Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office

Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

Phil Brickell Excerpts
Monday 20th October 2025

(1 day, 20 hours ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read 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

Luke Charters Portrait Mr Charters
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Let me just finish. At its worst under the Tories, the system cost the taxpayer £9 million a day, which has already been cut to £5.5 million a day. That is not a gimmick; it is delivery.

Let me talk about the scandal of profiteering, however, because the public are paying the price while private hotel companies and contractors profit. I will be blunt: £180 million in profit was made by one hotel company where toilet roll was rationed, asylum seekers were fed inedible expired food, and families and children lived with cockroaches, rodents, damp and mould. That is absolutely disgusting—it is a disgrace, frankly, that under the last Government taxpayer money was funding such hotels. It is absolutely right that we work to close them by 2029.

Phil Brickell Portrait Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the number of asylum seeker hotels being reduced from 400 to roughly 200 in the last two years, and an important point about profit making. Does he agree that firms such as Serco have an obligation to be accountable, transparent and responsive to elected Members who are seeking not only to obtain information on behalf of their constituents but to ensure that people placed in dispersal accommodation are kept safe? In my experience, such firms are not responsive or transparent in the way that they should be.

Luke Charters Portrait Mr Charters
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that companies should be transparent about those things, not only on a contractual basis with the Government but on a moral basis. We are a country of great compassion, and where contractors are profiteering from asylum accommodation for children, they have to learn to embody the value of compassion that we have in this great country.

Many charities have raised the issue of children living in such terrible conditions. Let me say, as a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, that the situation also represents terrible value for money for the taxpayer. The National Audit Office found that since 2019, the three main accommodation providers have made nearly £400 million from asylum contracts—they are profiting from those terrible conditions. That is not who we are; it is not what Britain should ever stand for.

That is why I am proud that the Government are committing to making that stop, and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is going to fix it. Through the Government’s new dispersal strategy, we will see those hotels being closed, and much more suitable dispersal accommodation for asylum-seeking children and their families will be made available.

I must come on to Reform UK, which shouts from the sidelines. We have not yet heard from the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) about the few ideas that Reform is proposing, but perhaps she will address one issue in her speech. When we interrogate Reform UK’s plans, we find that they talk about using the British overseas territories. As someone who has visited the Falklands and other overseas territories, I find that suggestion deeply troubling and unrealistic. When she rises to speak, hopefully she will give some assurance that Reform UK will rule out using the Falkland Islands in its asylum plans.

Reform UK proposes to deport 600,000 people over five years and to abolish indefinite leave to remain. Sadly, I believe that the latter idea is currying favour on the Opposition Benches, but the idea of abolishing ILR and tearing families apart is not policy; it is performative cruelty. Those proposals are fantasies that would rip this country apart, as the Prime Minister has rightly said.

We are a country proud of its compassion towards refugee children through the ages. Britain’s tradition of welcoming and protecting refugees is deeply rooted in our history, from sheltering Belgian refugees in world war one to rescuing Jewish children through the Kindertransport and supporting Hungarians escaping Soviet oppression. More recently, in modern times, we have stood with Ukrainians fleeing war, through bespoke visa schemes. That commitment embodies the very best of British values, reflecting our openness and humanity in times of crisis.

Among those who found safety here was Freddie Mercury, a refugee from Zanzibar whose extraordinary talent transformed global music. Britain has also welcomed figures such as Lord Alf Dubs, a Kindertransport child who became a prominent MP in this place; Dua Lipa, whose family fled conflict in the Balkans; Nobel laureate Sigmund Freud, whose ideas changed the world, and so many others.

We are a tolerant and inclusive country that welcomes refugee families who are genuinely fleeing war and trauma, but we cannot go on as we are. There is a compassionate and progressive reason why hotels must be closed, so we must look with urgency to more suitable solutions, particularly for asylum-seeking children.

We are closing the hotels, not with slogans but with common sense and a serious plan that is grounded in compassion. We are overhauling the appeals system and introducing a new independent body with trained adjudicators, to cut the waiting times back from 54 weeks to a statutory 24 weeks. We are reducing the asylum backlog, and we are committing, of course, to ending asylum hotels by 2029.

People are frustrated. My constituents are frustrated. I get it. They should be angry about the reprehensible conditions that so many children are being forced to live in. We must ensure that there is suitable accommodation for asylum-seeking families with children. We are a kind, decent and compassionate country that wants to look after people who genuinely need help, but we do not want to line the pockets of hotel companies and other contractors in doing so when the conditions are unfair. We are closing the hotels, with a serious plan. This is who we are. This is what Britain stands for.