What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I appreciate the point the hon. Lady is making. I am not in a position to confirm an uprating from the Dispatch Box, but this will be considered in the usual way as part of the annual uprating process. There is a forthcoming debate in Westminster Hall in response to a petition on the adequacy of bereavement support payments, and I am sure she will participate fully in that debate, if she is able to, to make the case further.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising what is an incredibly important case to highlight. I appreciate that it will have been a deeply distressing experience for her constituent and I apologise for that. I can confirm that all payments, thanks in part to my hon. Friend’s ministrations, have now been fully restored and any arrears owed have been issued. Given the seriousness of the investigation, the case remains under active consideration so that we can look into the circumstances that allowed it to arise and ensure that nothing like it happens again.
6. What recent progress he has made on implementing the youth guarantee.
The youth guarantee will play a crucial part in a city such as Peterborough where for too long, too many young people have been starting their adult life on benefits without the necessary skills. Just this month, the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), cut the ribbon on the BRDG, a new partnership between Peterborough College, Inspire2Ignite and businesses to create more opportunities for young people, but we want to go further. Working with Inspire2Ignite, we are bringing together businesses, civic sector charities and others to launch the 3% club to cut the NEET level in Cambridgeshire to 3% and give young people the opportunities they need. Will my right hon. Friend explain how the Department can support frontline innovation and partnerships like that one? Will a Minister meet me with Inspire2Ignite and listen to the voices of young people as we turn this situation around?
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the serious attempt by this Government to get the backlogs down, change the system and reduce the use of hotels. Peterborough is a warm, generous place, but we already do our fair share in looking after asylum seekers. I ask the Minister to consider my real fear in this, which is the broken trust we have, because too many people in places like mine—myself included—think that the system is rigged by suppliers such as Serco, which pick the cheapest places to put asylum seekers. When I was elected, based on the record of the Conservatives, Peterborough already had the highest number of asylum seekers in the region. After the general election, under this Government, Serco opened the Dragonfly hotel with no consultation and without informing me or my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling), or indeed the council, the police or any local services. It put us in a really difficult position. I know that we are bringing down numbers in the Dragonfly hotel, and I know that the Minister will not be able to tell me today the specific date by which the hotel can be shut. What can he tell us instead about how we can keep control of monsters like Serco, which drive this policy and mean that places like mine feel that the system is rigged and feel left out and left behind
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate and setting out the argument so clearly. I welcome the petition upon which the debate is predicated, and I recognise the calls from the petitioners, including the 141 signatories from Mid Cheshire. Any measures that can increase breast cancer diagnosis rates, improve treatment options, enhance survival and, ultimately, save lives must be considered carefully. A diagnosis of breast cancer is devastating at any stage, but when it comes too late—when opportunities for early detection have been missed—the consequences are profound and irreversible. Behind every statistic is a person, a family, a future altered forever. Today, I want to focus on the story of my constituent Sarah. Sarah was identified as being at higher risk of developing breast cancer due to her family history. In March 2020, she took the responsible step of seeing her GP and was referred for genetic testing, but as the covid-19 pandemic took hold, all non-symptomatic breast screening, including family history assessments, was paused locally. Sarah did everything right—she repeatedly followed up and sought answers, and was assured that she remained on a waiting list—but the appointment never came. Just over a year later, in May 2021, Sarah found a lump in her breast. Following investigations, she was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, an aggressive form of the disease. She underwent a mastectomy and chemotherapy, but even then her journey was marked by delays in test results and in the start of treatment. Less than a year later, in April 2022, Sarah discovered another lump. This time, the cancer had spread. What had once been treatable was now incurable; treatment could only manage it. Again, delays followed—delays that no patient in such a fragile situation should ever endure. Nevertheless, Sarah wrote: “I would like to make it clear that I very much appreciate the care and support I have received despite the obvious overwhelming and continuing pressures on the NHS. Almost every single NHS employee has been extremely kind and professional and have made many difficult experiences at least a little easier. They appear to share many of the frustrations.” Tragically, Sarah passed away in May 2024, aged just 46. Even in the face of her own mortality, Sarah fought for change. She spoke out about her experience and called for improvements to ensure timely testing and treatment. Crucially, she argued that non-symptomatic screening must never again be paused, even in times of crisis, because early diagnosis saves lives. Sarah was absolutely right to highlight the significant impact that pausing non-symptomatic screening had on early diagnosis, treatment options and patient outcomes. Any disruption to early detection has lasting and devastating consequences. Her call for us to ensure that future pandemic preparedness protects vital screening services must be heeded. After Sarah’s death, her husband Dave carried forward her campaign with extraordinary courage and determination. His advocacy, born of grief, was powerful and inspiring, but tragically Dave took his own life a few short months ago. We cannot let their story end here. Their experience lays bare the cost of delay, the cost of inaction and the cost of systems that fail to prioritise early diagnosis. We must act by strengthening screening programmes, ensuring resilience in times of crisis and delivering timely care for every patient. Let this be the legacy of Sarah and Dave: a legacy not of loss alone, but of change. We owe it to them, and to every family, to ensure that no one else endures what they did.