Pontins in Southport not expected to house asylum seekers
The immigration minister was questioned about it in the House of Commons
Asylum seekers are not expected to be housed at a Pontins holiday camp in north west England, according to the immigration minister.
Robert Jenrick played down the prospect of the Southport site being used as the UK Government seeks to find alternative sites.
The Government has previously said it spends £6.8 million a day housing migrants in hotels, with extra demand created by thousands of people arriving in the UK after crossing the Channel.
Conservative MP Damien Moore (Southport) told the Commons:
"Would (Mr Jenrick) agree that, given the severity of the risks, it would not be appropriate to house asylum seekers in a Pontins holiday camp in my constituency, and would he take the opportunity to get to the despatch box and confirm the reports at the end of last week that this site would not be used?"
Mr Jenrick replied at Home Office questions:
"Well, the Home Office is reviewing a range of options and having exploratory conversations with a number of local authorities.
"But with respect to the Pontins site in his constituency, if the local authority, Sefton Council, do not wish to proceed, then that site will not proceed because they are the freeholders of the site. So he should really speak to Sefton Council and get that assurance.
"But the task for all of us is to stop the boats or else we will continue to have troubles like this in the years ahead, with thousands of individuals crossing the Channel illegally and placing unbearable strain on our asylum accommodation."
Sefton Council last week said in a statement:
"Following detailed discussions between the Sefton Council chief executive and colleagues from the Home Office, we have now been informed that the Home Office no longer wish to pursue plans to house asylum seekers at the Pontins site in Ainsdale.
"We are awaiting written confirmation of this decision."
Asked to respond to Mr Jenrick's comments, a council spokesperson said they had no further update to their previous statement.