Overview: A lucrative role in a controversial system
Clearsprings Ready Homes, one of the three private providers contracted by the UK Home Office to house asylum seekers, has surged to substantial profits since taking on its contract in 2019. With the Home Office contracts set to run through 2029, the company has paid out hundreds of millions in dividends to its parent company, while a wave of criticism casts a shadow over the quality of accommodation and basic living standards for residents.
These arrangements exist within a broader context: a system that relies heavily on hotel-based accommodation, a rising number of asylum seekers arriving via small boats, and a structure that financially incentivizes certain housing configurations. Critics argue that profits, not people, have become the focal point of arrangements that determine where and how asylum seekers live.
What the numbers say
According to the National Audit Office, Clearsprings and its two partners have collectively earned roughly £383m in profits from the asylum contracts since 2019. Clearsprings alone has paid nearly £183m in dividends to its parent company, a figure that has sparked intense debate about whether the contracts are designed to maximize corporate gains rather than provide humane, stable housing. The overall expected cost of the Home Office accommodation contracts has risen from about £4.5bn to £15bn, with projections suggesting the private sector could see around £7bn of that as it stands today.
Supporters argue that private providers fill a critical need, offering flexible capacity and speed in response to spikes in demand. They suggest profitable returns reflect efficiency and risk management within a volatile sector. Critics counter that the profit motive may dilute focus on residents’ welfare, particularly when complex contracts tie payments to hotel usage rather than longer-term housing solutions.
Conditions in the hotels: claims and responses
Allegations raised by charities, MPs, and residents describe a pattern of poor conditions in some Clearsprings-managed sites. Reported issues include substandard food, limited access to essential supplies like period products and toilet paper, and beds and facilities described as dirty or in disrepair. Individuals living under these arrangements report meals that are sometimes past their expiry dates, insufficient nutritional variety, and in some cases, items like toilet paper rationed to a small number per week.
For many residents, food quality is a central concern. One asylum seeker shared experiences of boiled eggs in a hotel room, limited fruit and vegetables, and reliance on food banks to supplement government support that totals around £9.95 per week for some residents. Charities have described a system that can leave families diminutely nourished and gendered needs (such as menstrual hygiene) inadequately met.
Perceptions of value and transparency
Clearsprings states that it provides “value for money, quality and transparency.” Critics argue the opposite, noting opaque profit-sharing practices and complex financial arrangements that make it difficult to determine whether excess profits are being returned to the government as intended. One observer from a watchdog group described profits as “obscene” relative to the scale of private contracts and public obligations involved in housing vulnerable people.
The policy debate and alternatives
The Home Affairs Select Committee has scrutinized how contracts are written and enforced, including why hotels have been a preferred solution and whether bedsits or other models could deliver better value. Some MPs have floated alternatives, such as expanding roles for local councils or exploring temporary military sites to reduce reliance on private hotel networks. The government has pointed to efforts to reduce asylum hotel spending, albeit while continuing to manage a high volume of residents in need of housing.
Officials say they have commissioned audits to review supplier performance, with some profits deemed excess and slated for repayment to the Home Office. Yet critics emphasize that even the notion of excess profits underscores a broader governance problem: how to balance rapid accommodation needs with humane conditions and accountable, transparent profiteering.
Personal stories reflect a broader crisis
For residents like Andrea, Arturo, and others, the issue is personal. They describe living quarters that feel more temporary than therapeutic, with limited access to nutritious food and basic hygiene products. While some residents acknowledge frustration with the financial system surrounding asylum housing, the central call from charities and advocates is for a system that prioritizes safety, dignity, and stable long-term housing solutions over profits and short-term fixes.
What’s next?
With the contracts due to be re-examined and a potential break clause emerging, the government faces a choice: rework the model to reduce dependence on hotel-based accommodation or introduce more robust oversight that ensures fair pricing, transparent reporting, and genuine protections for residents. As the debate continues, Clearsprings and its peers will be tested not just on profits, but on their ability to deliver safe, humane, and sustainable housing for some of the country’s most vulnerable residents.
