain.

Key takeaway: Closing hotels quickly is politically urgent, but doing so without adequate planning, staffing, and realistic cost estimates risks higher spending and poorer outcomes for people and local communities.