Asylum Accommodation

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on asylum accommodation.

It is important to remind the House of the wider context, and in particular the events that have brought us here today. In the years before the general election, the number of people arriving in the United Kingdom illegally, particularly via small boats across the channel, rocketed. The dismal consequences of that abject failure to secure our country’s borders are grimly familiar to us all: individuals risking their lives to come here via dangerous means, criminal gangs growing rich from the proceeds of organising those journeys, community cohesion placed under severe strain, and public trust in the state’s ability to perform one of its most basic functions shredded.

Over the last two years this Government have taken concerted action to turn the situation around. We have begun by implementing major asylum reforms to reduce the incentives that draw people to this country. We have cut overall asylum costs by nearly £1 billion, while asylum decision making, which effectively ground to a halt under the previous Government, is at a 24-year high. More foreign criminals and illegal migrants are being removed than at any time in many years, and in partnership with our French counterparts we have stopped more than 44,000 crossing attempts. We have also put in place a groundbreaking scheme that means that small boat arrivals can, for the first time, be returned to France.

All that work is important and it is making a difference. However, perhaps the most totemic and tangible manifestation of the failing system that we inherited is the continued use of hotels to house asylum seekers. That issue has, quite understandably, been a source of widespread concern and anger. The Government recognise those frustrations, and we share them. Hotels ought to be local assets serving their communities, not propping up the asylum accommodation system. When hotels are used for that purpose, there are significant implications for local services, community cohesion and public safety. Clearly, that unsuitable, unsustainable and costly practice must be stopped, which is why this Government made a commitment to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament. We are well on track to deliver on that aim.

In April we announced that 11 asylum hotels had been closed and given back to local communities. We were clear at that point that more would follow in the subsequent weeks, and so that has proved, with a further 20 now having closed. That means that just under 170 asylum hotels remain in use, which is a reduction of more than half compared with the peak of around 400 under the previous Government. The number accommodated in hotels has also seen a significant fall from 56,000 in 2023, to around 21,000 now. Progress is being made but we must go further, and that means scaling up our use of larger, more basic facilities.

There are currently two such sites in operation: Wethersfield in Essex and Crowborough in East Sussex. Those sites began housing asylum seekers in 2023 and January this year respectively. Across both sites there is, at present, capacity to accommodate up to 1,340 individuals, with additional contingency capacity at Wethersfield of 400. In the meantime, work has continued to identify further viable locations.

Today I can confirm to the House that three new ex military sites are now under consideration: Barnham in Suffolk, Bicester in Oxfordshire and Linton on Ouse in North Yorkshire. Together, those sites could eventually provide accommodation for around 3,750 asylum seekers, subject to feasibility assessments, planning permission and the necessary approvals. Those caveats are important, because while our commitment to the promise we have made on hotels is absolute, we must ensure that we get this right and carry out all relevant due diligence, so that if we decide to proceed with an alternative site, our plans are as strong as they can possibly be. Let me assure hon. Members that we have learned from the previous Government’s forays into this arena. No final decision will be taken on any site until, in each case, all necessary arrangements, assessments and approvals are in place and have been properly considered.

Work on those three potential sites is ongoing, in conjunction with local and national partners. To further support the exit from hotels, we are exploring the possibility of extending the use of the site at Crowborough, which is currently due to end next January. At Wethersfield, we are exploring both an extension and the best use of capacity. Finally, following detailed assessments, the Government have decided not to proceed with Cameron barracks in Scotland as a potential site for asylum accommodation, and it will be returned to the Ministry of Defence.

Before I finish, I assure the House that we understand our responsibilities in this space. With any decision on asylum accommodation, public safety is and will continue to be a critical consideration. We will always take every possible step to minimise the impact on communities. To be clear, wherever asylum seekers are located, they should be in no doubt that if they break our laws, they will be caught, face justice and, like the thousands of foreign offenders already removed under this Government, made to leave our country.

To conclude, it was always going to take time to fix the mess we inherited, but as the measures I have set out today clearly demonstrate, we are acting decisively to achieve the change the country voted for at the general election by closing asylum hotels for good, by securing our borders and by restoring order and control to the immigration system. That is what the public rightly expect and that is what the Government are working relentlessly to deliver. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, which confirms what we have suspected since last week: this Government are planning to put more illegal migrants into sites across the country.

Some of those sites are due to host illegal migrants until 2030, yet the Government did not think that it was worth alerting the hon. Members who represent those communities and live nearby ahead of the announcement in the press. Rather than subjecting the plans to proper scrutiny here in Parliament, the Government tried to sneak the news out quietly before the weekend, without discussion here in this place by those people’s democratically elected representatives. That is exactly the same playbook that the Government have tried to use in places like Inverness where, thanks to the work of the Conservative group on the Highland council, the Home Office’s plans to house illegal migrants at Cameron barracks were blocked.

We have seen in far too many cases the risk that illegal migrants, most of them young men, pose to the public, particularly to women and children. If the Government are planning to force communities to live alongside people who have shown complete contempt for our laws and norms by the very act of coming here illegally, the least that they can do is to allow those plans to be subject to proper scrutiny.

Now that we finally have an opportunity to scrutinise the plans, we can perhaps see why the Government were so keen to hide them. For all the talk of smashing the gangs, they reveal that this Government do not have any faith in their own ability to fix the problem. If they are so sure that they are ending illegal channel crossings, why are the Government making plans to host illegal migrants in this country until 2030? What does that tell us about their confidence in their own approach?

The truth is that this Government have no intention of fixing the problem: they care only about managing people’s perceptions of it. While they talk up the reduction in illegal migrants living in hotels, they conveniently leave out the fact that thousands more migrants are being housed in so called dispersal accommodation: homes in the middle of our towns and cities where illegal migrants pose an even greater risk to the public.

Since the last election, 75,000 people have crossed the channel. In the past few weeks alone, 3,000 have made the crossing. For all the Government’s talk of removals, nearly all of them—some 93%—are being allowed to stay. The Minister boasts about a reduction in outstanding decisions, but they have achieved that reduction by granting asylum to thousands upon thousands of illegal migrants.

The Minister said in his statement that to stop the use of asylum hotels for good “we must go further, and that means scaling up our use of larger, more basic facilities.”

He is right that the Government must go further to stop the use of asylum hotels for good, but he is utterly wrong that the problem is solved by instead spending huge resources to create other places to live for those who arrive here illegally.

