Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 31—Large-scale asylum accommodation: publication of costs—

“(1) Where the Secretary of State proposes to provide, or arrange for the provision of, asylum accommodation at a large-scale asylum accommodation site, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish an assessment of the expected costs associated with the site before accommodation is first provided at the site.

(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the estimated cost of acquiring, leasing or otherwise securing the use of the site;

(b) estimated capital expenditure required for the construction, conversion, refurbishment or adaptation of the site;

(c) estimated annual operating and running costs;

(d) estimated total expenditure over the period for which the site is expected to be used;

(e) the estimated cost per person accommodated at the site;

(f) a comparison with the estimated costs of reasonably available alternative sites or forms of asylum accommodation; and

(g) the principal assumptions on which the estimates in paragraphs (a) to (f) are based.

(3) If, before accommodation is first provided at the site, there is a material change to the estimated costs published under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a revised assessment.

(4) In this section—

‘asylum accommodation’ means accommodation provided—

(a) under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,

(b) as support under section 95 or 95A of that Act in a way mentioned in section 96(1)(a) or (b) of that Act, or

(c) under section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;

‘large-scale asylum accommodation site’ means a single site at which asylum accommodation is intended to be provided for 300 or more persons at any one time.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the estimated capital, running and overall costs of a proposed large-scale asylum accommodation site, together with a comparison with alternative sites or forms of asylum accommodation.

New clause 64—Local impact and safeguarding assessments for high-capacity asylum accommodation sites—

“(1) Before designating a site for use as high-capacity asylum accommodation, or materially increasing the capacity of such a site, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a Local Impact and Safeguarding Assessment in respect of the proposed designation or increase in capacity.

(2) A Local Impact and Safeguarding Assessment must assess the reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed designation or increase in capacity on—

(a) public safety and community safeguarding;

(b) local policing and other emergency services;

(c) the provision of health and social care services;

(d) local authority services, including housing, education and children’s services;

(e) community cohesion and the wellbeing of persons living or working in the surrounding area; and

(f) the capacity of local public services to respond to additional demand arising from the proposed accommodation.

(3) In preparing an assessment under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the relevant local authority or authorities;

(b) the chief officer of police for the area in which the site is situated;

(c) the relevant integrated care board;

(d) the relevant fire and rescue authority; and

(e) such other public authorities or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The assessment must—

(a) identify reasonably foreseeable risks and pressures arising from the proposed accommodation;

(b) consider the likely scale and duration of those risks and pressures;

(c) identify measures proposed to prevent, mitigate or manage those risks and pressures; and

(d) identify any additional resources or coordination between public authorities considered necessary to manage the anticipated impact.

(5) For the purposes of this section—

‘high-capacity asylum accommodation site’ means any site used for asylum accommodation purposes with a potential capacity of 300 or over people.

‘a material increase in site capacity’ is defined as any plan to increase the capacity of an asylum accommodation site by 100 or over people.”

This new clause would require an impact and safeguarding assessment to be carried out on a potential high-capacity asylum site before the site can be granted approval or have its capacity increased.

New clause 65—Reporting of serious incidents in asylum accommodation—

“(1) Any provider of accommodation under arrangements made by the Secretary of State for the provision of asylum support must report serious incidents occurring at, or in connection with, that accommodation to the relevant police force.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a serious incident is an incident which gives reasonable grounds to suspect—

(a) that a serious criminal offence has been committed or attempted;

(b) that a person has suffered serious physical injury or sexual violence;

(c) that a child or vulnerable adult is at immediate risk of serious harm;

(d) that there has been a credible threat of serious violence; or

(e) that any other circumstance involving a serious risk to the safety of a person requires police notification.

(3) Where a provider becomes aware of a serious incident, the provider must—

(a) notify the relevant police force without undue delay and, where there is an immediate threat to life or safety, immediately;

(b) take reasonable steps to preserve relevant records and evidence;

(c) record the incident, the time at which it became known to the provider, the time and method of notification, and any action taken in response; and

(d) notify the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision within three months of passing the Act about notifications under subsection (3) including—

(a) the information to be included in a notification;

(b) the form and manner of notification; and

(c) the handling and onward sharing of reports, including with other Government departments and bodies exercising national security or research security functions.

