Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of re-opening hotels for asylum seeker accommodation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and a privilege to speak in this Chamber on an issue that is important to the British public and that needs to be urgently addressed by the Government. It is great to see that colleagues from both sides of the House have made time to discuss an issue that is emblematic of the failure in our current immigration system. The failure is, I concede, one of both sides, but it is worsening under the latest Government.
This issue cuts through to the public because it is so visible. These are not—
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, but there are Divisions in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes for the first Division and an additional 10 minutes for each further Division. There are to be three Divisions, so we will return in 35 minutes.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
The sitting is now resumed and can continue until 6.5 pm. I will call the Front Benchers to speak at 5.43 pm.
Jack Rankin
It is a privilege to speak on an issue that I know is important to the British public and needs to be urgently addressed by the Government. It is great to see colleagues here from all sides of the House.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that there are no Members from the Government Benches here to take part in this debate?
Jack Rankin
I was trying to be generous in my remarks, but I think the point has been made for the record.
This issue is emblematic of the failure of our current immigration system. I will accept, for the Minister, that this is a failure of both sides of the House, but I would say that it is deteriorating under the new Government. The issue cuts through with the public because it is so visible. These are not detention centres in specific coastal areas or on the fringes of our towns. They are often hotels at the very heart of our communities throughout the country—north, south, east, west, rich and poor. Constituents can see how their taxes are being misspent and how their borders are being mismanaged, and they mark the state’s homework. Why are we allowing tens of thousands of people to enter this country illegally each year? Why are we entertaining a farcical so-called asylum system benefiting only those who break the law, and lawyers funded by taxpayers?
Datchet is a lovely Thameside village in my constituency, of about 4,000 people. At its heart is an old-fashioned village green with a church, a pub and—unusually for a village that size—a hotel. The hotel is enabled by Windsor castle being less than a mile and a half away. Datchet sits on the north bank of the Thames, and literally just the other side of the river is Home Park, the private area of Windsor castle, where both Their Majesties and Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales live. In November that hotel—the Manor hotel—was reopened at great public expense to 85 “single adult males” who in my view are illegal economic migrants. If they are in such a location as Datchet, a mile from Windsor castle, then they are everywhere.
The Manor hotel is just one of 14 asylum hotels that have opened since the election, evidence of Labour’s broken manifesto pledge to close such hotels. With 220 hotels around the country now being used for such asylum accommodation, I am told that one in three Members of Parliament will be dealing with this problem. That shows just how endemic it is. This reopening was thrust upon my constituents with just 24 hours’ notice. Commandeering hotels at such notice without consultation requires some efficiency. Just imagine if that pace and efficiency could be used to deport these very migrants.
That is to say nothing of the detrimental effect such a change can have on local pride and community cohesion. With 85 adult men in a small village of 4,000 with no warning and no information provided about who they are and where they came from—if any vetting at all has been done—my residents, and the constituents of Members across the House, are right to be concerned. When the hotel was previously open for a public meeting, residents raised numerous concerns about antisocial behaviour associated directly with the hotel, including verbal abuse, public defecation and the photographing of children outside schools. These are the real-life impacts of this effective asylum amnesty.
I have since pressed the Minister in the main Chamber to provide my constituents with a timescale for the ending of the misuse of the Manor hotel, but my question was brushed aside, as many similar questions posed by colleagues on this topic have been.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He touched upon the lack of notice that was given to his constituents, and that is certainly what I have experienced with the Roman Way hotel in my constituency. There is a lack of information forthcoming from the Government. He refers to numbers of 220 hotels—14 of those opened since the election, but that figure had to be forced out of the Government by an urgent question. Does my hon. Friend hope that the Minister will be open about how many hotels have been opened since the general election, the total number and, most importantly, when they are going to be closed?
Jack Rankin
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I am sure the Minister takes note of his questions. My view is that yes, the public simply deserve transparency on this issue. The men individually cannot really be blamed; they are acting, arguably, in their own best interests, but we, collectively, are the fools for putting a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow—we need to remove it.
Ultimately, to stop the use of asylum hotels we need to stop the boats, and there is only one way to do that—deterrent, deterrent, deterrent. Nobody who comes to this country illegally should be able to claim asylum. France is a safe country. They should be arrested immediately and deported within days to their country of origin or a safe third country. With the correct political will, it really is as simple as that, but Labour scrapped the deterrent before it could even begin.
Instead we have an incentive system that, at every step, encourages illegal economic migrants to chance their arm. For example, smuggling gangs know that they can equip migrants with unseaworthy vessels because they know they will be picked up by the British authorities before they sink. Migrants know that once they land, armies of lawyers and campaign groups will fight to keep them here while they are housed in hotels and given an allowance for the trouble. The latest data shows that a staggering 66% of those arriving on small boats are granted asylum. We have a system that works against the interests of the British people.