As Conversative Members have made clear time and again, the only real solution to the crisis at our border is to remove illegal migrants as soon as they arrive. People must know that if they try to break our laws, they cannot stay. For it to be possible to remove people as soon as they arrive, we must leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights that prevents us from doing so, but the Government refuse to recognise that. They are in hock to activist lawyers in this country and unaccountable judges in Strasbourg, and keeping those people happy takes precedence over keeping the British people safe and delivering on their democratic will.

The plans before us are another sorry example of that. More illegal migrants will enter the endless cycle of appeals and legal challenges, allowing them to stay here for years at the taxpayer’s expense. More people will be put at risk because of these plans and because of the Government’s unwillingness truly to solve this problem for good.

We see the contrast there clearly. While the Government have a serious plan on how to accommodate a significant number of people and change that reality, the hon. Lady offers just “Hail Marys” and long shots. Her colleagues had 14 years, but sat through them and did not make any of those decisions. It is hard to believe.

The hon. Lady started by asking why, and that is a very important point, because these sites are part of our theory of change. At the moment, the traffickers say, “Come to the UK. Live in a hotel. You will be able to work illegally, dead easily.” We have to change that reality if we want to reduce pull factors. This plan does so; it says, “You will not live in a hotel. You may well live on a military site.” That is about reducing numbers and reducing the impact on the British taxpayer, and that is the right thing to do.

The hon. Lady mentioned dispersal accommodation. The previous statistics release in May shows a 32% reduction in the number of people in hotels, but there was a reduction of less than 1% in the number of people in dispersal accommodation, so the reality is not quite as she put it. On decision making, she knows that the grant rate has not changed significantly at all, so I simply cannot accept her case that by making more decisions we are letting more people through.

The reality is that we have a choice between another hopeful attempt at culture war by an Opposition who have no ideas, and a serious plan to reduce numbers. Let us face it: asylum applications are three times what they would have been 10 years ago. From us, it is serious action; from the Opposition, it is empty calories.

This is deeply concerning news for my constituency. The boundary fence of RAF Barnham adjoins the market town of Thetford, which I represent; the town centre is a short walk away from the base.

I strongly support the right of people to claim asylum, and I am proud that we are able to offer refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, including those who have supported our armed forces abroad, but that is not without risk and impacts on community relations. In the absence of openness and transparency and a proper plan, malign forces will fill the void, stoking greater fear and division. Whether it is a Conservative Government or this Government, these announcements should be sensitively handled and thoroughly planned, but that has not happened in this case, where there has been secrecy and confusion. It is my community who pay the price for that failure.

While such news will never be welcomed by a community, the worst could be mitigated by a stronger commitment to transparency, engagement and reassurance. Alongside this announcement, where is the engagement plan? Where is the communication strategy? Where is the commitment to addressing community cohesion concerns in these areas?

I will be paying close attention to these answers.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those important questions. Let me start where he started; everything is local somewhere, and the impact of our proposals is significant on those local communities. I recognise that, and that is important, but we are developing plans to mitigate the impact. There is a reason that we do not wait until the very end and announce the decision just as it is taken. At some point, we vet sites; we have vetted all sorts of sites around the country ahead of being able to bring these ones forward.

There comes a point, however, when we need to get onsite and start peeling back the layers and engaging with the local authority, police and health services, and that point is now. My hon. Friend is right; there needs to be sensitive handling of plans. I appreciate that the burden is on me and the Government to demonstrate that we will do so. I believe that we can do this while mitigating the impacts on his community and surrounding communities, but, as I say, it is up to us to demonstrate that.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I regret that the Labour Government still have not set out a credible plan to restore fairness and control in our immigration and asylum system. This announcement is another sideways step that fails to address the root cause of the problem.

Simply moving asylum seekers from one form of expensive and unsuitable accommodation to another is not good enough, particularly when the costs are going up. At the Crowborough MOD site, which is currently in operation, accommodation costs around £160 per asylum seeker per night. That is more than the cost of the average asylum hotel place. The Government are choosing a more expensive option, adding an estimated £60,000 every night to the bill faced by taxpayers. How does the Minister justify that? Will he confirm whether this decision is driven by a desire to be seen to be closing asylum hotels, rather than securing the best value for taxpayers? The Government should instead be focusing on reducing the asylum backlog and ending the limbo that many asylum seekers are in. The overall asylum caseload is now higher than when Labour took office, while the appeals backlog has reached record levels. Will the Minister set out what he and his Department are doing to reduce that backlog and ensure that the Home Office gets more decisions right first time, avoiding unnecessary appeals?

Finally, if we are to deliver the controlled and compassionate immigration and asylum system that my constituents in Woking and the whole of the British public want, it is essential that we tackle dangerous channel crossings. Will the Minister work with our European partners to establish a genuinely effective returns agreement that ensures that we can have controlled, legal routes and that those who arrive in small boats can be returned swiftly?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He has heard the plan from me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before: co operation abroad, quicker and better decision making, and more returns. All those things are going much better than they did under our predecessors. It is also about tackling illegal working, but crucially, it is about reducing pull factors too. I sometimes feel that Opposition colleagues have given up on the idea that the numbers might go down. Actually, the numbers are significantly elevated from what we are used to, and with sensible attempts to tackle pull factors—including tackling illegal working, but also this proposal—we can reduce them.

The hon. Gentleman talked about costs. He cited the per night figure for Crowborough; that figure will of course fall if we stay at Crowborough longer, because some of that is up front capital investment. Pro rated over a longer period of time, the nightly rate will come down, but again I say gently that we are doing this because we want less of this activity. We are not merely asking, “We expect to house the same number of people, so where is the cheapest place to put them?” but, “What is the best use of our estate to promote a number of goals, one of which is reducing those numbers?” That is how we get costs down. I might add that we speak with a degree of credibility, given that we have already taken £1 billion out of taxpayer spending in this area. That is progress.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned appeals. He knows very well why the appeals backlog has grown—we have had a huge backlog of initial decisions, because the previous Government stopped making them. Of course, that cohort is now in the appeals system. As he will have heard in the King’s Speech, important reforms to appeals are coming, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support us in that venture.

On his point about co operation abroad, that is of course crucial. We engage all the time with our European and EU neighbours, working together on a shared problem. The fruits of that can be seen in our much enhanced deal with France. That work is crucial, and it will continue to grow.