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate. I also thank all those who signed the petition and who have campaigned to raise awareness of this issue. Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women in the UK. While there may be a lot of talk of statistics today, the impact of breast cancer is not a number on a chart or in a table; it is real life, and it is heartbreaking. It is a mother, daughter, sister, friend or colleague—almost every one of us knows someone whose life has been touched by this terrible disease. We know that the earlier breast cancer is detected, the greater the chance of successful treatment, and screening remains the route most likely to find breast cancer early. As we have heard, the 2012 Marmot review found that our screening programmes prevent 1,300 deaths from breast cancer every year, so I understand where the petitioners are coming from. Even one misdiagnosis feels like one too many. That concern is real, and it deserves to be taken seriously. The stories of my friends Laura Turnbull, mum of Louis, Josh, Alfie and Zac and wife of Richard, and Anne Wise, mum of Louis and Lauren, have brought this home to me all too painfully. Both were under 50 and had reached remission at least once, but both sadly saw their cancer return in different forms, tragically cutting their lives short. I send love to their families—especially to Anne’s, because it is her funeral on Saturday. Sadly, Laura and Anne are not alone. More than a decade ago, I lost another friend, Fiona Bennett. Her breast cancer also reached her before she was 50. These stories are powerful reminders that breast cancer does not only affect older women, and explain why so many people are asking what more can be done. That is why we should follow the science. As new evidence emerges, technology improves and we learn more about detecting breast cancer earlier and more accurately, our screening programme should continue to evolve to ensure that it delivers the very best benefits to our patients. Alongside that, we must not lose sight of the opportunity we already have. In 2025, only 70% of Portsmouth women aged 53 to 70 had attended a breast screening in the last 36 months. That is more than 4% behind the average of local authority districts in the south-east, and the gap has been widening in recent years. Whatever changes may come in the future, we must also make sure that every woman who is currently eligible takes up the opportunity to be screened. Improving the uptake of screening among those already eligible must be an absolute priority, so I would like to ask the Minister how we are identifying barriers and what we are doing to break them down. Sadly, we know that levels of deprivation directly affect screening attendance. That is why I welcome the Government’s new cancer plan, which will include targeted campaigns to improve screening uptake in deprived and underserved communities, helping to ensure that where people live or what they earn does not determine their chance of cancer diagnosis. Can the Minister say more about that? Unfortunately, after 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, the NHS has not met its cancer target since 2014. England’s cancer survival rates have slipped behind those of many comparable countries. That is not good enough. It is so important that, as we discuss expanding access to breast screening, we also recognise that the quickest way to undermine that principle would be to move towards an insurance-based healthcare system, as advocated by Reform UK, which could alienate even more people and stop them taking up that screening opportunity for fear of what it would cost. Labour has set out ambitious reforms to cancer diagnosis and treatment, which are expected to save more 320,000 lives over the plan’s lifetime. More scanners and advances in diagnostic technology mean that we will have a real opportunity to diagnose cancers early and improve outcomes by shifting more healthcare into our communities and neighbourhoods. We can make screening more accessible and less daunting so that Portsmouth women will attend, whether through health hubs on the high street or having opening hours at weekends, in the early morning or evening, which would widen access. I would welcome working with the Minister on how we can get these diagnosis centres open in Portsmouth North, so that we can raise attendance from 70% to 100%. This debate is not about choosing between improving today’s screening programme and preparing for tomorrow —we must do both. We should continue to listen to clinicians, researchers and campaigners, and be prepared to strengthen and adapt programmes as the evidence develops. At the same time, we must ensure that every woman entitled to screening because of age, family history or symptoms is encouraged and supported to attend. The screening programme works only if people use it. Every invitation accepted is another chance to detect cancer early, another opportunity for less invasive treatment, and another family spared devastating news. If we continue to improve the science, widen access where the evidence supports it and ensure that more eligible women come forward, we will save more lives and spare many more families the heartbreak of Laura’s, Anne’s and Fiona’s.
