Asylum chaos as RAF and Bibby Stockholm sites cost more than hotels

Sign up to the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxReceive our free View from Westminster emailPlease enter an email address valid emailPlease enter a valid email addressI would like to receive an email about offers, events and updates from The Independent. Read our privacy notice{{ #verifyErrors }}{{ message }}{{ /verifyErrors }}{{ ^verifyErrors }}Something went wrong. Please try again later{{ /verifyErrors }}

The rising costs of Rishi Sunak's controversial plans to house asylum seekers on RAF sites and in a 'prison-like' barge have been exposed naked in a damning report which found the project will cost far more than paying for hotels – although the sites will house far fewer migrants than expected.

The Home Office initially said that The development of the four sites – including the Bibby Stockholm barge, two RAF sites and former student accommodation in Huddersfield – would save taxpayers £94 million.

But the official Whitehall watchdog says the Prime Minister's plan is expected to cost £46m more than the current system - which sees migrants put in place. in hotels while their claims are being processed – and £1.2 billion in total over the next decade.

The National Audit Office (NAO) said the The Home Office will have spent at least £230 million developing the four major projects. by the end of March – although only two of the sites are open and will only provide accommodation for 900 people.

The damning report, published on Wednesday, follows a warning last week from Former Home Secretary Dame Priti Patel says the government's asylum accommodation system needs reform and "serious questions" need to be asked of her former department.

The Bibby Stockholm barge is one of two sites currently capable of housing asylum seekers.

The study says the government spent more money unnecessarily and increased risks by moving projects forward too quickly. , adding that the Home Office had continued this policy despite “repeated” assessments that it “could not be implemented…