As the Minister has repeatedly mentioned Crowborough, which is in my constituency, I assume he will be meeting me this week to clarify the position for my constituents.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for mentioning RAF Barnham, which is in my constituency—it is adjacent to the border of Thetford, and within easy walking distance of it. It was formerly a base that housed mustard gas during the first world war, and in the cold war it was the home of the RAF’s strategic nuclear weapons, so it has an interesting history.

The people of Suffolk are a kind and compassionate people, and they understand the need to house those who are fleeing war and persecution. However, I saw a protest at RAF Barnham this weekend, so how will the views of local people be taken into account, and what exactly is the role of the local planning authority?

I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. To answer your question from the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will of course be very happy to meet you, as I always am—indeed, I am often summoned to do so. You are in the inimical position of not being able to clearly state on the record just how opposed to Crowborough you are, but I am in no doubt about that, given that you tell me basically every single day via the telephone or face to face, or through whatever tortures in this Chamber you can imagine. I may have more of that to come.

The points made by my hon. Friend are very important. I appreciate that local communities will want to do one of two things, and I encourage them to do both of them at the same time. I understand that many if not most people in my hon. Friend’s community, like others, will oppose the Government doing this, which is a perfectly noble endeavour in a democracy. There are also questions about how this can be done best—how do we limit the impact, be it on health services, the police or local amenities? I believe we can pass that test clearly, and I hope communities will also engage with those questions.

As for planning, my hon. Friend knows that we have previously used a number of different planning devices for different sites. We have not made final determinations for Barnham or for the other sites—we will be doing that over the course of this work.

Linton on Ouse, in the heart of my constituency, is a small rural community and is very much isolated. Four years ago, this plan was rejected on technical grounds. Three times the local population would be put into the area, with no means to secure people within that site. They could roam into the village, which has no amenities and does not have a village shop. The area would be overwhelmed.

I wanted to question the Minister on Thursday, but it was not possible. I have had many constituents ask some of these questions over the weekend, and I would like the Minister to answer them now. Northern Powergrid previously indicated that the system would not be able to cope and that the electrical upgrade needed for supply was not possible. Does that mean that industrial generators will have to be brought in, creating noise pollution in this quiet rural village? Yorkshire Water spent millions of pounds upgrading the sewage works to ensure that it correctly met effluent discharge requirements, based on a threefold increase in the area’s population under the proposal, so will there have to be effluent trucks, or would the water drains be polluted? On that note, people who closed down the Linton on Ouse base tell me that the drains were concreted in at the time.

The Minister has said that some of these sites have already been vetted, but I find that hard to believe, when the issues on the base have not changed. The highway network has bridges limited to seven and a half tonnes, so site traffic will have to go through limited road routes. On healthcare, the local NHS says that it has no spare capacity. What is perhaps more worrying is that I have been told on good authority that local companies have been asked to tender for the work that would be needed at this site. I ask the Minister directly: have local companies been contacted to tender for work? If they have, I wonder whether it is a feasibility study. On that note, who will make the planning decisions? Will that be for North Yorkshire council, or will it be overridden?

To call it a plan is too grand. The Government do not know what they are doing. They have not thought it through, and they have not had the decency to consult local people about it. In the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in 2022, this “tells you just about everything you need to know about the state of chaos they are in.”

This is happening under his watch, so what has changed? This is still an inappropriate site, given those technical issues.

I am grateful for that series of questions. I gently say that there is a slight unfairness in the right hon. Gentleman’s saying that he and his community want a greater say in the details, while at the same time saying that we do not have a plan. The whole point is that rather than inviting providers or contractors to tender for services and to be around on sites and our saying, “Nothing to see here”, we are being honest that we are looking seriously at this site. The final decision is not made yet, but we are looking. That is a better way to do it, but I appreciate that there may be differences of view.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about roaming. That is in no one’s interest, and what we have managed to do at Wethersfield and Crowborough is to ensure that people do not just come off site and roam. They are non detained, as he said. Nevertheless, by the provision of activities and of transport, we can ensure the lightest local impact possible. That would be our commitment for these sites, too.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions electricity and sewage. Those are important parts of the process that we are in now. We are well aware of the history, which transcends this Government—it goes back to the previous Government—but we would not be taking forward this site if we did not think we had viable answers. Nevertheless, it is only when we get on site and start turning over the rocks, as it were, that we can get to a final point on viability. That is the process we are doing here.

It is not our intention that the site would impact on the right hon. Gentleman’s local healthcare services, outside emergency services perhaps. What we have been able to do elsewhere is to have ordinary healthcare provided for on site to ensure that there is not an impact on the local community. Those are the types of models—[Interruption.] An hon. Member asks if I will give way. I am trying to answer questions fully. Perhaps I cannot win either way.

As the Minister will know from past correspondence, I am asking for greater transparency about the criteria used to prioritise asylum hotel closures. I am still not clear about why the Victoria hotel in Chadderton, which was contacted by the Home Office five years ago without any consultation with local people or with me as the Member of Parliament, remains in use. In fact, in the intervening period, the then Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) —who now sits on the Reform Benches—increased its capacity from 80 to 120 places.

Oldham has always played its part, often doing far more than other places—in addition to the 114 asylum seekers currently in the hotel, there are 640 in dispersed accommodation in the town—but the Minister must accept that trust taken for granted becomes trust eroded. In the end, it is one housing market. We cannot have a situation where we see a push from hotels to settled accommodation but we allow Serco to take up family housing in Greater Manchester, when there are 500 children in temporary accommodation in my town alone. We have got to see this in the round, and local authorities have to be at the front and centre when the Home Office is doing the planning.

My hon. Friend is right: there was no consultation on those 400 hotels, and there was no sense of the impact on local amenities and local communities. I think we should do much better than that. That hotel will close. As for the question of criteria, we worked that out in the context of a variety of different factors, including suitability of location, size and who could be accommodated, to arrive at a prioritisation. Finally, let me make it clear to my hon. Friend and his community: all those hotels are closing.

Site A at MOD Bicester sits adjacent to a village with only 370 residents. It is more than two miles from the nearest shop, and there is no pavement next to the B road by the site. It is simply not a suitable place in which to locate 1,250 men seeking asylum. That is why a planning inspector rejected a proposal to host half the number there in 2003.

