← Back to House of Commons Debates
Asylum Accommodation
29 June 2026
Lead MP
Alex Norris
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
Asylum & Refugees
Other Contributors: 45
At a Glance
Alex Norris raised concerns about asylum accommodation in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on asylum accommodation. The Minister reminded the House of the increase in illegal crossings via small boats before the general election and the subsequent actions taken by his Government to address this issue. Significant progress has been made through major asylum reforms, reducing costs by nearly £1 billion and improving decision-making efficiency. More foreign criminals are being removed than ever before, and over 44,000 crossing attempts have been stopped in partnership with French counterparts. A groundbreaking scheme allows for small boat arrivals to be returned to France.
The Minister highlighted the Government's commitment to ending the use of asylum hotels, having already closed 31 hotels, reducing their number from a peak of around 400 under the previous government to just under 170 now. Accommodation in hotels has also fallen significantly, from 56,000 to approximately 21,000 currently.
The Minister announced plans for three new ex-military sites to accommodate asylum seekers: Barnham in Suffolk, Bicester in Oxfordshire and Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire. These could eventually provide accommodation for around 3,750 individuals but subject to feasibility assessments and planning permissions. Work continues on identifying further viable locations.
Public safety remains a critical consideration in all decisions regarding asylum accommodation, with the Government committed to minimising community impacts and ensuring that any illegal migrants must abide by British laws or face removal from the country.
Question
The MP asked about the criteria for choosing new ex-military sites. She wanted to know if local concerns were taken into account and whether there would be any support provided to communities hosting these facilities.
Minister reply
The Minister replied that all relevant due diligence is being carried out, including feasibility assessments and planning permissions, before making final decisions on the use of ex-military sites. He emphasised that public safety and minimising community impacts are critical considerations in every decision.
Question
The MP questioned whether the Government would provide financial support to local authorities affected by these changes, particularly those seeing an increase in asylum seekers.
Minister reply
The Minister stated that the Government is committed to supporting local communities and will continue to work closely with them throughout this process. He assured that necessary funding and resources will be provided to address any additional burdens on local services.
Question
The MP inquired about the timeline for implementing these plans and expressed concern over potential delays.
Minister reply
The Minister confirmed that while timelines are subject to due diligence processes, the Government remains committed to ending the use of asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament. He emphasised the importance of getting it right rather than rushing into decisions.
Katie Lam
Lab
Question
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...
Minister reply
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 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...
Terry Jermy
Lab
Question
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...
Minister reply
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 needs to be sensitive handling of plans.
Will Forster
Woking
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Will Forster
Woking
Question
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.
Minister reply
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.
Will Forster
Woking
Question
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.
Peter Prinsley
South West Norfolk
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Peter Prinsley
South West Norfolk
Minister reply
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.
Peter Prinsley
South West Norfolk
Minister reply
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.
Alec Shelbrooke
Elmet and Rothwell
Question
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.
Minister reply
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.
Alec Shelbrooke
Elmet and Rothwell
Question
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.
Alec Shelbrooke
Elmet and Rothwell
Question
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.
Alec Shelbrooke
Elmet and Rothwell
Question
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.
Jim McMahon
Lab
Oldham West and Royton
Question
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 remains in use despite previous capacity increases without consultation with local people or me as the Member of Parliament. Oldham has played a significant role by hosting 114 asylum seekers and providing dispersed accommodation for 640 more, but trust is eroding due to lack of transparency and impact on housing markets.
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is correct that there was no consultation before those decisions were made. The Victoria hotel will close because we prioritised various factors like location suitability and capacity when deciding which hotels to keep open.
Question
Site A at MOD Bicester, with only 370 residents nearby and no local amenities, is not a suitable place for 1,250 asylum seekers. The Home Office has not provided written information about the proposal despite local opposition and a petition signed by over 7,000 people in less than three days. Why are the Government proceeding with this plan when it feels like a secret decision imposed on Bicester?
