🏨 Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening

• Debate Focus: The session discussed the re-opening of hotels for asylum seeker accommodation, emphasizing the strain on local communities and the need for government action.

• Government Criticism: Opposition MPs, particularly from the Conservative party, criticized the Labour government for increasing the use of hotels for asylum seekers despite promising to end this practice. They highlighted a 21% increase in hotel usage since Labour’s election.

• Asylum System Failures: The debate showcased a consensus that the asylum system is failing, with references to high asylum acceptance rates and the economic burden on taxpayers. MPs from various parties acknowledged systemic issues but disagreed on solutions.

• Deterrence Debate: Conservative MPs argued strongly for a deterrent approach to reduce illegal crossings, criticizing the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme. They emphasized the need for deportations to manage the influx of asylum seekers effectively.

• Local Impact: Several MPs expressed concerns about the impact of asylum hotels on local communities, including strain on public services, safety concerns, and economic effects on local businesses.

• Government’s Stance: The Minister of State for Border Security and Asylum acknowledged the inherited backlog and the challenges of managing asylum seekers. She mentioned efforts to close hotels, with nine closed post-election and plans to close nine more by March 2025, but couldn’t commit to specific closure dates.

• Policy Proposals: The Liberal Democrats proposed solutions like a dedicated processing unit, faster decision-making, and granting asylum seekers the right to work. This was contrasted with the government’s view that rights to work could act as a pull factor for illegal migration.

• Call for Transparency: MPs called for more transparency from the government regarding the opening and closing of hotels, and better communication with local communities and MPs.

• Economic Concerns: There was a focus on the financial burden of supporting asylum seekers, with suggestions to consider repayment schemes for those granted asylum and integrated into society.

• International Context: The minister referenced international agreements and the global rise in people seeking asylum post-World War II, highlighting the complexity of the issue.

The parliamentary session on asylum seeker hotel accommodation displayed significant disagreement across political parties and even within parties. The rating of 4 reflects the high level of contention and the sharp exchanges observed throughout the debate. Below are key examples and analysis supporting this rating:

1. Inter-party Disagreement: The session saw sharp disagreements between the Conservative and Labour parties, particularly on policy approaches and past performance. For instance, Conservative MPs like Jack Rankin and Lewis Cocking heavily criticized the Labour Government for increasing the use of hotels for asylum seekers despite their manifesto promise to end it. Rankin stated that ‘it is deteriorating under the new Government’, while Cocking pointed out the ‘21% increase since Labour was elected’. In contrast, Minister Angela Eagle defended the Labour stance by highlighting the inherited backlogs and the Rwanda policy’s failure, which she argued led to the increased use of hotels.

2. Intra-party Disagreement: Within the Conservative party, there was a consensus on the need to end the use of hotels but disagreement on how to achieve this. Some MPs, like Sir Gavin Williamson, focused on the lack of transparency and notice from the Government, while others, such as Rupert Lowe from the Reform party (an offshoot of the Conservatives), advocated for immediate deportations and a harsher stance on illegal migrants.

3. Policy Disagreements: There were clear differences on policy solutions. For example, the Conservative MPs repeatedly called for stronger deterrents, including immediate deportations and leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as suggested by Peter Bedford. In contrast, the Liberal Democrat Susan Murray advocated for a different approach, including a dedicated processing unit, a six-month service standard, and the right to work for asylum seekers, which was directly opposed by the Minister.

4. Accusations and Apologies: The session saw accusations of mismanagement and policy failures. The Minister acknowledged the need for improvement and apologized for insufficient notice about hotel openings, which was a point of contention raised by several MPs (e.g., Jack Rankin and Matt Vickers). This acknowledgment, however, did little to appease the opposition, who felt it did not address the root causes.

5. Sharp Rhetoric: The session included sharp rhetoric, particularly from Rupert Lowe, who used strong language about deporting illegal migrants and criticized the use of hotels near sensitive areas like girls’ schools. His statements, while not directly challenged, highlighted the intense emotions and disagreement on the approach to asylum accommodation.

6. Data Disputes: The debate also saw contention over the interpretation of data related to asylum approvals, hotel usage, and small boat crossings. Conservatives cited increases in these figures under Labour, while the Minister countered by explaining the inherited backlogs and the policy decisions of the previous Conservative government.

Overall, the session was marked by a high degree of disagreement on multiple fronts, resulting in a rating of 4 due to the intensity and frequency of these disputes.