The Minister says that no final decision has been taken, but that is not how it feels in Bicester. While I appreciate that he has taken the time to speak to me twice on the phone, I am yet to receive any written information from the Home Office. However, the Ministry of Defence has already written to service personnel families and told them that the site will take 300 people by the end of this year, rising to more than 1,200 overall. To my constituents, this feels like a decision taken in secret in Whitehall and imposed on Bicester, with local people treated as an afterthought. In less than 72 hours, 7,156 local residents have signed my petition opposing the move. Opposition stretches across the political spectrum, across parties and across the community, because this isolated site is wrong for those seeking asylum and for the small villages around it, with no credible plan for local services, support or social cohesion.

This morning the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) promised to end the centralised, top down Whitehall model, so why are the Government racing to do exactly the opposite in my constituency? Will the Minister pause, commit to preparing a detailed impact assessment in partnership with the local community, and come to Bicester to face residents and describe his proposal to them?

Let me reiterate that no final decision has been taken. The hon. Member made an important point about the written information that goes into the public domain. As I personally found, getting information to people at the right moment, in the right sequence and in the right form is a challenge. Members may recall—you certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker—that when we named previous sites, I made a commitment that I would call colleagues so that they would find out from me first, rather than from the media. We have been able to do that much, but there is clearly a gap when it comes to the written fact sheets that go into the public domain. In my experience of both Crowborough and Cameron, information is put into the public domain; it will not change on a daily basis, and I recognise that that is a source of frustration, but we will give the best that we can, and we will do the impact assessments that we need to do along the way.

I appreciate that the burden of proof is on us: it is up to us to demonstrate that we can do these schemes well and do them safely. I believe we can. We have already demonstrated that in respect of two sites—and, indeed, Napier barracks, which has subsequently closed—but I need to pass that with the hon. Member. As for engagement from the Home Office, we will ensure that he receives the right information in the right way in order to have the engagement with his constituents. That is a commitment that I would make to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all colleagues.

I thank the Minister for his statement. It is important that we have the means to help people fleeing really difficult situations, and that we clamp down on illegal immigration. The Minister is aware that the widespread use of asylum hotels has put a considerable amount of pressure on local authorities. We have a situation in which over 140,000 households are in temporary accommodation in the UK, with over 175,000 children sleeping in B&Bs, as the Minister knows.

Frankly, asking asylum seekers to find secure accommodation, a job and universal credit within 28 days of receiving their statements is unachievable. That pressure goes on to local authorities, which are already dealing with a massive backlog. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee did a recent report on the conditions in temporary accommodation. I would be grateful to know what conversations the Minister is having with colleagues in MHCLG to ensure that when our councils procure temporary accommodation, they are not competing with the Home Office.

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that important question. I agree with her that 28 days is too short, which is why we have extended the time limit to 42 days to give people enough time. We have also put in place move on liaison officers to support that journey. I do not want people who have received good news about their protection to find that their next journey is on the street.

Our engagement with MHCLG is consistent and constant, and we share the goal of reducing homelessness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) said, MHCLG clearly has a strong view about the impact that we could have on local housing markets. We have those conversations day in, day out in order to tread as lightly as possible. To be clear, we could be out of hotels in three months if we just prioritised the cheapest dispersed accommodation available. I think that would be wrong, and that is what we are not doing.

I have two issues affecting my constituency. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Crowborough camp affects the back of my constituency, and Copthorne hotel is close to Gatwick. The Minister, when I met him and the mayor of Uckfield, promised to do proper engagement with MPs. Why did I not find out about the length of stay being extended to 2030 until today? It was the talk of our cadets on Armed Forces Day on Saturday, with London and the south east affected, and I am very interested in the cost.

On the prioritisation of closures, Gatwick expansion is coming and the Copthorne is one of the 170 hotels where planning permission is running out. It is needed for local uses, and issues of community cohesion and safety are playing out on either side of my constituency. I ask to join Madam Deputy Speaker in hearing from the Minister about Crowborough and Copthorne, because I am seeing this issue play out in real time in my community.

As the hon. Lady says, this is the choice ahead of us. I believe that the change to larger sites is a good one. The Copthorne must close, and it will. I cannot offer her space in the meeting with Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suspect that she would be keen for the hon. Lady to be there too.

I apologise to the hon. Lady, because I rang neighbouring MPs who have been affected by Crowborough, but not in her case. I hope I will be able to mitigate that, at a point not too far away, when I ring her about Copthorne.

We are having this debate because of the cost to us all of trying to move from the broken system that this Government inherited to a fair and effective one. We are in this position because the previous Government failed to process people, and the Conservatives now seem to want to rely on creating fiction, rather than fact, about what actually works.

The Minister is absolutely right to argue that we need to tackle the root causes and try to stop people getting into boats. It is also right to recognise that where people are fleeing persecution and that is proven, it is the mark of a good society to help them. It is also more cost effective. Given that last week the Government lost legal proceedings on the proposal about good character and citizenship, and given the likelihood of more litigation because of the fictitious idea that somebody travelling by an irregular route is somehow less of a person, does the Minister recognise that we will save money by changing the policy and putting integration, not ill will, at the heart of a future system for refugees?

It is important to recognise the cost of that loss of grip. The previous asylum contract was let on the assumption that there would be about 60,000 people. The previous Government let the figure balloon to double that. It continues to come down, but it is still around the 100,000 mark. We have to make difficult decisions, and that is the nature of the accommodation today.

We have to pivot the model in this country. We were clear in November’s asylum policy statement that we have to make sure that we reduce the pull factors and remove people who have no right to be here, but we also have to make sure that we provide safe and legal means for people to come to the country—that is better. Nobody should ever transit across continents and across the channel.

My hon. Friend’s point about litigation is important. It seems to me that there will always be an element of that in the Home Office, but I think we can pivot to a much better model, certainly through safe and legal means; community sponsorship allows communities to come forward in a positive way. We are not in that place yet, but we are moving to that model. This is an important staging post on that journey.

Order. Although I am more than happy to have the Minister here for hours and hours, we do have other business to get on with, so I ask Back Benchers to make sure their questions are as short as they can be. I call the Father of the House.

I thank the Minister for confirming that RAF Scampton is not cost effective. Frankly, he has been a lot more helpful than his predecessor Conservative Ministers, who have now left the Conservative party, so I thank him.

