Mid Buckinghamshire MP Greg Smith has challenged the Government over new financial modelling which he says shows that the proposed asylum accommodation centre at MOD Bicester Site A could cost more than two-and-a-half times as much as equivalent hotel accommodation.
Speaking during Treasury Questions in the House of Commons on 3 November 2026, Mr Smith questioned whether proceeding with the development would represent responsible use of public money.
The exchange adds to growing calls for greater transparency over the financial implications of the proposal, which would accommodate up to 1,256 people for at least ten years.
New Questions About Value for Money
During the parliamentary exchange, Mr Smith referred to new financial modelling comparing the estimated cost of accommodation at MOD Bicester Site A with that of existing asylum hotels.
He stated that the projected per-person, per-night cost at Site A was approximately two-and-a-half times the cost of equivalent hotel accommodation.
Mr Smith asked whether the Chancellor would intervene and instruct the Home Secretary not to proceed with the development on value-for-money grounds.
Responding for the Government, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Emma Reynolds highlighted its wider efforts to reduce asylum accommodation expenditure, stating that £1 billion had been cut from asylum costs.
However, the response did not directly address the specific financial comparison raised about MOD Bicester Site A.
Why the Costs Matter
The cost of the proposed development is one of the central concerns raised by Wrong Plan Wrong Site.
The Government’s plans involve establishing accommodation at a former military facility, with potentially substantial expenditure on infrastructure, utilities, construction and ongoing operation.
Previously published financial estimates have raised questions about whether the development could cost considerably more than existing accommodation alternatives.
These estimates are not confirmed Government costings, and their accuracy depends on the assumptions and time periods used.
We believe the Government should publish a clear, comprehensive and independently scrutinised assessment of the costs before making a final decision on the proposal.
That assessment should explain:
- The expected cost of preparing and developing Site A.
- Annual operating and maintenance expenditure.
- The projected cost per person, per night.
- How costs would change depending on the development’s operating lifespan.
- How Site A compares with genuinely equivalent alternative accommodation arrangements.
Without transparent and comparable figures, it is difficult for taxpayers to assess whether the proposal represents good value for money.
A Question That Still Needs Answering
The Government has repeatedly identified the need to reduce the cost of asylum accommodation as a priority.
However, the latest parliamentary exchange demonstrates that questions remain about whether developing MOD Bicester Site A would contribute to that objective.
If the proposal is intended to deliver savings, the Government should be able to demonstrate those savings through clear and credible evidence.
Wrong Plan Wrong Site is a non-political, community-led campaign focused on the suitability of MOD Bicester Site A, its potential environmental and financial consequences, and its impact on surrounding communities.
We welcome scrutiny of the proposal from elected representatives of all political parties.
Our position remains unchanged: the Government must demonstrate that the development is appropriate, properly assessed and represents value for public money.
Taxpayers deserve answers.