Safeguarding has been a key focus of the Work and Pensions Committee, so I was shocked to hear that my constituent Barbara Skedd received a letter to her executors, incorrectly notifying them of her death. This resulted in Barbara’s benefits being stopped, including the personal independence payment and all her pensions. My team have been working hard to get those reinstated. Can the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to ensure that those kinds of errors are minimised, and that the appropriate package of support is put in place so that when errors do occur, they are dealt with quickly?
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on asylum accommodation. It is important to remind the House of the wider context, and in particular the events that have brought us here today. In the years before the general election, the number of people arriving in the United Kingdom illegally, particularly via small boats across the channel, rocketed. The dismal consequences of that abject failure to secure our country’s borders are grimly familiar to us all: individuals risking their lives to come here via dangerous means, criminal gangs growing rich from the proceeds of organising those journeys, community cohesion placed under severe strain, and public trust in the state’s ability to perform one of its most basic functions shredded. Over the last two years this Government have taken concerted action to turn the situation around. We have begun by implementing major asylum reforms to reduce the incentives that draw people to this country. We have cut overall asylum costs by nearly £1 billion, while asylum decision making, which effectively ground to a halt under the previous Government, is at a 24-year high. More foreign criminals and illegal migrants are being removed than at any time in many years, and in partnership with our French counterparts we have stopped more than 44,000 crossing attempts. We have also put in place a groundbreaking scheme that means that small boat arrivals can, for the first time, be returned to France. All that work is important and it is making a difference. However, perhaps the most totemic and tangible manifestation of the failing system that we inherited is the continued use of hotels to house asylum seekers. That issue has, quite understandably, been a source of widespread concern and anger. The Government recognise those frustrations, and we share them. Hotels ought to be local assets serving their communities, not propping up the asylum accommodation system. When hotels are used for that purpose, there are significant implications for local services, community cohesion and public safety. Clearly, that unsuitable, unsustainable and costly practice must be stopped, which is why this Government made a commitment to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament. We are well on track to deliver on that aim. In April we announced that 11 asylum hotels had been closed and given back to local communities. We were clear at that point that more would follow in the subsequent weeks, and so that has proved, with a further 20 now having closed. That means that just under 170 asylum hotels remain in use, which is a reduction of more than half compared with the peak of around 400 under the previous Government. The number accommodated in hotels has also seen a significant fall from 56,000 in 2023, to around 21,000 now. Progress is being made but we must go further, and that means scaling up our use of larger, more basic facilities. There are currently two such sites in operation: Wethersfield in Essex and Crowborough in East Sussex. Those sites began housing asylum seekers in 2023 and January this year respectively. Across both sites there is, at present, capacity to accommodate up to 1,340 individuals, with additional contingency capacity at Wethersfield of 400. In the meantime, work has continued to identify further viable locations. Today I can confirm to the House that three new ex-military sites are now under consideration: Barnham in Suffolk, Bicester in Oxfordshire and Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire. Together, those sites could eventually provide accommodation for around 3,750 asylum seekers, subject to feasibility assessments, planning permission and the necessary approvals. Those caveats are important, because while our commitment to the promise we have made on hotels is absolute, we must ensure that we get this right and carry out all relevant due diligence, so that if we decide to proceed with an alternative site, our plans are as strong as they can possibly be. Let me assure hon. Members that we have learned from the previous Government’s forays into this arena. No final decision will be taken on any site until, in each case, all necessary arrangements, assessments and approvals are in place and have been properly considered. Work on those three potential sites is ongoing, in conjunction with local and national partners. To further support the exit from hotels, we are exploring the possibility of extending the use of the site at Crowborough, which is currently due to end next January. At Wethersfield, we are exploring both an extension and the best use of capacity. Finally, following detailed assessments, the Government have decided not to proceed with Cameron barracks in Scotland as a potential site for asylum accommodation, and it will be returned to the Ministry of Defence. Before I finish, I assure the House that we understand our responsibilities in this space. With any decision on asylum accommodation, public safety is and will continue to be a critical consideration. We will always take every possible step to minimise the impact on communities. To be clear, wherever asylum seekers are located, they should be in no doubt that if they break our laws, they will be caught, face justice and, like the thousands of foreign offenders already removed under this Government, made to leave our country. To conclude, it was always going to take time to fix the mess we inherited, but as the measures I have set out today clearly demonstrate, we are acting decisively to achieve the change the country voted for at the general election by closing asylum hotels for good, by securing our borders and by restoring order and control to the immigration system. That is what the public rightly expect and that is what the Government are working relentlessly to deliver. I commend this statement to the House.
