MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the Government’s plan to place illegal migrants in MoD Bicester; and calls on the Government to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights in order to deport illegal migrants.

Those on the Government Benches would not go and meet the women of Piddington and hear their concerns, so today the Opposition have brought the women of Piddington to them. They are in the Gallery today. The Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), and her colleagues on the Government Benches have nowhere to hide. The women of Piddington have written to all female Labour MPs and are still awaiting a response. How those Members vote today will be seen by the women of Piddington and by the women in towns, cities and villages across the country, so let me start with a simple question to Labour MPs: today, will they put the interests of women before those of the Labour party?

I have been to Piddington twice. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and our shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), have also been there to speak to the women at first hand. We all could see clearly that the safety of women and girls in that small village is at risk. That village of 350 people is shortly to have 1,300 migrants imposed on it—men who have already broken the law by coming here illegally.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this motion to the House and for opening this debate in her customarily powerful way. Piddington has the headlines, but it is not just about Piddington; it is also about the women in Oakley, in Marsh Gibbon, in Ludgershall, in Brill, in Boarstall, in Long Crendon and in many other villages just over the Buckinghamshire border that are within walking distance of MOD Bicester site A.

[Joy Morrissey]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This issue is not just in that area, either, but across the country. It is affecting women and girls in constituencies everywhere across the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I am going to move on. Forgive me.

We have driven up removals to the highest level in a decade—an important point to stop and reflect on—because of the progress we are making, with 80,000 individuals returned since the general election, including immigration offenders, people in the country illegally and foreign criminals. We know, too, that the ability to melt into the illegal economy too often lures people here, so we have raised illegal working enforcement to record levels.

As we rebuild our shattered asylum system, we are also lightening the burden on local communities. The Government committed to ending the use of asylum hotels within this Parliament and we will do so. Two years in, we have already emptied one in three, reducing the hotel population by 50% in the last year and by 71% since the peak under the previous Government. We have cut asylum costs from hotels by £1 billion. That is £1 billion that we can spend on the other priorities of the British people and I think that that should be recognised.

We have made significant progress on the chaos we inherited two years ago, but we know there is more to be done to restore fairness to our asylum system: fairness for genuine refugees, who deserve our sanctuary and wish to contribute to our society; and fairness for British citizens, our constituents, who shoulder the current burden in their taxes and in their communities. That is why we continue to work relentlessly at home and abroad to prevent people from coming here illegally in the first place, dismantle the criminal networks that facilitate dangerous and unnecessary crossings, remove those who break our laws and have no right to be here, and ensure that this country maintains its proud tradition of helping the world’s most vulnerable people where it can, but in a secure and orderly way through new safe and legal routes.

That is why we have introduced the new Immigration and Asylum Bill. It will cut the asylum backlog by making decisions faster and fairer, close loopholes so that those with no right to be here can be rapidly removed, and ask those who have benefited from public support to contribute to their costs where they are able. I thank the Members who are currently scrutinising the Bill in Committee.

I turn now, as the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) implored, to the issues around MOD Bicester. For too long, the way in which we house asylum seekers has not been fair. Billions of pounds have been spent putting them up in hotels, while communities have seen those hotels, often at the centre of their towns or cities, become a symbol of a broken asylum system. Areas where housing costs were low and that already felt left behind were asked to bear more than their fair share, which has been a source of anger and frustration for many people—and understandably so.

As well as reducing the backlog, we are working with local authorities on a fairer distribution of asylum seekers across the country. That means ending the use of costly hotels, and instead, moving asylum seekers into more appropriate accommodation.

[Greg Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Turley]

I am going to make some progress, because I have detained the Chamber a little too long.

That appropriate accommodation includes former military sites, which are basic, safe and self-contained by their nature. As I have said, that approach has already saved the taxpayer £1 billion. But, of course, we recognise the concerns of certain communities.

