Public spending watchdog says billions were wasted on temporary housing, while Downing Street confirms it will not follow Australia’s lead on age-restricting digital platforms.

A scathing new report has exposed chronic failures within Britain’s immigration processing, revealing that the government is haemorrhaging public funds on temporary accommodation while thousands of applicants remain trapped in legal uncertainty.

The findings come from the National Audit Office (NAO), the UK’s independent public spending watchdog, which has criticised the government for relying on "short-term policies" that fail to solve the root causes of the crisis. Instead, these measures have reportedly shifted administrative burdens to other parts of the immigration network, creating a backlog that the NAO describes as "limbo".

"Shocking" Delays and Wasted Funds

The NAO’s investigation focused on a specific cohort of 5,000 asylum claims filed in January 2023. Nearly three years later, the outcomes illustrate a system struggling to function:

• Unresolved Cases: More than half of the applicants still have not received a final decision on their status.
• Low Removal Rates: Fewer than one in ten of those rejected have been removed from the country.
• Success Rate: Approximately one-third have been granted protection.

The report highlights that efforts to speed up initial processing have backfired, frequently leading to poor-quality decisions that simply push delays further down the line into the appeals process.

Because of a severe shortage of permanent accommodation, the Home Office has continued to rely on hotels to house asylum seekers. This practice is estimated to have cost the British taxpayer £2.7 billion this year alone.

Responding to the report, the Home Office acknowledged the severity of the situation, stating that the findings support their argument that "big changes" are required to fix the broken infrastructure.

However, refugee advocacy groups have described the situation as shocking, warning that vulnerable individuals are being left waiting for months or years to restart their lives.

UK Rejects Australian-Style Social Media Ban

In a separate development regarding digital policy, ministers have clarified the UK’s stance following a landmark legal shift in Australia.

On Wednesday, Australia became the first nation to enforce a strict ban on children under 16 accessing major social media platforms, with Canberra expressing hope that the move would trigger global action. However, Downing Street has confirmed there are no current plans to replicate the ban in Britain.

The government argues that while children require protection, they also need access to the digital world. Officials point to the newly implemented Online Safety Act, which places the burden on tech companies to enforce age limits and remove harmful content, rather than issuing a blanket ban on users.

Reform UK has aligned with the government’s stance, arguing that outright bans are "ineffective."

The NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) has urged caution, stating that young people should not be "punished for failures by tech companies.

Meanwhile England’s Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza and some members of parliament have expressed support for the Australian model, suggesting the UK should take a harder line against Big Tech.

Despite pressure from some critics, the consensus in Westminster remains that platforms must be made safer by design rather than making access illegal for teenagers.

Copied