The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Wednesday 29 October.
“The use of hotels to house asylum seekers is a disgrace. As Members on both sides of the House know, it is a practice that became widespread long before this Government entered office, and it is one of the clearest indicators of the shambles that we inherited last summer. People across the country are frustrated, if not furious. We wholeheartedly agree, and that is why since the general election we have been working to address the chronic issues in the asylum system that have been allowed to build up over several years. At their peak under the previous Government, there were 400 hotels in use; now, the number is around 200. That reduction has been achieved despite what the Home Affairs Select Committee has called a ‘dramatic increase in demand’. Under this Government, decisions on asylum applications are up, as are asylum-related returns, while system costs are down.
However, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made clear, we must go further and faster. That means moving at pace to fulfil the Government’s commitment to close every asylum hotel. Work to facilitate this exit is ongoing, and the asylum accommodation task force is working across government to deliver alternative asylum accommodation. I can confirm to the House that plans are under way for the temporary use of Ministry of Defence sites at Cameron barracks in Inverness and at Crowborough training camp in East Sussex for the purpose of asylum accommodation. Under the plans, a total of around 900 people will be housed across both sites.
Those two sites are among a number of options that we are looking at as we seek to alleviate the pressure on the system and drive down hotel use, and while this is a complex and fast-moving operating environment, there is a strong understanding within the Home Office of the importance of local engagement. My officials have been engaging directly and regularly in advance of this announcement with the Scottish Government, the relevant councils and local service providers, and will continue to do so. Whatever decisions are made regarding specific locations, we are clear that the impact on communities must be minimised. The safety and security of people living and working in the surrounding areas is paramount.
A crisis of the scale we were left with was always going to take time to correct, but we know that the British people are impatient for change, as are we. This Government will do whatever it takes to end hotel use, fix the broken asylum system, and secure our borders”.
My Lords, both military sites proposed to house asylum seekers have significant local consequences. Cameron barracks in Inverness is close to the city centre, and local communities there are rightly concerned about the lack of consultation with them about such a major proposal. Crowborough army training camp in East Sussex is used by a large number of cadet forces, who will now be deprived of its use. Of course, if the Government truly wanted to clear the asylum backlog and close more asylum hotels, they would ban asylum claims from migrants entering the country illegally and deport them. Can the Minister say why the Government would prefer to move asylum seekers to sensitive sites—which have just as large an impact on local communities—rather than take real action to solve the problem?
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his question. The local authorities in both areas were informed two weeks ago, and we are continuing to ensure that we discuss the arrangements to date with the police, the National Health Service and local councils in each area. The Government are trying to do what I hope the noble Lord wishes the Government to do, which is to put a deterrent in place. The individuals who will be going to these sites in a phased, operational way, over a period of time, will have arrived, been processed and been put into those sites pending asylum decisions being taken. That is a real deterrent to people: it is not about going to a hotel or into the community—they are going to a very firm site where action can be taken. It is our ambition to reduce the number of hotels, and we have reduced the number from 400 at its peak to 200 now. It is our ambition to stop the crossings that are leading to these pressures in the first place. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on both matters.
My Lords, I rise simply to ask the Minister whether contracts will be issued for looking after these two sites, and whether the lessons learned from Napier and Wethersfield will be transferred to the actions that are now taking place in those two sites. It is all very well to simply emergency-open new sites, but not if they are going to be managed inappropriately. The substantial changes that were made in Wethersfield should be transferred, and that knowledge transferred onwards. Also, what is the timescale of those contracts? When are they due to start and end? I draw attention to my interest in the register in the RAMP organisation.
We have had around 1,000 learning points from discussions with a range of agencies over the use of previous sites. I know the noble Lord has visited, and that has been very helpful. Members of this House, and others, can visit and examine the conditions in the proposed new sites by arrangement with the Home Office. We are anticipating that the sites will start to be used from around the end of November, subject to discussions with local authorities et cetera. The plan is for around 12 months’ use. We are looking at phasing in entrance to the sites at around 30 people a day, to a maximum of 600 in Scotland and 300 in East Sussex. I hope that we will have robust management information in place to ensure that those learning points are put in place and are managed in a proper and effective way.
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. The MoD training estate is oversubscribed; indeed, that is one of the biggest factors when it comes to trying to train the Army Reserve. While I commend to the Minister the announcement in the SDR that the reserve and cadets will be expanded, this will place even greater pressure on the MoD’s training estate. Crowborough training area is a vital estate used not just by cadets but by the reserve and the regular Army. I simply ask the Minister to be very careful about the selection of sites that we choose. It is not just about the accommodation; it is the second-order impact on the estate.
The noble Lord makes a valid and important point, and certainly one to reflect on. It is extremely important that we encourage and continue that training and support, as the noble Lord has identified. Government policy is designed to do that. He will note that my noble friend Lord Coaker, the Defence Minister, is on the Bench today. He is very much apprised of the issues raised, and we will work in close quarters to ensure that the objectives outlined by the noble Lord are achieved.
My Lords, what plans do the Government have for looking after the children who continue to come into this country? In the past they have been kept in completely unsatisfactory hotels, and many have vanished without trace.
I assure the noble Baroness that there will be no children in the two sites that are before the House in this Urgent Question today. She makes a valid point: a number of children have gone missing. We inherited that—it is not a political point; we just inherited that position. We are putting some urgency into trying to track down those children. We have put in place revised arrangements, particularly with the Kent local authority, to ensure that it is engaged very strongly in the initial arrival point. Children should not be damaged because, for whatever reason, their parents, guardians or relatives have arrived in the United Kingdom.
My Lords, I urge the Minister and the Government to have the guts to stick to this plan to use the barracks in the short term, and not to be terrorised out of it by immigration pressure groups, one of which said yesterday that this would further traumatise people who have suffered enough. I stayed in the Cameron barracks and the Crowborough barracks in the late 1970s, and they were pretty okay then. I am sure they are much more luxurious now. I read that £1.3 million may be spent on refurbishing Cameron barracks in Inverness. Can I get the Minister’s assurance that if any money is spent, it will be used for essential fire and safety measures, and not in creating individual private bedrooms with en suite facilities? If barrack-room accommodation is good enough for our single male soldiers, it should be good enough for illegal asylum seekers as well.
I am grateful to the noble Lord and hope he enjoyed his time at both barracks and found it convivial, as far as possible given the service it presumably had at that time. We are trying to ensure that this is a temporary measure. Ultimately, the purpose of all this is to ensure that we process people very quickly, eventually with off-site decision-making, and that we then disperse or remove those individuals when asylum decisions are taken. I will look into the £1.3 million that the noble Lord mentioned and give him a formal response by letter. Please rest assured that the purpose of this is to provide temporary accommodation to reduce hotel numbers, and ultimately to help us on the path to reduce them to zero.
The Minister just acknowledged that speedy determination of asylum claims is essential to addressing this problem. You obviously need less accommodation if people can be moved on when they have no asylum claim, and moved to other countries speedily. That will have a greater deterrent effect on those who want to come here. What is the current backlog of asylum claims? What are the Government doing to ensure more speedy determination of those claims?