(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(6) A provider who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence.

(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(8) For the purposes of this section ‘serious criminal offence’ has the meaning given in section 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (Involvement in serious crime: England and Wales orders).”

This new clause will require any serious incidents that occur at asylum accommodation sites to be reported to the relevant authorities.

[Tom Gordon]

I am tm;1speaking in support of new clauses 30 and 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Let me be clear—these new clauses do not challenge the Government’s responsibility to accommodate people seeking asylum. They ask two simple things: that before a large site is chosen, the Government show us that it is suitable, and that before public money is committed, they show us what it will cost.

New clause 30 would require the Government to publish an assessment of every large site, covering transport, healthcare, policing capacity, safe pedestrian access, safeguarding, infrastructure, the alternatives considered and the impact on the local community. It would also require consultation with local authorities. New clause 31 would require the Government to publish the full costs, including acquisition, capital expenditure, running costs and cost per person, alongside a fair comparison with alternative options. If those estimates changed materially before a site opened, the assessment would have to be revised.

Why propose these new clauses? Because the urgent Crown development route allows the Home Office to bypass much of the usual planning scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock has seen the consequences of that at MOD Bicester in his patch, where up to 1,256 people could be housed for 10 years. The sewage arrangements rely on tankering, which would not work at full occupancy. The electricity plan assumes generators, because the existing supply cannot be relied on. The environmental screening assumed buildings no higher than 6 metres, while the plans allow buildings up to 12 metres. Local people had just 10 days to make representations, and there were no pre-application discussions with the highways authority.

My hon. Friend’s analysis also suggests that the scheme could cost more than £250 million to establish, and over £1 billion across 10 years. There are serious questions about suitability, infrastructure and value for money. They deserve proper answers before the public are committed to such a substantial bill. The concerns are not confined to Oxfordshire; in North Yorkshire, my part of the country, the proposed reopening of the former Royal Air Force site at Linton-on-Ouse also raises many of the same questions. In 2022, the Home Office proposed accommodating asylum seekers there. The scheme was subsequently abandoned, but only after significant public money had already been spent. Now the proposal is back.

On 15 July, North Yorkshire council passed a cross-party resolution opposing the proposal, and I join colleagues from across North Yorkshire and York in supporting the council leader’s letter to the Minister. It is worth noting that the Labour Mayor for York and North Yorkshire, David Skaith, has also opposed those plans, which is interesting when we consider the Government’s devolution agenda; they want to empower mayors to make planning decisions, yet seem keen to ignore them when those decisions are coming from the centre.

The concerns set out in the letter read almost like a checklist of the issues that new clause 30 would require the Government to assess. The proposal is to accommodate over 1,000 single adult men beside a village of approximately 600 people. The primary school is very nearby and the site covers 680 acres, raising many important questions about security and safeguarding. Public transport, local services and support networks are limited; the surrounding roads are rural and prone to flooding; there are serious questions about the capacity of water, sewage, drainage and electricity infrastructure; and there is no mains gas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the contributions this morning. As Members across the House will know, when the Government entered office in 2024, the use of hotels to house asylum seekers was widespread. That was clearly impacting the confidence that the public had in the Government to run an efficient and cost-effective asylum system.

Hotels are a visceral and visual representation of the previous Government’s failure to establish any form of coherent strategy for dealing with the issue of asylum accommodation. Hotels taken away from communities act as lightning rods for social unrest. They represent the removal of a lever that the local population can use to promote tourism, incentivise wider interest in the area and promote the broader economic and business growth of the community.

That is why we are working relentlessly to house asylum seekers fairly across the country, and we have a manifesto commitment to close every asylum hotel, just as the public expects. We have already saved £1 billion for the taxpayer by reducing the number of hotels down to, I think, fewer than 160. I look forward to closing the remaining few over the next couple of years.

Hotel exit is not simply about closing hotels; it is about moving to a more sustainable accommodation model, moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation, including former military sites, to reduce impact on local communities. As part of that commitment, we are looking at a range of more appropriate sites that provide basic and safe accommodation, including ex-military sites.