The problem with these sites, as I know from asking hundreds of questions, is that they are unbelievably difficult to transform into asylum centres, so can I ask the Minister: is this really a deterrent? If someone comes from a hellhole of a country, does it matter where they are going to be sent? However, can I be positive and ask a question in this way: is not the best way to solve this problem to process these asylum claimants very quickly, preferably within a month? There will be some who cannot be sent back because their country is not safe, but surely the solution is to create a returns hub in a Council of Europe country—distant, small—so there is no question of their human rights being abused. That is a real deterrent: to treat them quickly and then send them home.

On processing, it seems to me that the issue is not now initial decision making, but that we have a significant portion of people waiting for their appeal to be heard, and there is not a quick way to do that. As I say, we have talked about appeals reform, and Members may see things from us shortly on that—I hope we will have their support. The right hon. Member will have heard what my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said in favour of returns hubs in the past. Scampton is an important part of Lincoln and Lincolnshire’s economic future, and I look forward to the sale of that site and the positive development of it in short order.

I thank the Minister for the statement, and the Government’s clear objective to ensure that hotels are eliminated from our asylum accommodation system and that military bases become a short term stopgap. Can he reassure us all that the Government will continue to focus very closely on processing people more quickly and ensuring that those not eligible to stay here are deported as soon as possible, so that the use of the military bases announced today, which are already up and running, is a temporary measure for as short a period as possible?

I absolutely agree with that. This is about quicker processing and quicker removals, but I would say—I hope Members can hold this in their heads—that this is also about reducing pull factors. Last year, the volume of people seeking asylum was in the 90,000s. Between 2011 to 2020, the figure was in the 20,000s. That is part of the challenge. Exactly as my hon. Friend says, getting that down to a more steady state will help take out some of the very difficult choices that are having to be made.

While it is welcome that the proposed use of Cameron barracks in Inverness was ultimately abandoned, that came only after months of unnecessary uncertainty for local communities following an announcement made without meaningful engagement with the Scottish Government, Highland council or NHS Highland. Does the Minister accept that bypassing devolved partners and failing to consult local communities undermines confidence in the asylum system? Will he commit that any future decisions on asylum accommodation in Scotland will be made only after meaningful engagement with the Scottish Government, local authorities and local MPs? Will he acknowledge that, while military sites may relieve immediate pressure on the system, they do not address the underlying failures driving the accommodation crisis, including slow decision making, inadequate planning and a lack of suitable community based housing options?

I am grateful for that question, and I am very aware of the Scottish Government’s New Scots programme. It is the clear position of the Scottish Government that they want to see people from outside Scotland coming to live there and being part of Scotland’s economic future. I am committed to working with Scottish counterparts to make that a reality. There is a challenge, because that sounds good in a global sense, but down at an individual level, it may sometimes seem less attractive. There are challenges in Scotland, particularly the fact that 60% of asylum seekers in Scotland are housed in Glasgow—that is an equity point in Scotland that I think could change. However, I absolutely will work with my Scottish counterparts. I have met them and will continue to do so.

I welcome the Government’s closure of the asylum seeker hotel in Dudley. It was a Conservative party policy that was a complete waste of taxpayers’ money. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce the asylum backlog and the dangerous, illegal boat crossings?

This is about quicker decision making, the commitment we have made to appeals reform and better collaboration with our European neighbours. Those elements are adding up to significant progress, which is why we have seen numbers fall. This is the next step to get us on the final leg of that journey.

The Minister spoke about necessary arrangements and approvals being followed, but the Haslar immigration removal centre proposals are meaningfully different from those originally planned. The Home Office is bypassing the local planning authority, Gosport borough council, and the public consultation has been utterly derisory. This is a residential urban area, yet local people do not have any opportunity to have a say, because it will be decided by the Secretary of State in Whitehall.

Leaving aside all the rhetoric, can the Minister just answer some straight questions? Will he set out exactly how many people will now be housed at Haslar, who they will be and how long they will stay there? What opportunity will neighbouring residents have to influence the development and how it looks? When will the Home Office have proper public meetings, so that Gosport people can put their questions and have them answered? Will he meet me to answer all the other questions I am getting from my residents, who are furious about what the Government are doing?

I will of course meet the hon. Lady. Immigration removal centres are, of course, an entirely separate matter from what we are talking about here. I do not have those numbers at my fingertips, but I will get them to her in short order. There is a point of difference in terms of the engagement, as I can see from the correspondence between us on what has and has not been shared at public meetings about the nature of the site, but let us have that conversation so that we are speaking with one version of the truth.

My hon. Friend will know that Bracknell welcomed Afghans who supported our armed forces in transitional accommodation under the Afghan resettlement programme, but under the system introduced by the Conservatives that is not taken into account when considering a local area’s ability also to deliver asylum accommodation. He will know that I have been lobbying him on this matter, because small unitary authorities such as Bracknell Forest council cannot be expected to do more than their fair share. Can he provide an update on progress?

My hon. Friend has doggedly pursued me on this very important issue. It is really important that, as the Home Office, we consider the broader context—such as what he says with regard to Afghan resettlement scheme provision—around a community’s ability to sustain a supported population and that full dispersal model we inherited from our predecessors. What we have put in place, in our attempt to close the gap between local government and national Government, is a postcode check process, so that councils can say, “Well, hang on a minute, there is provision in this area that means it might not be suitable.” We are going through that process in Bracknell at the minute and I will work with him to hopefully get to a satisfactory conclusion.

The Minister keeps bragging about closing asylum hotel accommodation from the peak of 400. Can it be put on record that I closed 180 of those asylum hotels in six months and the Labour Government closed only another 30 in two years? I would just like that read into the record.

More broadly, large scale asylum accommodation centres have a detrimental effect on local communities, as we have seen in Weathersfield: people are unable to sell their houses, and the number of children applying to go to the local primary school is dropping off and it is now close to being financially untenable. That is why there was a time limit on the use of Weathersfield. We also know that when the number of people in these centres is too large, disruption happens and fights break out, which is why there was a cap on numbers. We learn that the Government tried to sneak out over the weekend an increase on the cap and an extension to the time, completely undermining the confidence of the people of Braintree in this Government. Will the Minister now accept that that is a completely unprofessional way of doing this? It is deeply unfair to the people of Weathersfield and the surrounding areas. I urge him now, before it is too late, to rethink his proposals and scrap the foolish extensions of both time and capacity at the Weathersfield asylum centre.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. It is not bragging to say that under the previous Government the number of folks accommodated in hotels was 56,000 at its peak and it is now at 21,000. It is important for the public to understand those changes. He talks about the record in Government. He will know his own Government’s record at Weathersfield and the choices made there, too.