While the Home Office has submitted a planning application to use the MOD Bicester site for asylum accommodation, no final decision has been made. As part of that planning process, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provided members of the public and local organisations an opportunity to give their views, ensuring we can fully understand the impact on the local community. I want to pay tribute to the campaign in Piddington. It has been an incredibly imaginative and forceful democratic campaign, which I recognise and respect.

There are many facets to the process and a lot of different considerations to take into account, but I am clear that public safety is and always will be at the forefront of our thinking. If the site is taken forward, there would be specialist security onsite 24/7, supported by CCTV. Everyone must sign in and out, and we would work closely with the police, the council and other local organisations to address concerns.

It is important to note that this is not the first proposal of its kind. Similar sites such as Wethersfield have operated for years with no evidence of any significant increase in criminality attributable to the operation of that site. In fact, in September this year, the chief constable of Essex police confirmed that crime linked to the Wethersfield site is very low, and that there is no reason for the public to be concerned about possible criminality in the area associated with the site.

I emphasise that I fully understand the important desire of Members across the House to press for what they see as the best outcome for the areas and people that they represent. That is their democratic duty, and it is right that any Government are held to account for the decisions that they make. At the same, it is the duty of Government to act in a way that reflects the needs of the whole country. The approach we are taking is in the national interest, and it is the fairest way to restore order and control to our asylum system: ending the use of hotels; reducing the numbers in the system by addressing pull factors; removing those with no right to be here; and opening safe and legal routes, underpinned by community sponsorship, so that those with genuine claims can come to this country in an orderly and controlled way.

Finally, I will address the reference in the Opposition motion to the European convention on human rights. As I have set out, removals of those with no right to be in this country are at the highest level in years. That is thanks to the work that this Government have done and continue to do. But there is much more to be done. The idea that leaving the convention is the way forward is not born out by reality. Not only is it unnecessary to restore effective control of the immigration system, but it would be counterproductive given the risk of undermining crucial co-operation with European partners—something we are already dealing with as a consequence of Brexit.

Let us be clear: the convention delivers for people in this country too. It guarantees their right to privacy, a fair trial, free speech—permanent privileges that cannot be chopped and changed. In an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world in which conflict and cross-border crime present shared challenges, a close relationship with our European allies has never been more important. It is for those reasons that we remain committed to the ECHR and those relationships.

Of course, commitment does not mean complacency. This Government have worked hard to listen to the concerns of the public with respect to the ECHR and the immigration system. That is why our focus is on reforming the domestic application of article 6 and restoring the proper balance between individual rights and public interest. The UK is proud of the role that we played in drafting the convention, and now it is our responsibility to ensure that it is strong and relevant for today’s world. That requires honest conversations and continued evolution, not turning our backs when it matters most.

We have ahead of us what I expect will be a wide-ranging debate. I conclude by recounting the central facts about our record. Crossings: down. Asylum hotel use: down. Removals: up. Order and control: returning at last. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has chuntered from a sedentary position for a while, but I remember that when he was in the Home Office his Government began the use of many similar large sites, such as Wethersfield. [Interruption.] I am just reminding him that Wethersfield was opened under his watch.

Let us remember the “why” as well as the “what.” The reason underlying all that we have done, are doing, and will do in this area is fairness—fairness to those in genuine need of sanctuary from tyranny, conflict and persecution; and fairness for the British public, who rightly expect their Government, not criminal gangs, to determine who can come to this country, and who expect asylum seekers to be fairly housed across the country. Fairness is the principle on which our progress to date has been built, and the work continues relentlessly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray]

I will get to the end of my point and then I will give way. Secondly, on efficiency, having people in one place, where Home Office officials and the relevant people can be brought in, can speed asylum seekers through the process and get them out of it faster. Thirdly, on community engagement, yes, asylum seekers are free to come and go, but short of imprisoning them, such sites are as much as we can contain them in British society.

[Greg Smith]

On that point—

[Chris Murray]

Let me make some points and then I will take interventions.