The Labour Government say they want to smash the gangs and end the backlog by recruiting caseworkers, but without deterrents those commitments are meaningless—the flow will continue. The Minister admitted—in my view—the futility of smashing the gangs when she described it as playing whack-a-mole. The Conservatives spent years trying to do the same, and although we made progress on cutting crossings from Albania—note, with deportation—the wider problem remained. Repeating the same exercise and expecting a different result is madness.
While the initial cost of housing is funded nationally, when that asylum is granted that cost—in my understanding—falls on the local authority. Could it not be the case that the extra caseworkers provided by the Government will simply be rubber-stamping asylum claims to cut the backlog, but then simply transferring the cost to another one of the taxpayer’s pockets through social housing benefits and the welfare state? Increased processing simply means more asylum cases granted, and pushed and smeared into the welfare state. One of my local councils, the Lib Dem-run royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, has recently asked to increase council tax by 25%; how can it be expected to find extra resource for 85 illegal economic migrants entering our welfare system?
In the main Chamber, the Minister celebrated processing 11,000 decisions a month. The approval rate last year was 52%, which could mean as many as 66,000 illegal economic migrants granted asylum and entering our welfare system every year.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a local councillor. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we have more people processing these claims, and we process these claims even quicker, more people will come? That is actually a pull factor, because they can get through the system much more quickly than they have been.
Jack Rankin
I agree wholeheartedly, and that is why I have broadened my remarks. To talk about cutting the backlog is not of interest to me, if that simply means processing people into the welfare system. That is getting a number down artificially. We need to stop people entering the top of the funnel, as it just becomes a problem elsewhere.
In 2010, the approval rate for asylum cases was 26%—so we have seen an unprecedented rise in the acceptance of these cases. I will also note that in 2010, hotels right across this country, including in my constituency, were used to house tourists rather than asylum shoppers. I appreciate that the Minister has provided a March target for closing nine hotels, but with 23,000 individuals crossing on small boats since the Government were elected—up 29% on the previous year—where will those new arrivals go? We will have to wait for the summer, when small boat crossings are at their highest, to truly measure any progress.
Whilst I am sure we would all welcome the closure of asylum hotels in our constituencies, I am concerned that the Government are simply transferring this problem to other parts of the state, and that also hides the issue from the public and fails to tackle the root cause. At my most recent surgery, a constituent told me that her son was being served notice by her private landlord because the local authority was able to offer landlords much more for private rented accommodation to house illegal economic migrants who have just been processed. They are simply being passed into the welfare system and a taxpayer is being displaced, with the housing benefit being provided to a foreign citizen. That is a truly stark warning. It is my fear that the Government’s current proposals in this area, including extra caseworkers, are a surface-level solution to a deeper underlying problem.
I ask the Minister to address the concerns outlined in my speech, including by providing the latest update on the closure of hotels, particularly the Manor hotel in Datchet, her plans for bringing in deterrence, and an update on the impact of approving hundreds of thousands of claims on the welfare state up and down the land.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. My comments today need to be viewed in the context of my interest as a local councillor.
My constituents in Broxbourne have borne the brunt of this policy in recent years. I hear loud and clear on the doorstep how angry they feel. The Home Office took control of the Marriott hotel in Cheshunt in 2022. It was just one of three hotels in my constituency at the time. In my general election campaign, I said I would fight daily to ensure that the hotel was closed to asylum seekers; and when I was leader of Broxbourne council, I fought tooth and nail to prevent another two sites within my constituency being used as asylum accommodation. The hotel in Cheshunt has since supported one of the highest numbers of asylum seekers in the east of England, while Hertfordshire as a whole was the individual council with the most hotels housing asylum seekers in 2023.
The situation we are discussing is plainly unsustainable, with millions of pounds a day being spent on these hotels across the country. My constituents have been feeling the impact on already overstretched public services. You cannot get your child into the school you want and you have to wait longer to see a GP locally.
I welcomed the actions that the last Government took to reduce reliance on asylum hotels, but there is no getting around the fact that my party made mistakes. However, it is definitely getting worse under this new Labour Government. Ultimately, it is only by deterring people from coming to the UK illegally in the first place that we will be able to get a grip on the asylum system and the immigration system. The Labour manifesto promised to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers, but the Government have been more focused on delivering promises that were not in their manifesto: increasing national insurance on business, imposing the family farm tax and stripping winter fuel payments from pensioners.