On capacity, the right hon. Gentleman knows—because we have spoken about it—that Weathersfield exists normally in a steady state of around 850, with, as he says, the surge ability to operate at 1,250. With the number of years we have had at Weathersfield, it is right to consider how best that provision can operate. Those are conversations we will have. He will have his chance to go in studs up on me, which he never misses, and come in and tell me what we ought to do differently, but it is right that we look at those things in the public interest. That is what we are doing.

The Minister is right that all we saw under the previous Government were the numbers going in the wrong direction and the operation of Government coming to a standstill. Of course, we should never forget the role of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who does not grace us with his presence in the Chamber, but who was the orchestrator of all this. The Minister is right to bring down the numbers, which are now heading in a positive direction. He will know, because of the many times I have contacted him, about the urgency of returning the Sandpiper hotel in Chesterfield to its proper purpose. It is now being massively underutilised. Will the Minister tell us when we are likely to see the Sandpiper, which has done its turn, being returned to proper use? On appeals, can he tell us more about how we will ensure that the cases of those whose appeals have no serious prospect of succeeding can be expedited so that we do not have the appalling backlog in the appeals process?

Order. I remind colleagues that it is always best to let other Members know in advance if you intend to refer to them.

In a general sense, a number of the people we now see in leadership positions in the Reform party were previously in the Tory party and had significant agency over this issue. They pretend now to be concerned bystanders, but actually they are the architects of the situation we are now in. I feel for some of our Conservative colleagues who have been left to tidy up behind them—at least they stand and take on the question, as right hon. and hon. Members have done in this debate. On my hon. Friend’s point about the Sandpiper, I cannot give him a date but I will say, to be clear to him and his community, that it will not be open a day longer than needed. The Sandpiper hotel is a vital community amenity that needs to be returned to its public use. With regard to important reforms to appeals, my hon. Friend may not have to wait much longer to see more.

The use of hotels for warehousing asylum seekers is expensive for the taxpayer and utterly miserable for the people who are stuck there waiting for their asylum cases to be heard. Does the Minister share my fear that the atmosphere of hostility towards those seeking asylum is hurting those who desperately need sanctuary. I have an Iranian constituent who is a critic of the regime and a Christian convert—and therefore guilty of apostasy under Iranian law. By any stretch of the imagination, they cannot safely be returned to Iran, but they face that fate unless their case is accepted. Will the Minister look at that case and, more broadly, ensure that genuine refugees do not become victims of political posturing?

Having visited such hotels, I recognise that they are not as advertised—or distorted—by others. The ultimate distorters are the human traffickers, for whom it is a significant upside to say not only that the conditions are good, but that it is easy to work illegally from the hotels. We must change that reality. I am concerned, as all colleagues would be, about the public conversation on this issue, and the risk that vulnerable people and their neighbours often face. We are never far away from challenge in that space, but it is incumbent on us to ensure that we do not play into that rhetoric. On the case that the hon. Member raises, every case will always be heard individually and on its merits. I cannot promise to intercede in that case, but I will ensure that the system handles it properly.

This decision looks like the politics of the past, not the future; a decision made in Whitehall, not in our communities. In 2022, RAF Linton on Ouse was deemed unsuitable as a site, because the drainage and sewage system would need major restoration, there would need to be an upgrade in the power capacity, and there are no amenities near the site—and the site has deteriorated further since that decision. The inadequacy of public transport, and other forms of transport there, also stands out.

In my human rights city, we rejected the proposal last time, and we worked cross party in order to put forward that case. People from Linton on Ouse contacted me over the weekend, restating those reasons for rejection. Will the Minister listen to local residents and local authorities? City of York council, which I spoke to this afternoon, has said that it has not been offered any resources, planning or engagement regarding the decision, yet Linton on Ouse faces York and there would be major implications for the city. Will the Minister ditch this plan, work with MPs and find an alternative way forward?

I am well aware of York’s status as a city of sanctuary—[Interruption.]—or as a human rights city, forgive me. I always want to work with the people of York to ensure that asylum seekers are humanely housed. Nevertheless, the challenge today is that we have around 100,000 people in the supported population and 170 hotels, give or take. We have to change that reality. There are limited options. I believe that this is the best way forward, but I know from what my hon. Friend and others have said that it is incumbent on us to show that we can deliver it in a way that is respectful of the local community. That is what we are seeking to do.

Missing from the statement, unless I missed it myself, was the word “deterrent”. The Minister suggests that it is good news, and people moving out of hotels into other accommodation is just that. What he does not mention, however, is that other accommodation also includes houses in multiple occupation, and there are only so many military sites that may or may not be available.

Given that I wrote to him on 18 June, would the Minister meet me to discuss Stoke Heath in my constituency, a village—actually, a rural settlement—of about 352 people that is going to see the arrival of up to 121 asylum seekers? This rural settlement has no integrated public services and very few public services at all. The nearest bus stop, for example, is a 30-minute walk away. Will he accept that a community meeting being held on Thursday, chaired by myself, should at least have somebody from the Home Office or Serco in attendance? People are being kept in the dark. There has been secrecy—no consultation and no transparency. People have a right to know what is going on. Would he encourage a member of Serco to come along to that meeting and answer some of the local community’s concerns?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am well aware of the matter concerning Stoke Heath, as he has pressed hard both verbally and in writing on that already. I will, of course, have the meeting with him that he asks for. I did not use the word “deterrent”, but I did use “pull factors” in the same context. We have to change the reality of the differential attractiveness that has seen applications for asylum in this country go up while they go down across the EU. This is part of that programme. The right hon. Gentleman mentions an upcoming meeting. Let me speak to the Department and see what we can do to ensure that he can have the fullest discussion possible.

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the serious attempt by this Government to get the backlogs down, change the system and reduce the use of hotels. Peterborough is a warm, generous place, but we already do our fair share in looking after asylum seekers. I ask the Minister to consider my real fear in this, which is the broken trust we have, because too many people in places like mine—myself included—think that the system is rigged by suppliers such as Serco, which pick the cheapest places to put asylum seekers.

