FEWER asylum seekers were being housed in hotels in Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole this summer than a year earlier, new figures show.

A refugee charity has said hotels should never be used to house asylum seekers, warning it leaves vulnerable people isolated and at risk of being targeted by the far-right.

Hotels housing asylum seekers were subject to protests and violence this summer, as far-right protesters took to the streets for days of rioting. This was met with counter-protests by anti-racism groups and swift prosecutions through the courts.

Home Office figures show the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels has dropped 41% across the UK, from 50,500 in June 2023 to 29,600 at the same point this year.

The figures further show 399 asylum seekers were being housed in hotels in Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole in June – down from 674 a year earlier.

Imran Hussain, executive director of external affairs at the Refugee Council, said: "Despite some progress on reducing the use of hotels, there were still nearly 30,000 people seeking asylum living in hotels at the end of June.

"Hotels should never be used as accommodation, as people in asylum hotels are isolated, struggle with their mental health, and may be targeted by far-right attacks, as we saw a few weeks ago."

In total, 421 asylum seekers were receiving a form of government support in Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole as of June.

This was down from 706 in June 2023.

The national backlog of asylum applicants has remained steady since last quarter, even if it has dropped compared to a year earlier.

In total, 118,900 people were waiting for an initial decision on an asylum application in the UK at the end of June.

This was down by 32% from 175,500 at the end of June last year, but up slightly from the 118,300 waiting to be dealt with at the end of March.

The figures come amid calls to allow asylum seekers to work while their applications are being processed.

The Lift the Ban coalition, made up of think tanks, faith groups, and refugee organisations among others, described the policy as "regressive, hostile, and self-defeating".