I am seriously disappointed that, in January 2025, we are discussing the reopening of hotels for asylum seeker accommodation. There were 35,651 people in hotel accommodation at the end of September, up 21% from the end of June 2024. That is a 21% increase since Labour was elected on a manifesto commitment to end the use of asylum hotels. The downward trend that was started by the last Government has been reversed, and since the general election, 14 more hotels have been taken over for the purpose. Hotels were supposed to be a temporary measure, but they are starting to feel anything but temporary to my residents in Broxbourne. The Minister has said that nine hotels are scheduled to close by March, but I have my doubts that the Government will meet that commitment.
The Government have failed to take the necessary steps to deter the number of asylum seekers coming to this country illegally in the first place. Small boat crossings are up since July, and so are the number of cases awaiting a decision in the asylum backlog. I urge the Minister to put the words “smash the gangs” into action by getting a proper deterrent in place, ensuring that every failed asylum seeker is removed, closing all the asylum hotels and significantly cutting immigration.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I should have said before the previous speaker that if Members wish to speak, they need to bob.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing this important debate.
Illegal migration, an often overlooked issue in the country, was frequently raised on the doorsteps of Mid Leicestershire during the recent general election campaign. I am sorry to say that the last Conservative Government failed to make significant progress in this area, but as the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech last week, the dreadful Labour Government are doubling down on the mistakes of the past. At the general election, the Labour party promised to smash the gangs and reduce the number of hotels used as asylum accommodation. Let me ask the Minister, how is that going?
The vile gangs profiteering from the exploitation of vulnerable people remain firmly in operation, the camps in Calais are still run by criminal networks and hundreds of illegal migrants are crossing the English channel daily, all while the UK Government seem to be sitting idly by and doing very little about it. Instead of reducing the use of hotels for asylum seekers, the Government have actually increased their number. Communities are forced to accept those hotels with little to no consultation, creating significant community tensions and leaving local authorities to foot an enormous bill. Astonishingly, the Government have compounded the already dire situation, so let us look at the numbers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) said a moment ago.
Since 5 July, nearly 20,000 people have crossed the English channel, which is a 23% increase on the same period in 2023. For a Government that pledged to smash the gangs, those figures are nothing short of an abject failure. Indeed, the National Crime Agency has said that without a deterrent, the numbers are likely to rise.
Under the Labour Government, 220 hotels across the UK are now being used for asylum seeker accommodation. Without seeking to pre-empt the Minister’s response, I suspect that she will tell us that the Government are likely to reduce that number by the end of March. How can my constituents trust the Government? Migrant numbers are rising and the Government have no credible plan beyond the slogan to “smash the gangs”. The costs keep going up: the taxpayer is now footing a £3.1 billion bill to house 35,000 illegal migrants. That is a slap in the face to the millions of pensioners who recently lost their winter fuel payments.
Within Mid Leicestershire, two of the three boroughs that straddle my constituency have more than 245 illegal migrants housed there. Those migrants are costing the hard-pressed taxpayers of my constituency £35,000 a day—more than £12 million a year. The impact on the local economy is equally damaging, because hotels that once supported our villages and brought in tourism revenue are now closed to the public. Local jobs have been lost and, worst of all, communities feel deceived and disempowered by the Home Office’s lack of transparency.
The Minister will no doubt attempt to shift the blame to other parties, but let us be clear: the situation has worsened under the Labour Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, has said, we need to have a serious conversation about the UK’s continued membership of the ECHR. Leaving the ECHR would give us the tools to take back control of our borders and challenge the influence of left-wing activist lawyers who undermine efforts to enforce robust immigration measures.
Deterrence works. Australia has proven that with its own deportation schemes, which dramatically reduced illegal migration. Laughably, even Germany is now using the framework established in the Rwanda scheme developed by the last Government, yet our Government clearly lack the political will to follow in the footsteps of those successes. The Government have also decided to double the length of time that asylum seekers can stay in hotels from 28 to 56 days. That single policy change adds £4,000 to the bill of accommodating each migrant, and it must be reversed, particularly if the Government hope to close more hotels. My constituents in Mid Leicestershire should be under no illusion that this dreadful Government are making things worse. They have no plan, they have no credibility and they have no commitment to solving this spiralling crisis. It is time for action.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on securing this important debate. As a Conservative, I firmly believe that people who enter our country illegally have no right to stay here. We need to have strong borders, we need an effective deterrent to stop people making what is often a perilous journey, and the Government must take all possible steps to drive down numbers of illegal crossings.
I am not going to repeat all the numbers that have been cited, because I think people, in this House or in the country at large, are aware of the scale of the issue. We have seen numbers go up as a direct result of the Government’s decision to scrap the Rwanda deterrent and repeal the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which prevented those who came to the UK from claiming asylum. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor that more than 60% of them are granted asylum and leave to remain. That increase in the numbers means that Labour has increased the number of hotels open since the election—I think the number cited was 14.