We see the contrast there clearly. While the Government have a serious plan on how to accommodate a significant number of people and change that reality, the hon. Lady offers just “Hail Marys” and long shots. Her colleagues had 14 years, but sat through them and did not make any of those decisions. It is hard to believe. The hon. Lady started by asking why, and that is a very important point, because these sites are part of our theory of change. At the moment, the traffickers say, “Come to the UK. Live in a hotel. You will be able to work illegally, dead easily.” We have to change that reality if we want to reduce pull factors. This plan does so; it says, “You will not live in a hotel. You may well live on a military site.” That is about reducing numbers and reducing the impact on the British taxpayer, and that is the right thing to do. The hon. Lady mentioned dispersal accommodation. The previous statistics release in May shows a 32% reduction in the number of people in hotels, but there was a reduction of less than 1% in the number of people in dispersal accommodation, so the reality is not quite as she put it. On decision making, she knows that the grant rate has not changed significantly at all, so I simply cannot accept her case that by making more decisions we are letting more people through. The reality is that we have a choice between another hopeful attempt at culture war by an Opposition who have no ideas, and a serious plan to reduce numbers. Let us face it: asylum applications are three times what they would have been 10 years ago. From us, it is serious action; from the Opposition, it is empty calories.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those important questions. Let me start where he started; everything is local somewhere, and the impact of our proposals is significant on those local communities. I recognise that, and that is important, but we are developing plans to mitigate the impact. There is a reason that we do not wait until the very end and announce the decision just as it is taken. At some point, we vet sites; we have vetted all sorts of sites around the country ahead of being able to bring these ones forward. There comes a point, however, when we need to get onsite and start peeling back the layers and engaging with the local authority, police and health services, and that point is now. My hon. Friend is right; there needs to be sensitive handling of plans. I appreciate that the burden is on me and the Government to demonstrate that we will do so. I believe that we can do this while mitigating the impacts on his community and surrounding communities, but, as I say, it is up to us to demonstrate that.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He has heard the plan from me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before: co-operation abroad, quicker and better decision making, and more returns. All those things are going much better than they did under our predecessors. It is also about tackling illegal working, but crucially, it is about reducing pull factors too. I sometimes feel that Opposition colleagues have given up on the idea that the numbers might go down. Actually, the numbers are significantly elevated from what we are used to, and with sensible attempts to tackle pull factors—including tackling illegal working, but also this proposal—we can reduce them. The hon. Gentleman talked about costs. He cited the per night figure for Crowborough; that figure will of course fall if we stay at Crowborough longer, because some of that is up-front capital investment. Pro-rated over a longer period of time, the nightly rate will come down, but again I say gently that we are doing this because we want less of this activity. We are not merely asking, “We expect to house the same number of people, so where is the cheapest place to put them?” but, “What is the best use of our estate to promote a number of goals, one of which is reducing those numbers?” That is how we get costs down. I might add that we speak with a degree of credibility, given that we have already taken £1 billion out of taxpayer spending in this area. That is progress. The hon. Gentleman mentioned appeals. He knows very well why the appeals backlog has grown—we have had a huge backlog of initial decisions, because the previous Government stopped making them. Of course, that cohort is now in the appeals system. As he will have heard in the King’s Speech, important reforms to appeals are coming, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support us in that venture. On his point about co-operation abroad, that is of course crucial. We engage all the time with our European and EU neighbours, working together on a shared problem. The fruits of that can be seen in our much-enhanced deal with France. That work is crucial, and it will continue to grow.