When I was elected, based on the record of the Conservatives, Peterborough already had the highest number of asylum seekers in the region. After the general election, under this Government, Serco opened the Dragonfly hotel with no consultation and without informing me or my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), or indeed the council, the police or any local services. It put us in a really difficult position. I know that we are bringing down numbers in the Dragonfly hotel, and I know that the Minister will not be able to tell me today the specific date by which the hotel can be shut. What can he tell us instead about how we can keep control of monsters like Serco, which drive this policy and mean that places like mine feel that the system is rigged and feel left out and left behind

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution and for his continued lobbying in this space. As he says, I cannot give him a date for the Dragonfly’s closure, but I can tell him that it is uppermost in my mind and that the Dragonfly will close as soon as we physically can do that. On the system, we are trying to close the gap between those who administrate the asylum accommodation contracts and local government. Crucially, through our leadership, the responsibility for that belongs to me and other Ministers, rather than the providers. The contract is not good—let us be clear about that. Again, I do not blame previous Ministers who led on that in 2019. We are seeking to change that model through the process we are now undergoing in renewing the contract in 2029. As always, I say that I would municipalise everything. I do not think that is our reality at the moment, but I do want a more mixed economy so that it is more sympathetic to communities and there is greater agency in the system, and that is what we are going to do.

The hon. Gentleman, who is a diligent and sensible Minister, will understand the deep disappointment in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield that the Ramada hotel on Penns Lane was not included in the recent list of closures, not least because it was on the list before the general election. He was very generous with his time in seeing me and listening to why that location is totally inappropriate in Sutton Coldfield. Can he reassure me that the facility will now be closed as soon as possible?

The right hon. Gentleman knows my enthusiasm for Royal Sutton Coldfield and the strength of its plan for neighbourhoods programme from a previous, much happier engagement I had with him. I did wince when his number came up the other day, because I knew that he would be pressing hard on why it was not his hotel that had been closed. I assure him that we will close it as soon as possible, and I know how important it is that it is returned back to the people of Royal Sutton Coldfield for marking births, marriages, funerals and all sorts of other things that make life what it is.

Last week we heard the very welcome news that the final asylum hotel in Dudley borough has closed. The system set up by the Conservatives was a complete failure. It was very inappropriate to house people in town centres, and it was extremely costly for the taxpayer. I am very pleased that this Labour Government are finally sorting it out. Part of the solution is to deport people with no right to be here. Can the Minister outline how many people we have deported since the election and what further steps we are taking to sort out returns agreements for other countries where we are struggling to do so?

I absolutely can, and I am pleased about the good news for Dudley. Since the election, we have removed 67,000 people who have no right to be here. That is a significant increase—approaching 30%—on the equivalent period under our predecessors, but we must go further. We have secured a number of extra returns agreements. I want us to have returns agreements around the world, because they are the building blocks for safe removal. We also need more detention capacity. Our predecessors left our detention capacity in a much thinner state than it needs to be in order to effect removals at the level we expect to see. I am pleased with the progress that we have made, but there is much more to do.

People have a right to be angry that the Government have sought to impose hundreds of asylum seekers on their communities without consultation. The Minister has talked today about the deterrent factor. When we spend billions accommodating people, then support them financially and give them services that many local people are not able to get, and in 90% of cases grant them asylum, is that not a pull factor that brings people to the United Kingdom? Is the way to deal with it not simply to make it clear that if someone comes into the country illegally, it does not matter how good their case is—they will not be granted asylum?

The idea that 90% of cases are granted is for the birds—it is not even half that. It is also not true that people who are accommodated in hotels are living a luxury lifestyle. In reality, that is far from the case. These are not great places to be; they are safe, humane, dignified and legal, but that is it. I just cannot accept the idea that it is a great time for them. It simply is not true. The traffickers exploit the idea of living in a hotel and working illegally. That is the reality we have to change. That is how we get to an ordered and controlled system and reduce demand back to a normal level.

I thank the Minister for his statement and the work he is doing to tackle this important issue. As my Harlow constituency borders Epping, I am not unaware of the challenges that asylum hotels and the activity surrounding them pose for communities. I thank him for the work he has done on that. Is not the key issue the asylum backlog that was left by the previous Government? Can the Minister outline what this Government are doing to bring down the backlog and deal with the issue of appeals, which he mentioned in previous answers?

The backlog is one of the major sins that explains why the supported population is much larger than we would expect it to be. We have got through the backlog in initial decision making, and the pressure now is in the appeals system. That is why the King’s Speech referred to important reforms that are coming to the appeals system, and colleagues may get to see those shortly.

The site identified as MOD Bicester sits just over the Buckinghamshire border in Oxfordshire and is incredibly close to villages in my constituency, including Boarstall, Oakley, Long Crendon, Marsh Gibbon, Ludgershall, Twyford, Charndon and others. I can assure the Minister from comments I have heard from constituents over the weekend that nobody thinks this is a good site for such a centre.

I would like to pick up on the answer the Minister gave an hon. Member earlier about medical provision on these sites. He said that medical provision is provided on site. I know from bitter experience in the last Parliament that provision was delivered on site at an asylum hotel, but it was delivered by a local GP practice, which then could not serve everybody else in the area in the normal, timely manner. Can the Minister be really clear, given that he cannot magic up doctors and primary care, that if the Bicester site goes ahead—I hope that it does not —there will not be pressure on local GP services in my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire or, indeed, on the Oxfordshire side?

We have had success on other large sites where that has not been the case. Individuals need to register with a GP, but it is our intention that the impact on the local health service will be minimal. There is the question of emergency medicine, because there will not be provision for that on site. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is setting that test; it is one that I very much want to meet.

May I raise my concerns about the site at Stoke Heath, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard)? It is a really rural location, with the nearest town being Market Drayton in my constituency, and people there are very concerned about the appropriateness of the site, with it being 30 minutes’ walk from a bus stop and there being no shop. Shropshire council has raised its concerns about the site’s remoteness.

Given that we have seen increasing far right infiltration in Shropshire, with people beyond the constituency borders spreading misinformation and hatred on Facebook, I am concerned about the security of the people in the development at Stoke Heath. What measures are being taken to keep those people safe? Will he explain what the criteria are for a suitable location for dispersal accommodation? It seems to me that somewhere without even a bus stop or a shop is a really inappropriate place.