Communities across the country, including mine in Bromsgrove, have a legitimate fear that hotels are going to emerge in their area, where people have not previously seen the benefits of such accommodation being used to house illegal migrants pending the processing of their applications. The reopening of such hotels is a political choice by the Government—they chose to do that; they did not have to. They could have chosen to use alternative accommodation sites, including military barracks or the Bibby Stockholm barge. They also chose to repeal tough legislation to protect our borders.
Bromsgrove has hosted asylum hotels in the recent past. Fortunately, it does not at the moment, but there have been three instances in recent years.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Constituents in South East Cornwall have expressed concern about the use of a hotel in the Fowey valley. Does the hon. Member agree that it is essential for asylum seekers to be housed appropriately where facilities are available and where infrastructure exists to avoid undue strain on local communities?
Bradley Thomas
I agree with the hon. Lady’s point about the appropriateness of the location. We all recognise that hotels are often based in rural areas or in an economy without any relevant services nearby, which is wholly inappropriate.
To return to the broader question of the Government’s approach to dealing with illegal migration, I am grateful that, in Bromsgrove, every one of the unsuitable sites that was previously used is no longer in use. There is a more fundamental point, however, about fairness to the UK taxpayer.
Successive Governments have tended to view people as an economic unit, but they cherry-pick the category of person they define either as a net economic contributor or as a draw on the economy. Students, for instance, go through university and accrue student debt, which is a debt to society that will be repaid after graduation when they are net economic contributors. When illegal migrants arrive in the UK, however, a financial accrual starts ticking that includes everything to do with the cost to the state of processing applications, the cost of hotel accommodation and the cost to the UK taxpayer of giving them an allowance to spend while they are out and about in the communities where they are residing.
On the point about fairness, that does not feel equitable to many of my constituents and, I am sure, many constituents across the country. It strikes me as perverse that students accrue debt while they are at university and, when they become economic contributors, that is drawn down through the PAYE—pay-as-you-earn—system from their earnings, yet we allow a seemingly bottomless pit of funds to accrue as a debt to be absorbed by the UK taxpayer. Why do the Government not explore a scheme whereby, if asylum seekers are deemed to be genuinely in fear and are allowed to integrate and remain in the UK, they repay their debt when they become economic contributors and are active in the workplace? It could be a tiered, sliding scale that recognises the cost that the UK taxpayer is expected to shoulder for people fleeing from a state of alleged persecution.
We must significantly redress the balance in favour of the UK taxpayer. I speak to numerous constituents who are concerned about the extent of the debt that the state is accruing. We have heard about increasing dependency on welfare, and countries across the west already face a demographic time bomb and a demographic twilight as populations age and burdens on the state grow. We in the west do not have enough of a pipeline of economic talent coming in at the bottom end, so we already face what we could call a time bomb of indigenous welfare dependency, exacerbated by the additional costs of processing illegal migrants on ludicrous timescales that the general public laugh at. Frankly, they feel short-changed by the efforts of—I will be quite honest—successive Governments, who have failed to get a grip on the situation.
In short, we desperately need to redress the balance. We cannot be in denial about the extent of the cost to the British state. Any migrant who comes to the UK and is able and willing to make an economic contribution will almost certainly always be welcome—we have dozens of potential growth industries that our economy desperately needs to support—but this is about getting the balance right. If the Government choose to view people as economic units, the interests of the UK taxpayer must be first and foremost. We cannot view UK taxpayers as just being there to shoulder a bill and disregard their concerns for their communities, while the Government at the same time choose to consider asylum seekers for more than just their economic value.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Order. I will call the hon. Gentleman, although he has not bobbed throughout the debate despite the fact that I said that was the appropriate thing to do. With the exception of the Minister, the shadow Minister, myself and Sir Gavin, we are all new Members here, so it is important to respect the conventions and courtesies.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
Thank you very much, Sir John, and apologies for not bobbing appropriately. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
Our message to the world has to be this: if you come here illegally, you will be deported. Not housed in luxury accommodation, fed and cared for at the taxpayer’s expense; deported. Not allowed to roam the streets entirely unchecked, with no limits; deported. Not free to apply for asylum under whatever lie the Home Office is buying this week; deported.
Removing those with no right to be here is not cruel; it is not heartless; it is necessary. Language matters, and these men are not desperate asylum seekers; they are not irregular migrants—they are illegal migrants, and they should be treated as such. Spreading them across the country into unsuspecting communities is pure insanity. Members should ask themselves honestly: if a hotel at the bottom of their road was suddenly filled overnight with young foreign males who had entered the country almost entirely unchecked, would they be happy for their teenage daughter to go out after dark? The answer is no.