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. To answer your question from the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will of course be very happy to meet you, as I always am—indeed, I am often summoned to do so. You are in the inimical position of not being able to clearly state on the record just how opposed to Crowborough you are, but I am in no doubt about that, given that you tell me basically every single day via the telephone or face to face, or through whatever tortures in this Chamber you can imagine. I may have more of that to come. The points made by my hon. Friend are very important. I appreciate that local communities will want to do one of two things, and I encourage them to do both of them at the same time. I understand that many if not most people in my hon. Friend’s community, like others, will oppose the Government doing this, which is a perfectly noble endeavour in a democracy. There are also questions about how this can be done best—how do we limit the impact, be it on health services, the police or local amenities? I believe we can pass that test clearly, and I hope communities will also engage with those questions. As for planning, my hon. Friend knows that we have previously used a number of different planning devices for different sites. We have not made final determinations for Barnham or for the other sites—we will be doing that over the course of this work.
I am grateful for that series of questions. I gently say that there is a slight unfairness in the right hon. Gentleman’s saying that he and his community want a greater say in the details, while at the same time saying that we do not have a plan. The whole point is that rather than inviting providers or contractors to tender for services and to be around on sites and our saying, “Nothing to see here”, we are being honest that we are looking seriously at this site. The final decision is not made yet, but we are looking. That is a better way to do it, but I appreciate that there may be differences of view. The right hon. Gentleman talks about roaming. That is in no one’s interest, and what we have managed to do at Wethersfield and Crowborough is to ensure that people do not just come off-site and roam. They are non-detained, as he said. Nevertheless, by the provision of activities and of transport, we can ensure the lightest local impact possible. That would be our commitment for these sites, too. The right hon. Gentleman mentions electricity and sewage. Those are important parts of the process that we are in now. We are well aware of the history, which transcends this Government—it goes back to the previous Government—but we would not be taking forward this site if we did not think we had viable answers. Nevertheless, it is only when we get on site and start turning over the rocks, as it were, that we can get to a final point on viability. That is the process we are doing here. It is not our intention that the site would impact on the right hon. Gentleman’s local healthcare services, outside emergency services perhaps. What we have been able to do elsewhere is to have ordinary healthcare provided for on-site to ensure that there is not an impact on the local community. Those are the types of models—[Interruption.] An hon. Member asks if I will give way. I am trying to answer questions fully. Perhaps I cannot win either way.
My hon. Friend is right: there was no consultation on those 400 hotels, and there was no sense of the impact on local amenities and local communities. I think we should do much better than that. That hotel will close. As for the question of criteria, we worked that out in the context of a variety of different factors, including suitability of location, size and who could be accommodated, to arrive at a prioritisation. Finally, let me make it clear to my hon. Friend and his community: all those hotels are closing.