Charities and groups can go to large sites, which are far away from town centres, unlike hotels and HMOs, and the authorities, by providing things such as transport, can practically organise when people will be in one place, stopping the issues of hotels and people hanging around town centres late at night.

Finally, on safeguarding, one of the issues with hotels is that the police were not informed. At larger sites, we can have trained professionals who can spot depression, isolation, re-traumatisation or worrying behaviours, understand the dynamics in groups, and find opportunities to observe, supervise and intervene. Engaging with police and social services is how we tackle those risks.

Let me share what persuaded me about that. I was sceptical of large sites until I went to Wethersfield, which opened under the previous Government—I think it was opened by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). There, they told me that the work they can do around mitigation and safeguarding is far more effective at a large site than a small site.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

MOD Bicester site A is but a stone’s throw over the Buckinghamshire border into Oxfordshire. While Piddington has captured the headlines, the communities that are concerned and that feel threatened by this proposal, many of which sit in my constituency in Mid Buckinghamshire—small villages and hamlets such as Boarstall, Oakley, Brill, Ludgershall, Marsh Gibbon, Long Crendon, Twyford, Charndon, Poundon, Worminghall, Honeyburge and many others—are all walking distance from MOD Bicester site A.

While I have absolute confidence that the real answer to this challenge is the Conservatives’ borders plan, where those who illegally enter the United Kingdom by small boat would be deported within a week, I want to use my time to focus on why the use of MOD Bicester site A simply does not stack up. It is the wrong plan.. It is the wrong site. That goes straight to some of the arguments that the Minister made about cost and location, none of which stack up in reality.

This site has to be built entirely from scratch. There is no accommodation there at the moment. This is an entirely modular build on a site where there is no fresh water supply. There is no ability to take the sewage away by anything other than road. If the Government want to look at environmental concerns, we hear that generators will have to burn some 6,000 litres of diesel a day to provide electricity to this site. There is no grid connection to MOD Bicester site A. It is situated along a busy, fast-moving road but we are told, “It’s okay. Those who are housed there will wear high-vis jackets as the HGVs zoom past them.” It is just not a credible site.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Diesel is obviously very much in the public mind at the moment. Has my hon. Friend seen any sort of impact statement as to what the daily cost of the Bicester site would be, given the increase in diesel prices?

[Greg Smith]

Indeed, we heard the Minister and Labour Back Benchers trying to say that this will be cheaper than hotels. Let me tell my hon. Friend and the House what the modelling actually says on the cost of MOD Bicester site A as an asylum camp. If that site persists for five years, the cost will work out at £235.34 per night. If it goes for 10 years, it will be £185.17 per night. The comparator for asylum hotels is £144 a night. The use of MOD Bicester site A is intrinsically incredibly more expensive than using hotels, so this does not offer value to the taxpayer as the Government and the Labour party want us to believe. That is an absolute nonsense that we cannot allow to persist.

Of course, from a Government that like to talk about wanting to follow all the rules all the time and so on, they ruled out doing an environmental impact assessment, saying that it was not going to have much of an environmental impact. That is a statutory requirement that anyone wanting to build something should go through. They cannot argue that it will have a minimal environmental impact. There were munition stores on this site, and it is absolutely riddled with asbestos which will be released into the local environment.

The wonderful campaign groups—not least “Wrong Plan. Wrong Site.”—have done an incredible amount of work, where they have found rare breeds of bats and newts. I know the Government like to pooh-pooh this, but in reality, the need to pay attention to and do these environmental impact assessments is set down in statute. It is the rules and the law we have, and for the Government to ride roughshod over that is purely unacceptable.

I urge the Government to stop, to look at the cost, the environmental impact and the unsuitability of this site on practical grounds, and to withdraw it immediately so that the communities in my constituency, as well as those of our neighbours in Oxfordshire, can breathe once more and live in the peace that they deserve to live in, free from the fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) set out in her opening speech, and that we can move on and stop this nonsense.