Anna Gelderd
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that women across the country face very difficult situations walking home at night, and that often the tone of debate is incredibly important to maintain our safety in all situations?
Rupert Lowe
I do not think the tone of the debate is in any way relevant. What is relevant is what the Government do to protect the interests of the British people.
The answer to the question I asked is no, and if Members disagree they are even more deluded than the Home Office. When I try to explore the actual cost of these hotels and the surrounding healthcare, travel, translation, recreational activities and more, I am denied vast swathes of information by the Home Office. It is a cover-up. It says that it does not pay for x or y, but that is because it is all subcontracted out on billion-pound contracts spread over 10 years. The list of further subcontractors on those contracts is fully redacted. Why might that be? Again, it is a blatant cover-up. Let me be abundantly clear: the full cost of these hotels is being concealed from the British public. I am doing everything in my power to uncover the truth.
Locals are not even informed about what has happened in their town. I asked the Home Office to develop a consultation process with residents before a hotel is hijacked. It refused and reminded me of its obligation to care for illegal migrants. What about the safety and needs of taxpaying local residents?
Hotels are being filled with young men in close proximity to girls’ schools. Does anyone here find that acceptable? I have pushed the Government to undertake a review of the impact on British women and girls of crime emanating from these hotels. Again, they refused. Who is the Home Office actually serving? Sadly, I have little doubt that far more crime is being committed by illegal migrants than we are being told.
I have raised the matter time and again with the Government. Nobody seems to care. There are roughly 30,000 illegal migrants in hotels around the country. As we know, the vast majority are young males, many from cultures that do not respect women. That is not racist, far right or whatever else; it is a reality, and one we must start to deal with.
Secure detention is required, not open hotels. If the facilities do not exist, build them. If we get serious on deportations, they will not be necessary for long. Send the following message and the boats will stop: “If you come to the UK illegally, you won’t be met with luxury accommodation. What will the British Government do to you? Two words: detain and deport.” That is the only way.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the important issue of reopening hotels to accommodate asylum seekers. Despite repeated ministerial promises, we continue to see the result of a broken system—a system that has caused immense hardship for asylum seekers and communities and has placed a significant burden on taxpayers.
Let us be clear that this debate arises only because of successive Conservative Governments having failed to deal efficiently with the growing backlog of asylum claims. According to the Migration Observatory, the number of outstanding asylum applications under the Conservatives soared from 27,000 in 2018 to 132,000 by 2022. As of September 2024, Home Office data indicates that over 97,000 cases involving 133,000 individuals still await an initial decision, with a further 127,000 in the appeals and removal process. Despite repeated assurances, most claimants still wait beyond six months for any clarity on their status. During that process, asylum seekers are trapped, unable to work, unable to integrate and forced to depend on Government funds.
The reliance on contingency accommodation, whether in the form of hotels, barges or former military barracks, is an expensive sticking plaster to cover a deeper wound. It provides neither dignity for asylum seekers nor value for money for the taxpayer. We have heard Ministers assert that these hotels are only a short-term measure, yet Home Office figures show that there were over 35,000 individuals in hotel accommodation as of September 2024. Successive Governments have spoken of reducing dependency on this provision, yet the number of people in hotels remains persistently high. Worse still, the backlog remains alarmingly large and we are left grappling with new, reactive announcements rather than a cohesive plan.
The situation benefits no one. The fundamental problem is the time it takes to make decisions on asylum claims, coupled with the ban on working. It is the worst of both worlds: forced inactivity for those seeking safety and to pay their fair share, and an unnecessary bill for the public purse. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research estimates that granting the right to work would generate £1.3 billion in additional tax revenue and would reduce expenditure by as much as £6.7 billion each year. We could address the backlog more effectively and reduce the public cost if we ended the rigid prohibition on work, yet time and again Governments have resisted such a solution.
The Liberal Democrats have advocated a clear, sensible plan. First, we propose creating a dedicated, well-resourced processing unit that is separate from the Home Office, with a singular mission of resolving cases quickly. Secondly, we propose reinstating a six-month service standard so that claimants receive an initial decision quickly. Finally, we would grant asylum seekers the right to work after a set period, allowing them to pay their fair share instead of languishing in costly Government-funded accommodation or on street corners.