Let me reiterate that no final decision has been taken. The hon. Member made an important point about the written information that goes into the public domain. As I personally found, getting information to people at the right moment, in the right sequence and in the right form is a challenge. Members may recall—you certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker—that when we named previous sites, I made a commitment that I would call colleagues so that they would find out from me first, rather than from the media. We have been able to do that much, but there is clearly a gap when it comes to the written fact sheets that go into the public domain. In my experience of both Crowborough and Cameron, information is put into the public domain; it will not change on a daily basis, and I recognise that that is a source of frustration, but we will give the best that we can, and we will do the impact assessments that we need to do along the way. I appreciate that the burden of proof is on us: it is up to us to demonstrate that we can do these schemes well and do them safely. I believe we can. We have already demonstrated that in respect of two sites—and, indeed, Napier barracks, which has subsequently closed—but I need to pass that with the hon. Member. As for engagement from the Home Office, we will ensure that he receives the right information in the right way in order to have the engagement with his constituents. That is a commitment that I would make to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all colleagues.
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that important question. I agree with her that 28 days is too short, which is why we have extended the time limit to 42 days to give people enough time. We have also put in place move-on liaison officers to support that journey. I do not want people who have received good news about their protection to find that their next journey is on the street. Our engagement with MHCLG is consistent and constant, and we share the goal of reducing homelessness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) said, MHCLG clearly has a strong view about the impact that we could have on local housing markets. We have those conversations day in, day out in order to tread as lightly as possible. To be clear, we could be out of hotels in three months if we just prioritised the cheapest dispersed accommodation available. I think that would be wrong, and that is what we are not doing.
As the hon. Lady says, this is the choice ahead of us. I believe that the change to larger sites is a good one. The Copthorne must close, and it will. I cannot offer her space in the meeting with Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suspect that she would be keen for the hon. Lady to be there too. I apologise to the hon. Lady, because I rang neighbouring MPs who have been affected by Crowborough, but not in her case. I hope I will be able to mitigate that, at a point not too far away, when I ring her about Copthorne.
It is important to recognise the cost of that loss of grip. The previous asylum contract was let on the assumption that there would be about 60,000 people. The previous Government let the figure balloon to double that. It continues to come down, but it is still around the 100,000 mark. We have to make difficult decisions, and that is the nature of the accommodation today. We have to pivot the model in this country. We were clear in November’s asylum policy statement that we have to make sure that we reduce the pull factors and remove people who have no right to be here, but we also have to make sure that we provide safe and legal means for people to come to the country—that is better. Nobody should ever transit across continents and across the channel. My hon. Friend’s point about litigation is important. It seems to me that there will always be an element of that in the Home Office, but I think we can pivot to a much better model, certainly through safe and legal means; community sponsorship allows communities to come forward in a positive way. We are not in that place yet, but we are moving to that model. This is an important staging post on that journey.
On processing, it seems to me that the issue is not now initial decision making, but that we have a significant portion of people waiting for their appeal to be heard, and there is not a quick way to do that. As I say, we have talked about appeals reform, and Members may see things from us shortly on that—I hope we will have their support. The right hon. Member will have heard what my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said in favour of returns hubs in the past. Scampton is an important part of Lincoln and Lincolnshire’s economic future, and I look forward to the sale of that site and the positive development of it in short order.
I absolutely agree with that. This is about quicker processing and quicker removals, but I would say—I hope Members can hold this in their heads—that this is also about reducing pull factors. Last year, the volume of people seeking asylum was in the 90,000s. Between 2011 to 2020, the figure was in the 20,000s. That is part of the challenge. Exactly as my hon. Friend says, getting that down to a more steady state will help take out some of the very difficult choices that are having to be made.
I am grateful for that question, and I am very aware of the Scottish Government’s New Scots programme. It is the clear position of the Scottish Government that they want to see people from outside Scotland coming to live there and being part of Scotland’s economic future. I am committed to working with Scottish counterparts to make that a reality. There is a challenge, because that sounds good in a global sense, but down at an individual level, it may sometimes seem less attractive. There are challenges in Scotland, particularly the fact that 60% of asylum seekers in Scotland are housed in Glasgow—that is an equity point in Scotland that I think could change. However, I absolutely will work with my Scottish counterparts. I have met them and will continue to do so.
This is about quicker decision making, the commitment we have made to appeals reform and better collaboration with our European neighbours. Those elements are adding up to significant progress, which is why we have seen numbers fall. This is the next step to get us on the final leg of that journey.
