We have heard reports, including from our own constituencies, that some hotels have been left in derelict conditions following the Home Office exiting them. We received written evidence from London Councils which told us that there were concerns across the London boroughs about the standards of accommodation, including (but not limited to) concerns about poor light and ventilation, poor food quality, leaks and fire safety. We therefore asked the Home Office what consideration it had given to managing the impact on local communities, when taking over, and then leaving hotels. The Home Office told us that there were wider disbenefits to local areas of having hotels out of use, but that these 30 Qq 229–230, 240; C&AG’s report, Asylum Accommodation, paras 4.11, 4.14 31 Qq 232–233, C&AG’s Report, Asylum Accommodation, Figure 10, para 4.11 32 C&AG’s Report, Asylum accommodation, Figure 2, para 2.2 33 Qq 215–217; 220–221; C&AG’s Report, Asylum accommodation, para 2.4 Asylum Accommodation and UK-Rwanda partnership 15 were very hard to quantify although it had “work under way to continue to assess that”. We suggested that it was risking placing a burden on local communities to return hotels to their former standards. The Home Office told us that whilst it had liaison officers working directly with every local authority, it “did not have a pot of money to regenerate hotels”.34