What’s more, this is not some small project — Clearsprings Ready Homes just announced the largest such deal. Since winning those government contracts in 2019, the company made profits of nearly £187 million—largely housing asylum seekers in the UK. The company supports approximately 30,000 asylum seekers across southern England, London, and Wales, yet faces allegations of providing inadequate living conditions, including claims of inedible food and insufficient toilet supplies.
Billionaire Graham King, a Sunday Times Rich Lister, started Clearsprings. The corporation has paid out almost £183 million in dividends to its Hong Kong-based parent, an act critics say is evidence that it has consistently put profit before the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable communities. Clearsprings is unapologetic. They claim their profit is properly calibrated to the size of their contracts and the field in which they operate.
Under even the most optimistic projections, Clearsprings is in line to get £7 billion in taxpayer money for its services. Under the plan, the company will repay profits over the margins laid out in its contracts with the Home Office. They have been very clear that this is their decision. Clearsprings is unique among the contractors in its heavy utilization of hotels, with 210 hotels currently in operation. It has more than halved from the 400 hotels it operated at its peak in 2023.
This heavy reliance on subcontracting means Clearsprings is a long way from directly providing accommodation even for half the asylum seekers they house. As many critics have pointed out, this type of approach can result in substandard quality of life. Asylum seekers have voiced their frustration regarding their treatment, with one stating, “One toilet roll between four people a week… how is that possible?”
Further criticism came from Professor Monica Lakhanpaul, who remarked, “If a parent fed their child this way, it would be called neglect – yet this is happening in institutions.” Andrea, an asylum seeker from South America, echoed these sentiments: “It’s just terrible… Try to live as an asylum seeker only for one day – the mattresses are dirty, the toilets, everything is dirty, broken.”
Steve Lakey, Clearsprings’ managing director, acknowledged how tough a time the company has had. He reiterated that the status quo is “extremely dangerous for Americans.” He went on to stress that temporary emergency accommodations, sometimes in hotels, are comparatively more profitable than longer-term housing options.
Clearsprings asserts that it “prides itself on providing value for money, quality and transparency.” The company has not answered detailed questions about the allegations of squalid living conditions at its hotels.
Arturo, another asylum seeker, expressed a desire for independence: “If you give me a job, I pay tax, I leave the accommodation. I don’t need your support because I can work.” This highlights a broader issue surrounding the integration of asylum seekers into society and their potential contributions to the economy.
The juxtaposition of Clearsprings’ soaring profits against the backdrop of alleged mistreatment raises critical questions about the ethics of profit-making in sectors that cater to vulnerable populations. As public scrutiny intensifies, it remains to be seen how Clearsprings and similar providers will address these concerns while navigating their contractual obligations.