Minister reply
No final decision has been taken yet, but we understand the frustration due to lack of written information in public domain. We will commit to preparing impact assessments and engaging local communities appropriately.
Question
The widespread use of asylum hotels puts significant pressure on local authorities, with over 140,000 households in temporary accommodation and over 175,000 children sleeping in B&Bs. Asking asylum seekers to find secure accommodation, a job, and claim universal credit within 28 days is unachievable given the backlog of cases and pressures on local authorities. What conversations are being had with MHCLG to address this issue?
Minister reply
The time limit has been extended to 42 days to give people more time. We have move-on liaison officers supporting asylum seekers in their journey. Engagements with MHCLG aim at reducing homelessness, and we prioritise dispersed accommodation over cheapest options.
Mims Davies
Con
Eastleigh
Question
Two issues affecting my constituency are the Crowborough camp near Eastleigh and Copthorne hotel close to Gatwick. The Minister promised proper engagement but I only learned about the 2030 extension recently, despite it being discussed in Uckfield on Armed Forces Day. Why was this information not shared earlier? What is the status of the Copthorne hotel closure?
Minister reply
The change to larger sites is beneficial and necessary. The Copthorne must close as its planning permission runs out. I will ensure proper engagement with Mims Davies regarding both Crowborough and Copthorne soon.
Stella Creasy
Lab
Walthamstow
Question
The debate arises from the cost of transitioning to a fair system after inheriting a broken one. With ongoing litigation on good character and citizenship, does the Minister recognise that changing policies towards better integration would save money?
Minister reply
We acknowledge past failures leading to high asylum numbers but are pivoting towards safer and legal means for people to enter Britain. While there will always be an element of litigation, we aim to provide community sponsorship as a positive way forward.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Question
I thank the Minister for confirming that RAF Scampton is not cost-effective. The problem with these sites, as I know from asking hundreds of questions, is that they are unbelievably difficult to transform into asylum centres. 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: 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. 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.
Minister reply
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.
Question
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? This is 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.
Minister reply
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.
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Question
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?
Minister reply
This is about quicker decision making, the commitment we have made to appeals reform and better collaboration with our European neighbours.
Gosport
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Question
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.
Minister reply
My hon. Friend has doggedly pursued me on this very important issue.
James Cleverly
Con
Braintree
Question
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? 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. That is why there was a time limit on the use of Weathersfield.
Minister reply
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.
Toby Perkins
Lab
Chesterfield
Question
Concerned about the underutilisation of the Sandpiper hotel and asked for a date when it will be returned to its proper use. Also, inquired about ensuring that cases with no serious prospect of succeeding can be expedited to reduce backlogs.
Minister reply
Acknowledged past Tory involvement and stated that the Sandpiper hotel will not remain open longer than necessary. Indicated potential reforms for appeals process soon.
Tim Farron
Lib Dem
Westmorland and Lonsdale
Question
Expressed concern over expensive taxpayer-funded use of hotels for asylum seekers and highlighted a constituent's case in Iran, questioning if political posturing was hurting genuine refugees.
Minister reply
Acknowledged issues with human traffickers exploiting the situation and emphasised individual merit-based handling of cases.
Rachael Maskell
Lab
York Central
Question
Critiqued decision as past politics, raised inadequacies of RAF Linton-on-Ouse for asylum seeker accommodation due to infrastructure issues and lack of amenities. Requested engagement with local authorities.
Minister reply
Acknowledged York's human rights status but stated limited options and need to change reality of asylum applications increasing while decreasing in EU.
Mark Pritchard
Con
The Wrekin
Question
Asked for a meeting regarding Stoke Heath village accommodation, highlighted lack of consultation and secrecy around the decision. Requested presence at community meeting.
Minister reply
Agreed to meet and mentioned using 'pull factors' rather than deterrents. Acknowledged need to address system attractiveness issues.
