As I was watching the government spending review yesterday (yes, I know!) I think, for the most part, it is to be welcomed. Lots in it to be welcomed, perhaps a few quibbles (there are always quibbles), but some promising talk at the very least. Time will tell, of course, whether the spending commitments will actually lead to felt-improvements for ordinary people but there were encouraging noises made if nothing else.

One thing that did catch my eye, however, was the commitment to stop all spending on housing asylum seekers in hotels. The particular point of note was this:

I have mentioned this issue before. The issue is not all that straightforward and I don’t fully understand quite what Labour intend to do in practice here.

The issue, simply put, is this. When asylum seekers are placed in local housing, it often leads to protests that this uses up local housing stock – particularly social housing – that ought to be available for indigenous citizens. In response to that, successive governments began housing asylum seekers in hotels to free up local housing stock. This subsequently led to protests that hotels are exorbitantly expensive. It also caused issue – particularly for those asylum seekers with families – being housed in single rooms long term (though locals seemed less bothered about the effect of the policy on asylum seekers themselves). This led to bouncing back and forth between placing asylum seekers in houses to great dismay about lack of housing stock and placing them in hotels to loud displeasure voiced about wasting taxpayer money. It is one of those longstanding political problems with no evident solution that pleases everyone.

So, into that issue, Rachel Reeves has planted her Chancellor’s stake in the ground. There will be no more funding for hotels for asylum seekers. Clarity that hotels are now out. For those troubled by expensive tax bills and would prefer that money spent on other things, as well as for asylum seekers themselves (particularly those here with families including dependent children), this will be welcome news. The issue, as I noted above, is what they will do instead.

You will note in Reeve’s statement, they are definitely ending the funding of costly hotels to house asylum seekers. She insists that hotels will no longer be funded and that money will be spent on ‘cutting the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases and return people who have no right to be here’. All very good, all welcome for those left in limbo and broadly appeals even to those who don’t like asylum seekers very much (hear their cases quickly and get rid of them when they fail). Down with hotels. Everyone will welcome it.

The problem remains: where will asylum seekers be housed whilst the backlog is being cleared, appeals are being heard and – even once the backlog is cleared (and we’ll see if that actually comes to fruition) – while they are waiting for their first hearing? The chancellor simply doesn’t say. She tells us they won’t be in hotels. Fine. But where will they go instead? Clearing a backlog and hearing cases quickly doesn’t stop asylum seekers needing somewhere to live and nor will it change the longstanding local displeasure about them taking up housing stock that, in areas like Oldham, is in short supply.

As I judge it, there is no solution that will please everybody. There are those who simply don’t want asylum seekers here. Full stop. Some will openly say that – so at least we know where they stand – but others won’t quite frame it that way, but it is the implication given every concern they repeatedly raise about it. For some, no measure will be good enough. The position will always be that money should be spent on indigenous Brits and not on foreigners coming here. There is no policy position that will change such views.

For those who accept asylum seekers have the right and so should be given the opportunity to present a case and receive asylum if eligibility is proven, it should be evident that hotels represent the worst of all possible worlds. They do not work well for those placed in them, they are exorbitantly expensive and the money spent on them would be far better going on local amenities and housing stock.

Rachel Reeves is right that using some of the funding to clear the backlog would also help; especially if we are actually prepared to deport those who do not meet eligibility criteria and have failed in their efforts to overturn Home Office decisions on appeal. The right to appeal is important – both the initial Home Office decision (which is frequently overturned) as well as the right to appeal failure in law in the judiciary – but when the Home Office and the independent judiciary both find no grounds for eligibility, we need to be better at actually deporting people which would reduce other burdens.

For my part, I think houses are the best and cheapest means of housing asylum seekers. The issues locally – though inevitable – would be mitigated if the money saved on hotels was ploughed into both reducing the backlog as well as funding extra local homes (both social and private) as well as increasing amenities such as school places and doctors surgeries (or even just extra doctors). It is possible that the government’s reasonably well signposted house building programme – for which Reeves insisted £39bn of extra funding would be available – might tack onto this.

But in the end, the Chancellor simply didn’t say. They would end hotels; they made no noise whatsoever about how asylum seekers would be housed instead. It is a political issue that cannot please everyone. Whatever one does will receive opprobrium and pushback. There is not even a majority populist answer that would quell the disquiet of most. Which means the Chancellor must pick a position, answer the question and accept that some people will be unhappy.

For me, the most obvious answer that will please the largest numbers would be housing asylum seekers in local homes, increasing house building output and making more homes available, diverting funds towards areas that receive high numbers of asylum seekers to improve local amenities to account for them and reducing the backlog, speeding up appeals and deporting those who have no right to remain (freeing up their housing stock for others who need it). That won’t please everyone, but it probably has the broadest consensus of all the potential positions one might take. The problem is, the Chancellor simply didn’t answer the question – and it needs answering.