The UK’s ‘migrant barge’ has come under major criticism for both its financial and human cost
DORSET, United Kingdom
The UK’s recent shift towards using unconventional accommodation for people seeking asylum – including the Bibby Stockholm barge docked in Portland, Dorset – has ignited a firestorm of criticism amidst reports of surging costs and deteriorating mental health among residents.
While the Home Office maintains that the Bibby Stockholm is ‘non-detained accommodation’, IDC and our UK-based members contend that the restrictions on movement, isolation and intense surveillance of people on board amount to de facto immigration detention.
Initially publicised as a cost-saving measure, the UK government claimed that housing people in dedicated facilities like the Bibby Stockholm, rather than hotels, would save millions of pounds of taxpayer money.
However, in March 2024, the UK’s National Audit Office (NAO) disclosed that the scheme is anticipated to cost taxpayers £46 million more than housing people in hotels. The outlay, which includes repurposing former military bases and the barge, is expected to tally up to £1.2 billion.
Beyond the financial implications, the human cost of the Bibby Stockholm’s use as an asylum seeker accommodation has become increasingly apparent. Reports from a cross-party committee of MPs have underlined the severe mental health impact on individuals confined within the barge’s cramped and claustrophobic conditions.
With severe overcrowding, outbreaks of Legionnaires disease and major fire safety issues on board, the Bibby Stockholm has quickly become a symbol of an increasingly problematic approach to migration governance in the UK.
According to international law, immigration detention should only ever be used as a last resort and alternatives should be considered. The UK government’s use of the Bibby Stockholm is currently in contravention of that principle.
In contrast to the costs and ethical concerns associated with detention-based accommodations, research and global examples underscore the viability and humaneness of community placement alternatives. These alternatives are not only less costly, they also respect human rights and offer people seeking asylum a semblance of a normal life, reducing the likelihood of absconding and unnecessary legal appeals.
The UK has previously run successful trials of community-based alternatives to detention. A UNHCR evaluation of UK pilot schemes – run by the Home Office in collaboration with Action Foundation and Kings Arms Project – found that the programmes resulted in marked improvements to people’s mental health, while also being 66% cheaper than detention.
The unfolding situation on the Bibby Stockholm and at similar facilities raises profound questions about the UK’s approach to asylum accommodation. The financial inefficiencies, coupled with the detrimental impact on mental health, highlight an urgent need for a re-evaluation of strategies. The evidence in favour of alternatives to detention presents a compelling case for a shift towards more humane, rights-respecting and economically sound practices in managing asylum claims.