As we consider whether to reopen asylum hotels for asylum seekers, we must remember that no one genuinely wants this. Asylum seekers deserve dignified conditions, local communities deserve to feel safe from people loitering with nothing to do and taxpayers deserve an end to the wasteful spending brought on by Government’s incompetence. I urge colleagues from all sides of the House to support practical reforms as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which will finally clear the asylum backlog, end the expensive overreliance on temporary accommodation, such as asylum hotels, and allow those who are seeking refuge to stand on their own feet and contribute to society.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I would like to call the Minister at 5.53 pm, which will give her 10 minutes.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Thank you, Sir John, for chairing your third debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for proposing this discussion on an important issue for many MPs and their constituents across the country.
If we need to provide accommodation for those who arrive in the UK seeking asylum, it is critical that we do all we can to ensure that that accommodation is cost-effective and does not unduly burden our communities. Unfortunately, we know all too well that hotel accommodation for asylum seekers fails to meet either of those criteria. Despite the disagreements that have been expressed today, this is an issue on which all Members of the House can and should agree.
As the Minister is aware, significant steps were taken by the last Government to reduce the number of people housed in hotel accommodation, which went from a peak of 56,042 in September 2023 to 29,585 at the end of June 2024. That is a 47% decrease. That was accompanied by the closure of many hotels from their peak number. It was therefore welcome to see this Government’s manifesto promise to close asylum hotels entirely. The pledge was clear: the Government would “end asylum hotels”. That is a goal that we all hope they will achieve, as it would undoubtedly benefit communities across the country.
The unfortunate reality, however, is that since this Government took power, we have gone in the opposite direction. Official Home Office statistics show that as of 30 September, 35,651 people were in hotel accommodation, an increase of 21% since the general election. Instead of hotels being closed, we have seen the contrary: the Minister informed the House last week that there has been a net increase of six hotels since the election. We have heard from MPs that announcements about new hotels are often made with little notice, leaving minimal time to prepare and a lack of clarity. Although the Government should undoubtedly improve that process, surely the most impactful approach would be to reduce the reliance on hotel accommodation altogether.
Sometimes it is too easy to focus on statistics. Although they provide an important part of the picture, it is through speaking to residents that we hear about the very real consequences for communities. In November, Councillor Nathan Evans invited me to visit Altrincham to see the huge impact of such a hotel on his community. I spoke to residents, business owners and the local chamber of commerce about the direct and indirect effects of Labour’s decisions. They emphasised the need for safety, security and clear communication. Those were reasonable requests that they felt had fallen on deaf ears at both the Home Office and the local authority.
As well as the concerns about security, there was a very evident impact on the local economy. In Altrincham, the loss of nearly 300 hotel places in the local hospitality sector was huge. Families who had worked day and night for years to create incredible small businesses, operating in an already challenging environment, now had to deal with another huge and unpredicted blow to their footfall. I suggest that the Minister considers visiting Altrincham, not only to see some incredible small businesses with a unique offering, but to see the impact of the decisions she makes.
Too often, places like Altrincham receive information at the last minute, leaving them unable to prepare and taken aback by the sudden loss of normal business generated by these hotels. That lack of warning undermines trust and further fosters animosity towards the system. I understand that this is a complex issue, but will the Minister consider the suggestion that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), made in November: that greater notice be given to MPs before a hotel opens in their constituency? I also ask the Minister how sites are chosen and what consideration is given to proximity to local schools, care homes and centres for the vulnerable, as well as the impact on the local business community.
I recognise that the Minister and other hon. Members will point out that the number of people housed in hotels was too high under the last Government. They are correct, and my party does not shy away from that fact. The Leader of the Opposition has been clear that mistakes were made regarding immigration. Nevertheless, the last Government were taking steps to rectify these issues by closing hotels and attempting to halt illegal immigration. Since the election, however, we have seen increases both in contingency accommodation and in dispersal accommodation.
Ultimately, the Minister, like the rest of us, knows the root cause of the problem: the illegal and dangerous channel crossings. As of 19 January, 24,132 people had crossed the channel in small boats since the election, a 30% increase on the same period in 2023-24. What is more, the number of those being deported is actually going down.
We need a deterrent. If people arrive here illegally, they should not be allowed to stay. Until that is the case, they will continue to arrive in ever increasing numbers. Despite pledges to “smash the gangs”, it appears that the gangs remain active and evasive. This behaviour underscores the importance of deterrence, as highlighted by the National Crime Agency and reportedly by the head of the Government’s Border Security Command.
Policing alone is insufficient. The rise in small boat crossings illustrates that scrapping the UK’s deterrent policy before it had even started was a short-sighted decision; in fact, it was a decision of national self-harm. The deterrent approach has been successfully implemented in other countries such as Australia, which managed to resolve similar issues through decisive action. We have even seen it working here in the UK, with the Albania returns agreement reducing arrivals by more than 90%. Given the increasing numbers and the failure to reduce small boat crossings into this country, will the Government reconsider whether their approach to illegal migration has been effective thus far?
