Proposals put forward by Bicester and Woodstock MP Calum Miller to require greater transparency over the cost and suitability of large asylum accommodation centres have been rejected during parliamentary consideration of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
The proposed changes, voted down at committee stage on 3 November 2026, would have required the Government to publish detailed assessments of large accommodation sites before they opened.
The amendments are particularly relevant to the proposed development at MOD Bicester Site A, where significant questions remain about the potential cost to taxpayers, the suitability of the location and the impact on surrounding communities.
What Was Being Proposed?
Calum Miller put forward two amendments intended to strengthen scrutiny of large asylum accommodation facilities.
The first, New Clause 30 (NC30), would have required the Government to publish a suitability assessment for any proposed accommodation site intended to house 300 or more people.
That assessment would have covered important considerations including:
- Safe access and transport arrangements.
- Local healthcare and policing capacity.
- Safeguarding requirements.
- Environmental constraints.
- Potential impacts on neighbouring communities.
It would also have required consultation with relevant local authorities.
The second amendment, New Clause 31 (NC31), focused on public spending.
It would have required ministers to publish estimated setup and running costs, total expected expenditure, the cost per person and comparisons with alternative accommodation options.
Both assessments would have needed to be published before a site opened.
The amendments were put to a vote by Liberal Democrat MP Tom Gordon during the Bill’s committee proceedings on 3 November, but neither was agreed.
Why Does This Matter for MOD Bicester Site A?
The Government proposes to accommodate up to 1,256 people at MOD Bicester Site A for at least ten years.
For Wrong Plan Wrong Site, the issues addressed by these amendments closely reflect concerns we have been raising throughout our campaign.
The Cost to Taxpayers
One of our principal concerns is whether the proposed development represents value for public money.
Calum Miller has previously published an analysis estimating that establishing the accommodation centre could cost more than £250 million, with total expenditure over ten years potentially exceeding £1 billion.
These are projections rather than confirmed Government costings, but they highlight the importance of obtaining a transparent financial assessment.
We believe taxpayers deserve to know how much the development is expected to cost, how those estimates have been calculated and whether alternative accommodation options could provide better value.
The Impact on Our Communities
The proposed suitability assessment would also have examined the potential consequences for surrounding communities and public services.
These are particularly relevant questions given Site A’s rural location and the existing concerns about pedestrian access, transport connections, healthcare provision and supporting infrastructure.
We believe the needs of local communities, as well as those who would be accommodated at the site, must be properly considered when assessing its suitability.
Planning, Infrastructure and Environmental Concerns
The amendments also addressed the importance of environmental constraints and evidence-based site assessments.
At MOD Bicester Site A, questions have been raised about electricity supply, wastewater arrangements, access and the potential environmental consequences of the development.
Wrong Plan Wrong Site, through Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC, has separately launched a High Court legal challenge concerning the Government’s decision not to require a full Environmental Impact Assessment.
That challenge concerns the lawfulness of the environmental screening decision and is separate from the parliamentary amendments.
Nevertheless, both developments highlight the importance of transparency, appropriate evidence and proper scrutiny when decisions of this scale are being considered.
Calum Miller Calls for Answers
Following the rejection of the amendments, Calum Miller criticised the decision and reiterated his concerns about the MOD Bicester proposal.
He argued that residents had been asking reasonable questions about access, services and the overall cost of the development, and that the amendments would have required the Government to provide greater transparency before opening large accommodation sites.
He also confirmed his continued opposition to the MOD Bicester proposal and his intention to press ministers for answers.
Our Position Remains Clear
Wrong Plan Wrong Site is a non-political, community-led campaign focused on the suitability of MOD Bicester Site A, the potential financial and environmental consequences, and the impact on surrounding communities.
We welcome efforts to secure greater transparency and accountability, regardless of political party.
The rejection of these amendments does not resolve the underlying questions about MOD Bicester Site A.
We believe the Government should still provide clear, evidence-based answers about the expected costs, infrastructure requirements, environmental considerations and suitability of this location.
A development of this scale, intended to operate for at least a decade, deserves proper scrutiny.
Our message remains simple: Prove it before you proceed.