Question
Welcomed attempts by government but raised concerns about broken trust due to lack of consultation and transparency regarding Dragonfly hotel opening in Peterborough.
Minister reply
Acknowledged ongoing efforts for better community engagement, cannot provide specific closure date but emphasised commitment.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Question
Asked about the Ramada hotel on Penns Lane not being included in recent closures and requested reassurance of its early closure.
Minister reply
Assured that the hotel will be closed as soon as possible, recognising the importance to Royal Sutton Coldfield.
Alex Ballinger
Lab
Dudley North
Question
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?
Minister reply
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. We have secured a number of extra returns agreements and need more detention capacity.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Question
People have a right to be angry that the Government have sought to impose hundreds of asylum seekers on their communities without consultation. 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?
Minister reply
The idea that 90% of cases are granted is for the birds—it is not even half that. People who are accommodated in hotels are not living a luxury lifestyle; these are safe, humane, dignified and legal places.
Harlow
Question
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?
Minister reply
The backlog is one of the major sins explaining why the supported population is much larger than expected. We have got through the backlog in initial decision making, but the pressure now is in the appeals system.
Greg Smith
Con
Mid Buckinghamshire
Question
The site identified as MOD Bicester sits just over the Buckinghamshire border in Oxfordshire and is incredibly close to villages in my constituency. Can the Minister be really clear that if the Bicester site goes ahead—there will not be pressure on local GP services?
Minister reply
We have had success on other large sites where provision was minimal for local health service impact. Individuals need to register with a GP, but it is our intention that the impact on the local health service will be minimal.
Helen Morgan
Lab
Brecon and Radnorshire
Question
May I raise my concerns about the site at Stoke Heath? Given that we have seen increasing far-right infiltration in Shropshire, what measures are being taken to keep those people safe?
Minister reply
We will ensure that the hon. Lady gets whatever information she needs on Stoke Heath. On how sites are chosen, there is a mix of factors including local amenities, travel and transport.
Bradley Thomas
Con
Daventry
Question
With 76,000 illegal crossings in the last two years, this is clearly a problem that continues to affect our country. Surely it will increase the attractiveness of illegal migration via illegal routes.
Minister reply
The whole point on safe and legal routes is that those are not the means by which people are coming into the country. If people choose to come via irregular means, their route to settlement will be a very long one indeed.
Ayoub Khan
Lab
Bethnal Green and Bow
Question
I have spoken to many asylum seekers who have endured some of the most horrific and atrocious life experiences. What assessment has the Minister made of the suitability of the new barracks being considered?
Minister reply
First, on lawfulness, this very minute we are operating two schemes very lawfully. On quality, many of these sites were good enough for resettlement of Afghan families.
Ashley Fox
Con
Worcestershire
Question
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?
Minister reply
The facts do not bear that out. We have a system that separates those who are travelling economically and those who are seeking protection. We have taken significant steps forward in controlling the system, alongside our French counterparts.
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Question
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?
Minister reply
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.
Shadow Comment
Katie Lam
Shadow Comment
The shadow responded critically, accusing the Government of planning to house more illegal migrants in sites across the country without alerting local MPs. She criticised the lack of proper scrutiny and transparency over these plans, citing examples such as Cameron barracks in Scotland where Home Office plans were blocked by local councils.
The Shadow pointed out the risks posed by illegal migrants, particularly young men who often show contempt for laws and norms. They questioned why the Government is making long-term plans until 2030 if they are confident in ending illegal channel crossings. The shadow highlighted that since the last election, nearly all of the 75,000 people who have crossed the channel were allowed to stay, with only a minority being removed.
The Shadow criticised the Government's approach as managing perceptions rather than solving the problem, emphasising that housing migrants in dispersal accommodation poses an even greater risk. They argued for leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights to enable quicker removals and stressed that more illegal migrants will enter legal challenges under these plans.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.