To answer the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, two sites are already operational: Wethersfield, which was opened under his Government, and more recently, Crowborough. Three more are in the pipeline, undergoing various reviews and planning permissions. Those sites provide basic and safe accommodation for asylum seekers and are designed to be as self-sufficient as possible, reducing the impact upon communities. I must reiterate that large sites offer a sustainable solution for housing asylum seekers. They allow for dedicated on-site services such as health and safeguarding services, which lessen reliance on overstretched local facilities.

In terms of security, the safety of local communities, the staff who work there and those accommodated on large sites are of the utmost importance. Unlike hotels, ex-military sites allow for dedicated safeguarding and oversight services, reducing disruption to local communities and ensuring public safety. Specialist security will also be on site 24/7, with CCTV and strict sign-in procedures for residents.

To be extremely clear, although I understand that there is concern surrounding whether asylum accommodation goes hand in hand with an increase in crime in the local area, I categorically reject that. In September, 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.

As I hope I have outlined, large sites build public confidence in a fair and humane system, reducing pressure on communities while giving us greater oversight and control at critical points in the asylum decision-making process. Alongside the expansion of large sites, we continue to make use of medium sites and dispersal accommodation. That approach is being implemented in close consultation with local authorities across the UK.

[Tom Gordon]

Let me press the Minister a little further. In my speech in support of the new clauses, I spoke about the lack of capacity when it comes to sewage and electricity and the lack of consultation with local government. Will the Minister not acknowledge that and try to empathise with those individuals and authorities on the inappropriate nature of these sites? Will she look again?

[Anna Turley]

When we apply for planning permission or urgent Crown development, all these issues are taken into account as part of that planning process and decision making by the Secretary of State.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Turley]

I have some responses to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. That also includes consultation with local authorities. All the application processes have a due window for local authorities to make their applications, and all of that will be considered in the round. I will give way.

[Tom Gordon]

Can the Minister explain and outline why she thinks that both the Conservative-run North Yorkshire council and her Labour Mayor for York and North Yorkshire have got it wrong in their opposition to these sites?

[Anna Turley]

As a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Gentleman will know clearly that “nimbyism” gets used quite a lot. It is important that local authorities quite rightly make representations, whatever their political party, on behalf of their local areas, and we would expect that as part of the planning processes. All those representations will be taken into account when the decisions are made.

I will respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, going back to the engagement with local authorities. As I said, we recognise their importance, but a single statutory model would not reflect the different circumstances, planning routes and stages of development that apply to individual sites. It could duplicate existing processes, require premature disclosure and delay urgent decisions. Engagement should remain proportionate, properly sequenced and responsive to each proposal.

A point was also raised about publishing costs and assessments. We will be as transparent as we possibly can, whenever we can. We have to balance publication against commercial confidentiality, personal data and site security and the need to protect sensitive operational information. As hon. Members can imagine, that is all extremely important when undertaking sites of this significance.

The reforms that we are looking at are crucial to overhauling the immigration system to restore control at the border. This is about fairness, restoring confidence and public trust in the system and, in particular, handing our hotels back to the communities.

To give some statistics behind the Government’s reforms, as of June this year, the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was 46% lower than when the Government entered office. There are 71% fewer people staying in hotels compared with the peak in September 2023. As I mentioned, that has led to fewer than 160 hotels currently in operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We take safeguarding very seriously. That is all undertaken as part of the process when we make those decisions and contracts, and we keep them under review all the time. I refer to the point I made earlier: the police, particularly at Wethersfield, have said that there has been no discernible impact on crime. I just wanted to reiterate that, but I take his point.

New clause 64 also applies fixed thresholds, which may not reflect the circumstances of an individual site or the scale of local impact. A smaller site may require intensive engagement, whereas an increase of 100 places at a larger, established site may not create the same pressures. The Government consider that existing operational assessment and engagement arrangements provide the necessary flexibility to manage risks proportionately. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to withdraw the new clause.

[Tom Gordon]

I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response, which outlines the Government’s views. I do not think it adequately addresses the issues that Crown development routes pose in bypassing much of local planning scrutiny. The Minister also made the point that the Government want to be as transparent as possible. I do not think that this place should let them off the hook on these issues. The questions about the suitability of sites were not adequately answered, so I will not withdraw the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.