I am grateful for that question. I will mirror the commitment I made to the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and ensure that the hon. Lady gets whatever information she needs on Stoke Heath. On how sites are chosen, there is a mix of factors, which include local amenities, travel and transport. Those are looked at carefully before providers bring ideas forward. If a local authority has a challenge, it can bring that to the Home Office for adjudication, where all those factors are considered together.

With 76,000 illegal crossings in the last two years, this is clearly a problem that continues to affect our country, and one that has profound social and economic consequences—largely negative ones—on communities across the country. The Government are talking about a new approach to move this problem away from communities, so I was surprised to read the other day about the specific refugee scheme reported in various media outlets. Surely it will increase the attractiveness of illegal migration via illegal routes. Anyone who travels to the UK via an illegal route should be deported. This scheme is a contribution to the pull factor.

I can help the hon. Gentleman with that. The whole point on safe and legal routes is that those are not the means by which people are coming into the country. As he will have seen in the commitments we made in the asylum policy statement in November, if people choose to come via irregular means, their route to settlement will be a very long one indeed, with a 30-month renewal of that protection. What we are trying to do is to change those behaviours in exactly the way that I think he and I want.

I have spoken to many asylum seekers who have endured some of the most horrific and atrocious life experiences. The Minister will know that, historically, the courts have deemed an Army barrack unlawful because of the inhumane conditions within it. What assessment has the Minister made of the suitability of the new barracks being considered?

Is not the real issue the processing of these asylum cases? I know that the Minister said that decisions are at a 24-year high, but there are no figures on how many applications have been processed and how many applications are waiting, not including those at the appeal courts.

First, on lawfulness, this very minute we are operating two schemes very lawfully. On quality, many of these sites—certainly those we brought forward in the past—were good enough for the resettlement of Afghan families, and indeed they have been good enough for our own soldiers. I therefore contest the idea that they are not good enough.

The point about processing is important. As I said, we have functionally got through the backlog; the issue now is the demand in the appeal system, with the statistic being a 58-week wait. Yes, processing is important, but so is the reduction of demand. As I said, we are operating at three times the level we would have been at a decade ago. We have to change that reality, and this announcement is part of doing that.

Does the Minister appreciate that the reason he is commissioning former Army bases and spending millions of pounds on more asylum accommodation is that his Government’s policy of smashing the gangs has completely failed? There have been 76,000 illegal crossings across the channel into our country, and until he accepts that those are economic migrants who should be deported when they arrive in our country, this problem will continue.

The facts do not bear that out. We have a system that separates those who are travelling economically and those who are seeking protection. I do not want this country to lose its proud history of providing protection for people who need it. That is why we are doing this in the way we are doing it. We have taken significant steps forward in controlling the system, alongside our French counterparts. That is why, for the first time, we are seeing asylum applications coming down, as well as positive progress in the channel, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said. Of course, the traffickers had a six year head start on us, but unless I am mistaken, which I really do not think I am, it cannot have felt like failure when we closed the hotel in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

The Minister said that the business of this Government was to secure the borders of this nation. In that context, can I therefore ask him how many of the buses travelling through the open back door into the United Kingdom from the Irish Republic have ever been stopped and how many of those seeking asylum have had their credentials checked since this Government came to power two years ago? We all know what happened a few weeks ago in north Belfast, where an asylum seeker is now in custody for attempted murder, yet there has been no effort by this Government to close that back door. Why is that? Why are we allowing people to enter this United Kingdom unchecked? We talk about stopping the small boats. When are we going to stop the buses?

The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. I cannot wholly agree with what he says, but this is important. As we win the battle in the channel, the common travel area—which is obviously an arrangement of very long standing indeed—will be a point of challenge. I am working closely with, and have spoken to, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on this point. The work is ongoing to keep the common travel area as protected as possible, and we of course work with the Government of Ireland as well. That collective work is how we make sure that the CTA is not exploited.

The Mercure hotel in Dumfries is home to around 100 men of uncertain origin and, thanks to the good offices of the Home Office, I have been able to visit. However, I have not been able to get any clarity on the criteria for closure and certainly not on any kind of timescale for closure. Can the Minister, without recourse to saying, “We will close it in due course”—which is beginning to sound a bit like the old jibe about the first world war: “It will be over by Christmas; we just cannot tell you which Christmas”—offer us a bit more clarity on when these hotels will be closed?

I think that is slightly unfair. The hon. Gentleman knows that they will all close by 2029, but within that, none of them will be open for a day longer than they need to be. In terms of criteria, a range of factors including size, condition and location goes into the decision making. I appreciate that in a process of reducing the number from a couple of hundred hotels to nil, everybody will want to be the first one, but all of them will close.

I thank the Minister very much for his statement and for his clear commitment to addressing these issues. That cannot be in doubt. This continues to be a massive issue in my constituency of Strangford and, indeed, across all of Northern Ireland. The shifting of thousands of individuals out of hotels and into large scale alternative accommodation sites such as military barracks, vessels and repurposed institutional facilities is not a solution. It is simply moving a massive, expensive problem from one community’s doorstep to another’s, so when will the Government stop managing the symptoms of illegal immigration and start deploying the robust enforcement, rapid detentions and immediate deportations needed to secure our borders and end this accommodation crisis once and for all?

It is rare that I disagree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. His incredible work on the persecution of Christians abroad, for example, is something on which I agree with him, and it shows the importance of having managed but humane asylum systems around the world. That is what we must have in this country. I did not take it from what he said that we are actually that far apart. He talks about the cost in financial terms and about the cost in terms of the community. I share those concerns. These types of schemes are part of changing that reality, because they will reduce the pull factors so that people are not tempted to come here or exploited by traffickers to do so. I think that that is the right balance.

It is deeply disappointing that I have to remind the Minister and the Treasury Benchers that paragraph 9.1 of the “Ministerial Code” and paragraph 19.21 of “Erskine May” make it clear that statements on important matters should be made to this House first, not to the press at 10.30 pm on a Thursday night. MPs and their constituents should hear about important policy news in this House first. I expect much better from the Minister. It is totally unacceptable that constituents and MPs hear about important policy matters on the news and not in this House. There is an impact on Members, including me as a constituency MP, and our constituents deserve much better. Minister, we need to see better from you on this.