On costs, the Government’s policy is to expedite asylum decisions. Consequently, the costs associated with accepted migrants risk being obscured within the welfare system. The Home Office has previously acknowledged that it has no estimate of the potential cost of benefit claims and council-housing bills for those individuals. Will the Minister commit to recording and publishing the costs for migrants whose asylum claims are accepted?
I know that the Minister has previously stated that hotels are a temporary measure, not a solution. While she may be well intentioned, the continuing small boat crossings suggest that the need for contingency accommodation is unlikely to subside without decisive action. Can the Minister therefore explain whether there is a contingency plan should small boat crossings persist? Additionally, will the Government ensure that every possible policy option is explored to reduce the number of people in hotel accommodation in a cost-effective manner?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I call the Minister of State for Border Security and Asylum. Minister, I hope that you might finish at 6.03 pm to allow the hon. Member for Windsor to say a few words at the end.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Having sat in the Westminster Hall Chair many a time, I can report that in this Parliament it seems to be much warmer in this room. It used to be freezing, but perhaps my complaints about the heating when I was in the Chair have had a positive effect in this Parliament—for the comfort of us all, I hope.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on securing it and thank all Members who have contributed.
I remind hon. Members of the strained asylum system that this Government inherited. Listening to all the contributions, I had to pinch myself and think about the reality: we had 14 years in opposition; we have had six months, getting on for perhaps seven, in government—yet everything is somehow our fault. There was a slight nod in some of the contributions, including those of the hon. Members for Windsor and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), towards the mistakes that were made in the running of the asylum system during the past 14 years. Mistakes certainly were made, and they leave legacies: messes to clear up and difficult things to do.
We inherited a system with massive backlogs. There was an attempt to introduce a completely different system, the so-called Rwanda deterrent and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which distracted the Government from the day job, as I have called it. Because of the design of the Illegal Migration Act, we also had a huge build-up of those who had arrived in the system from March 2023, when the switch was meant to be being arranged. They were put in hotels with absolutely nowhere to go, with no prospect of having their claims looked at and awaiting a theoretical trip to Rwanda. No trip ever happened.
To those who say that the Rwanda scheme was a deterrent, I gently point out that from when it was first announced in the Bill to when it was scrapped, 84,000 people crossed the channel in small boats. If that is a deterrent, it is a very peculiar one. Deterrence is difficult to achieve when people are desperate. We have to look to see whether that worked, and I do not think it did. It led to a huge build-up. The hon. Member for Stockton West hinted at that when he pointed out that the previous Government had more than 400 hotels open at one point. That was because of the build-up in the old system and the build-up in the new system. In the old system, people were in huge queues. With the new system, the previous Government’s idea was that they would not even process any of them: they would just hold them in hotels until the new system was up and running. In essence there were two backlogs.
The previous Government then decided that they would make a massive attempt to clear what they called the legacy backlog: the people who arrived before the Rwanda scheme was designed and announced. They did that for first asylum decisions in 2023. Those who were granted asylum left the system, and many ended up homeless, but those who were not granted asylum appealed. Those who were not granted asylum in that gallop to deal with the legacy backlog are still in the appeals system. The number of people in the appeals system doubled as a result of the previous Government’s work on the legacy backlog. We then had the legacy backlog dealt with at first hearing, with half of those cases going into the appeals system, and a growing number of asylum seekers who had arrived after March 2023, with no prospect of being dealt with at all, just filling hotels. That is why the previous Government had more than 400 hotels.
We can disagree about whether the Rwanda scheme would have worked. Personally, I do not think it was a deterrent—that so many people crossed the channel while it was in prospect demonstrates that it was not a deterrent. It also cost a great deal of money: the National Audit Office said that the payments the Government agreed to make to people who were going to be deported to Rwanda amounted to around £156,000 per person over five years. In theory, they were going to deport 250 people a week. I do not think that was realistic or that it was ever going to be deliverable. Opposition Members are entitled to a different view, but the view of the Government is that the scheme was not going to work.
We are dealing with an issue with no easy answers. There are international agreements that we have signed up to, including the refugee conventions that give protection to people who are fleeing danger and were put into place after the second world war. We are now in an era where we have more people on the move because of events around the world than we have had since the second world war, which has put pressure on the asylum systems of all countries.
There are asylum seekers and there are economic migrants. When listening to the hon. Member for Windsor’s contribution, I was a bit distressed that he did not distinguish between the two; he seemed to think that everyone who arrives is automatically an economic migrant who ought to be deported. That is his view, but it is not the view of the law. The previous Government, under his party, had a system that tried to see whether people who were claiming asylum were actually asylum seekers or were failed asylum seekers—there is a difference.
