---

Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): My hon. Friend argues his case with great conviction, but is he aware that those who object to the great size and rural location of such centres include several Labour Back Benchers, such as the much respected hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard)?

Mr. Luff: The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) is one of many individuals whom I intended to quote, had time permitted. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

The simple truth is that these large accommodation centres are a recipe for tension, and a trial that is doomed to fail. The larger the centre, the harder it is to manage. Located in remote rural areas, such centres are like prisons without walls.

Serious practical problems also arise, such as the proximity of the foot and mouth disease burial site. Wychavon district council feels that it has insufficient information on the health consequences of that particular location. Proposing to dump asylum seekers 350 yards from such a burial site sends an odd signal to the wider world about our attitude to them. Given the use to which the airfield was previously put, serious environmental issues also need to be addressed. In undertaking their environmental impact assessment, I hope that the Government will listen carefully to what Wychavon district council has to say about the scope of that assessment. The question of what might be lurking on that airfield is a serious one.

Wychavon district council's planning officer, Jack Hegarty, told me:

"We have significant concerns about placing residential uses close to the burial site. In simple terms we would ask ourselves whether we would contemplate allocating the site for residential use and I doubt very much that we would, purely in terms of residential amenity."

In other words, it is not good enough for British citizens, but it is good enough for asylum seekers.

23 May 2002 : Column 493

There are also serious recruitment issues. The Government say that the project will create 300 jobs, but these are all in shortage areas. We cannot find teachers or social workers; it is an area, I am happy to say, of full employment. Quite how the Government will find people to work here, I do not know, and I worry about that.

Dumping asylum seekers miles from any of the nearest towns means that they will be locked in. The noble Lord Rooker said that residents would be given "pocket money" for bus fares, but there are no buses; there is nowhere they can go.

The proposal is very unfair on the local community. Lord Rooker suggested that it was time for rural England to take its share of the responsibility. This corner of rural England has already done more than most and should be left in peace. The area's major landfill site—actually a land rise site—is massive. Its hills look rather like a lunar landscape, or the scene after a nuclear attack, with hundreds of seagulls wheeling overhead. Local roads already take 500 lorry movements a day to service this huge rubbish tip. Also, there is a foot and mouth disease burial site.

Throckmorton accepted its responsibility willingly last year, despite the devastating impact that it had on local residents' lives. A decent Government would say that enough was enough and promise never to impose another burden on these people, who are not Nimbys; the truth is that their backyard is full. There are also serious implications for police, fire, health, education and social services.

Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire): Can I draw my hon. Friend's attention to an answer that I received from the Department of Health, which said that no assessment had been made in respect of any additional health or social care needs? Does that not show, first, that there will be such additional needs and, secondly, that the Government do not have a clue how much they will cost?

Mr. Luff: I share my hon. Friend's concerns and I am grateful for the close way in which he has worked with me on this important issue.

In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:

"We have made it clear that we intend to provide accommodation centres in non-urban areas because of the pressure that has built up on local services in urban areas."

I find it difficult to reconcile these comments with the Government's assurances that these will be free-standing centres making no demand whatsoever on local services.

There have been meetings with the local health authority and the local police service, and they anticipate demands on these services. Worcestershire is at the bottom of every funding table there is. Where are the resources to come from to meet these additional demands? The only police presence in the community at present is PC Charlie Cavendish. We will certainly need a lot more than him to cope with the implications of the centre.

Is it true that some police authorities have declined to police these centres, or to provide the protection necessary? Who will be liable if there is a fire, such as that at Yarl's Wood? Who will insure this centre in the

23 May 2002 : Column 494

event of a similar disturbance? Is it not time to re-examine the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, which I think puts the responsibility for damage on the police?

Serious criminals were moved from prison to Yarl's Wood; what reassurances do we have that there will be no such people at this centre? How will we know exactly who is there? Will the local police be better informed by the Home Office than Bedfordshire police clearly were? How will the Government assess the risk of the individuals put there? Will the emergency services be fully involved in the planning and design of the centre? They certainly should be; failing to plan is planning to fail.

The proposal is contrary to planning policy. No one could get away with trying to build a residential development on this site except the Government. At the examination in public into the structure plan in 2000, the panel said of a proposed new village that

"in our view a site would need to be on the edge of an urban area and well served by public transport in order to be considered for housing development."

The panel went on to say that growth on any scale on that site would be likely to be unsustainable, would impact on the surrounding settlements and could not be said to satisfy Government policy.

The Government have gone through a bizarre site selection process, in which proximity to an airport was one of the criteria; I suppose one cannot get much closer than a disused airfield.

I do not want to play pass the parcel, but why is Defence Estates advertising a major site in the Liverpool area in this week's Estates Gazette? Was this site—Deysbrook barracks—ever considered? Somehow I doubt it. A team that did not know that one of the sites that they had chosen had been built on already—it is a car factory—and that another was adjacent to an oil refinery would not know about 33 acres of land, described by Defence Estates as "an outstanding development opportunity", which has outline planning approval for mixed-use development.

Many local people say that it is no coincidence that the three sites put forward by the Government are all in Conservative constituencies. I have dismissed those concerns, because the fourth site is likely to be in a Labour or Liberal Democrat seat. However, I would like the Minister to give an absolute assurance on that point now, because many people do not believe that the location is not motivated by party politics.

Can the Minister also assure us that the Home Office's money, which will boost the value of QinetiQ's site on the old airfield, is not being used to boost the value of QinetiQ before its privatisation? Home Office money will be used to build the road up to the site and that could give QinetiQ a direct cash boost. It is a bit strange that the privatisation of QinetiQ is imminent.

The property market in Throckmorton has been decimated by the decision. Houses in the village can no longer be sold. At the rally on Sunday, I met a woman in tears because her house sale had fallen through. People cannot sell their houses for one simple reason: the Government have taken the decision to locate two sites there—a foot and mouth disease burial site and an asylum centre. That is the Government's fault and no one else's. I accept that it is not the Home Office's fault or DEFRA's fault alone. Liability does not fall strictly to either of those two Departments, but it does fall to the Government.

23 May 2002 : Column 495

That is why I wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday urging him to intervene and buy the houses of those people who want to move. He will be able to sell them again when the property market recovers, as it will, but at the moment people's lives are being ruined by the blight that the Government have put on their houses.

Where is the consultation that we were promised on this issue? We have had three public meetings, with the Home Office nowhere in sight. The Minister said in Committee that

"public meetings will be held in those areas where planning notifications are submitted."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 7 May 2002; c. 83–88.]

I hope that that will happen soon. I have written to Lord Rooker, inviting him to a public meeting in my constituency.

This matter is very serious. People's lives are being ruined and any asylum seeker placed in a centre in Throckmorton would also be seriously jeopardised and prejudiced by that location. The more I think about the policy, the more worried I become, not just for Throckmorton and Worcestershire, but for any community unfortunate enough to be near an asylum centre, and for any asylum seeker sent to one. I urge the Minister to reconsider the whole policy.

---