Home Office orders urgent review of taxi use for asylum seekers after costly long trips

Britain’s Home Office has ordered an urgent review of taxi use for asylum seekers after an investigation found people being sent on long, expensive journeys to reach medical and government appointments. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said the review will examine when taxis are used, what they cost, and whether contract terms are steering officials toward expensive choices while hotels remain a mainstay of temporary housing.

The cases cited include a 250-mile round trip to a GP with a fare reportedly invoiced at £600. Asylum seekers typically receive a bus pass that covers one return journey a week. Yet hotel reception desks often arrange taxis for other essential travel through an automated booking platform that, according to the investigation, presents only a car option and does not show public transport or walking alternatives. The Home Office said it does not centrally track taxi costs and declined to release totals in response to a Freedom of Information request, leaving the scale of spending unclear.

Senior figures across parties backed a closer look. Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said the review should set out when long trips are justified. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook called the distances questionable and said officials would examine the cases. Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp argued high fares strain public finances and divert money from services such as healthcare. Reform UK MP Lee Anderson linked the bills to wider government overspending. The Liberal Democrats called the taxi spending wasteful and pressed for an end to hotel use. Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said the issue reflects a contractor-led model that keeps people in poor conditions while firms receive large payments.

The reporting points to structural pressures that push up transport costs. When people are moved between hotels, GP registrations do not always transfer, especially for those mid-treatment. That can lock in long trips to previous practices. The booking platform used by hotels appears to default to taxis even for short distances, shaping what staff choose in busy settings. Conditions in some hotels are strained as well, with cramped rooms, residents using electric hobs in bathrooms to cook, and fire alarms covered with plastic bags. Some asylum seekers told reporters they had taken work that violates immigration rules to meet basic needs.

Governments of different parties have promised to end hotel use, but demand and limited capacity have made that difficult. Legal challenges and local protests have complicated placements; one Essex council is seeking to close a hotel. Asylum seekers said demonstrations outside some sites left them isolated and anxious. When placements sit far from services and registrations do not move to local providers, travel time and cost rise. Concentrating large groups in temporary lodgings also brings safety and compliance risks that require oversight staff and frequent interventions. Frequent relocations and incomplete records create a pattern of delays and detours that become expensive to maintain.

Mahmood’s review will test whether policy and procurement choices are driving avoidable spending. Key questions include how placements are made, how healthcare registration is handled when people move, and whether contractor practices and digital tools are steering staff toward taxis even when buses or trains would suffice. Without a central record of transportation costs, neither the public nor Parliament can gauge overall spending or see where problems cluster. That blind spot weakens oversight and slows any effort to correct it.

Potential steps are practical and measurable. Requiring GP transfers when people move, allowing exceptions only where clinical risk is clear, would cut distance-based costs and improve continuity of care. Redesigning the booking system to prioritize public transport by default, and flag taxis only when travel times, accessibility needs, or safeguarding concerns warrant them, would reset everyday behavior. Collecting basic spending data by site and contractor would highlight outliers and repeated long-haul journeys. Clear rules on when escorts are needed and how to schedule appointments near placements would also reduce reliance on taxis.

Ministers say they want value for money. Advocates say people need safe housing and timely care. Those aims can align: cutting unnecessary journeys saves money and helps people reach services on time. The larger test is whether a system built as an emergency fix can move people, their records, and their appointments in step, so distance isn’t paid for twice, in cash and in lost time.