I will of course meet the hon. Lady. Immigration removal centres are, of course, an entirely separate matter from what we are talking about here. I do not have those numbers at my fingertips, but I will get them to her in short order. There is a point of difference in terms of the engagement, as I can see from the correspondence between us on what has and has not been shared at public meetings about the nature of the site, but let us have that conversation so that we are speaking with one version of the truth.
My hon. Friend has doggedly pursued me on this very important issue. It is really important that, as the Home Office, we consider the broader context—such as what he says with regard to Afghan resettlement scheme provision—around a community’s ability to sustain a supported population and that full dispersal model we inherited from our predecessors. What we have put in place, in our attempt to close the gap between local government and national Government, is a postcode check process, so that councils can say, “Well, hang on a minute, there is provision in this area that means it might not be suitable.” We are going through that process in Bracknell at the minute and I will work with him to hopefully get to a satisfactory conclusion.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. It is not bragging to say that under the previous Government the number of folks accommodated in hotels was 56,000 at its peak and it is now at 21,000. It is important for the public to understand those changes. He talks about the record in Government. He will know his own Government’s record at Weathersfield and the choices made there, too. On capacity, the right hon. Gentleman knows—because we have spoken about it—that Weathersfield exists normally in a steady state of around 850, with, as he says, the surge ability to operate at 1,250. With the number of years we have had at Weathersfield, it is right to consider how best that provision can operate. Those are conversations we will have. He will have his chance to go in studs up on me, which he never misses, and come in and tell me what we ought to do differently, but it is right that we look at those things in the public interest. That is what we are doing.
In a general sense, a number of the people we now see in leadership positions in the Reform party were previously in the Tory party and had significant agency over this issue. They pretend now to be concerned bystanders, but actually they are the architects of the situation we are now in. I feel for some of our Conservative colleagues who have been left to tidy up behind them—at least they stand and take on the question, as right hon. and hon. Members have done in this debate. On my hon. Friend’s point about the Sandpiper, I cannot give him a date but I will say, to be clear to him and his community, that it will not be open a day longer than needed. The Sandpiper hotel is a vital community amenity that needs to be returned to its public use. With regard to important reforms to appeals, my hon. Friend may not have to wait much longer to see more.
Having visited such hotels, I recognise that they are not as advertised—or distorted—by others. The ultimate distorters are the human traffickers, for whom it is a significant upside to say not only that the conditions are good, but that it is easy to work illegally from the hotels. We must change that reality. I am concerned, as all colleagues would be, about the public conversation on this issue, and the risk that vulnerable people and their neighbours often face. We are never far away from challenge in that space, but it is incumbent on us to ensure that we do not play into that rhetoric. On the case that the hon. Member raises, every case will always be heard individually and on its merits. I cannot promise to intercede in that case, but I will ensure that the system handles it properly.
I am well aware of York’s status as a city of sanctuary—[Interruption.]—or as a human rights city, forgive me. I always want to work with the people of York to ensure that asylum seekers are humanely housed. Nevertheless, the challenge today is that we have around 100,000 people in the supported population and 170 hotels, give or take. We have to change that reality. There are limited options. I believe that this is the best way forward, but I know from what my hon. Friend and others have said that it is incumbent on us to show that we can deliver it in a way that is respectful of the local community. That is what we are seeking to do.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am well aware of the matter concerning Stoke Heath, as he has pressed hard both verbally and in writing on that already. I will, of course, have the meeting with him that he asks for. I did not use the word “deterrent”, but I did use “pull factors” in the same context. We have to change the reality of the differential attractiveness that has seen applications for asylum in this country go up while they go down across the EU. This is part of that programme. The right hon. Gentleman mentions an upcoming meeting. Let me speak to the Department and see what we can do to ensure that he can have the fullest discussion possible.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution and for his continued lobbying in this space. As he says, I cannot give him a date for the Dragonfly’s closure, but I can tell him that it is uppermost in my mind and that the Dragonfly will close as soon as we physically can do that. On the system, we are trying to close the gap between those who administrate the asylum accommodation contracts and local government. Crucially, through our leadership, the responsibility for that belongs to me and other Ministers, rather than the providers. The contract is not good—let us be clear about that. Again, I do not blame previous Ministers who led on that in 2019. We are seeking to change that model through the process we are now undergoing in renewing the contract in 2029. As always, I say that I would municipalise everything. I do not think that is our reality at the moment, but I do want a more mixed economy so that it is more sympathetic to communities and there is greater agency in the system, and that is what we are going to do.