Lewis Cocking
Will the Minister outline her Government’s policy and what she is going to do? She has given us a history lesson on what has happened, but what are the Labour Government going to do moving forward? Can she give us a date for when they are going to meet their manifesto commitment to close the last asylum hotel?
Dame Angela Eagle
I am happy to go on to what we are doing, but the legacy that one inherits is important and has to be taken into account when thinking about how we deliver for the future. We said that the Rwanda scheme was not going to work and that we would restart asylum processing. We also said we were going to set up the Border Security Command, which has been done. Opposition Members will know that there is legislation pending on border security and asylum, which hopefully will come before the House in the not-too-distant future. It has taken shape, but it is going through various processes to get agreement on when we can publish and introduce it.
Given the concern of Members in this Chamber, I hope they will attempt to engage positively with the new Bill when it is published, so that we can get the Border Security Command up and running as quickly as possible with the correct powers, including counter-terrorism powers. That will allow us to take more effective action to start dismantling and disrupting the activities of the smuggler gangs. In the last few years we have seen them be allowed to grow across the channel, becoming increasingly sophisticated and industrialising their processes. I hope all Members will agree that we have a duty to take action. We want to restore order to the asylum system so that it operates compassionately and efficiently. That will enable us to exit hotels and bring down the cost of the asylum system by billions of pounds.
Let me address the motion specifically. The strain on the system has necessitated the continued use of hotels in the medium term to enable the Home Office to deliver its statutory responsibilities to house asylum seekers while their claims are looked at. Of course, the more efficiently and effectively we can look at the claims, the less trouble we will have trying to house people—as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said. I disagree with her comments about the right to work. There are legal ways of trying to get into this country with a right to work that are processed through the visa system. We cannot have people getting around that by coming illegally and then having the right to work. That would be a huge pull factor that we simply do not want to countenance. She and I will disagree about it, but that is the Government’s view.
Since the general election, nine hotels have closed. Fifteen hotels were opened temporarily, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Windsor for the speed with which that had to be done. It is not ideal and I would not want to be in that position again. I have asked Home Office officials to be more open and transparent, as far ahead of time as possible, to try to give warning. We do not want any nasty surprises, but the hon. Gentleman had one. I have apologised for that—
Dame Angela Eagle
I will be happy to, but let me finish apologising. I apologised to the hon. Member for Windsor in my response to the letter he sent me. It was not an ideal situation and it is not one we want to get into again.
Matt Vickers
What would the Minister say is a sensible period of notice that she would like the Home Office to give before migrants arrive in a hotel?
Dame Angela Eagle
We do not want to get into that situation, because we want to go down rather than up, but I would want notice of significant changes to be “as much as possible” because, sometimes, operational things occur. A hotel site can be lost—for example, we lost one in Manchester during the floods. Unexpected things can happen that have certain implications, so I will say it is as much notice as possible.
Dame Angela Eagle
Yes, as much as possible and, I hope, more in advance than we managed during the openings that I talked about.
Since the general election, nine hotels have closed. There were 15 opened temporarily—which is what this debate is really about—and nine are scheduled for closure by the end of March 2025. I certainly hope that, as we look for more dispersed accommodation and a more effective, faster system, we will get to the stage where we do not have to open any more. I cannot give the hon. Member for Windsor any date when the hotel in his constituency might close but I am working to close all such hotels. As I have said on the record, the use of hotels is undesirable and is not value for money. It is unsustainable in the long term and we want to get away from it.
Given that it is 6.03 pm, I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor on securing the debate. I am happy to stay in touch with him about what is happening with the hotel in his constituency.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Please finish just before 6.05 pm, to leave time for me to put the Question.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I thank everybody who has contributed to this crucial debate. I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson); my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford); and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). I thank the hon. Members for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for taking part, even though I did not necessarily agree with their contributions.
The Minister is right to say that the Conservative party failed in this policy area and that she has a mess to clean up, but she is wrong about the reason for that mess. She seemed to suggest that the Rwanda deterrent distracted from the day job, which she seems to think is processing all these people. I do not think that is the problem. We want to stop the people coming. The reason why the Rwanda deterrent failed is because there was never enough political will behind the Conservative Government for them to do everything that was necessary to make the deterrent work, notwithstanding the provisions on human rights and the international accords that the Minister mentioned. I thank her for her pledge to continue to close the nine hotels by March, and for her apology. I welcome her comment that she will keep us all informed on which specific hotels are to close.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of re-opening hotels for asylum seeker accommodation.