The right hon. Gentleman knows my enthusiasm for Royal Sutton Coldfield and the strength of its plan for neighbourhoods programme from a previous, much happier engagement I had with him. I did wince when his number came up the other day, because I knew that he would be pressing hard on why it was not his hotel that had been closed. I assure him that we will close it as soon as possible, and I know how important it is that it is returned back to the people of Royal Sutton Coldfield for marking births, marriages, funerals and all sorts of other things that make life what it is.
I absolutely can, and I am pleased about the good news for Dudley. Since the election, we have removed 67,000 people who have no right to be here. That is a significant increase—approaching 30%—on the equivalent period under our predecessors, but we must go further. We have secured a number of extra returns agreements. I want us to have returns agreements around the world, because they are the building blocks for safe removal. We also need more detention capacity. Our predecessors left our detention capacity in a much thinner state than it needs to be in order to effect removals at the level we expect to see. I am pleased with the progress that we have made, but there is much more to do.
The idea that 90% of cases are granted is for the birds—it is not even half that. It is also not true that people who are accommodated in hotels are living a luxury lifestyle. In reality, that is far from the case. These are not great places to be; they are safe, humane, dignified and legal, but that is it. I just cannot accept the idea that it is a great time for them. It simply is not true. The traffickers exploit the idea of living in a hotel and working illegally. That is the reality we have to change. That is how we get to an ordered and controlled system and reduce demand back to a normal level.
The backlog is one of the major sins that explains why the supported population is much larger than we would expect it to be. We have got through the backlog in initial decision making, and the pressure now is in the appeals system. That is why the King’s Speech referred to important reforms that are coming to the appeals system, and colleagues may get to see those shortly.
We have had success on other large sites where that has not been the case. Individuals need to register with a GP, but it is our intention that the impact on the local health service will be minimal. There is the question of emergency medicine, because there will not be provision for that on site. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is setting that test; it is one that I very much want to meet.
I am grateful for that question. I will mirror the commitment I made to the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and ensure that the hon. Lady gets whatever information she needs on Stoke Heath. On how sites are chosen, there is a mix of factors, which include local amenities, travel and transport. Those are looked at carefully before providers bring ideas forward. If a local authority has a challenge, it can bring that to the Home Office for adjudication, where all those factors are considered together.
I can help the hon. Gentleman with that. The whole point on safe and legal routes is that those are not the means by which people are coming into the country. As he will have seen in the commitments we made in the asylum policy statement in November, if people choose to come via irregular means, their route to settlement will be a very long one indeed, with a 30-month renewal of that protection. What we are trying to do is to change those behaviours in exactly the way that I think he and I want.
First, on lawfulness, this very minute we are operating two schemes very lawfully. On quality, many of these sites—certainly those we brought forward in the past—were good enough for the resettlement of Afghan families, and indeed they have been good enough for our own soldiers. I therefore contest the idea that they are not good enough. The point about processing is important. As I said, we have functionally got through the backlog; the issue now is the demand in the appeal system, with the statistic being a 58-week wait. Yes, processing is important, but so is the reduction of demand. As I said, we are operating at three times the level we would have been at a decade ago. We have to change that reality, and this announcement is part of doing that.
The facts do not bear that out. We have a system that separates those who are travelling economically and those who are seeking protection. I do not want this country to lose its proud history of providing protection for people who need it. That is why we are doing this in the way we are doing it. We have taken significant steps forward in controlling the system, alongside our French counterparts. That is why, for the first time, we are seeing asylum applications coming down, as well as positive progress in the channel, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said. Of course, the traffickers had a six-year head start on us, but unless I am mistaken, which I really do not think I am, it cannot have felt like failure when we closed the hotel in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.