Asylum seekers must be placed in prosperous parts of the country to ease the burden on poorer areas, a damning report has concluded.

MPs said it was 'completely unfair' that wealthier communities were refusing to take their share of people fleeing war, famine and religious persecution.

The dispersal of asylum seekers was 'putting pressure' disproportionately on public services, including schools, health services and housing in the most deprived parts of the country, the study warned.

A shocking three-quarters of local authorities had declined to take a single refugee amid fears an influx would damage social cohesion, according to the Home Affairs Select Committee's research.

A shocking three-quarters of local authorities in the UK had declined to take a single refugee amid fears an influx would damage social cohesion, according to the Home Affairs Select Committee's research (file photo of residents leaving Aleppo in Syria)

It demanded 'immediate action' after finding 332 out of 453 councils in the UK – 73 per cent – were not housing a single asylum seeker. Maidenhead, Berkshire, where Prime Minister Theresa May is the MP, has not taken any asylum seekers.

The Surrey constituency of Chancellor Philip Hammond – Runnymede and Weybridge – and the West Oxfordshire authority which covers David Cameron's former seat of Witney have both failed to welcome any either.

MPs said if town halls continued not implementing the voluntary dispersal programme – in place since 1999 to ensure housing of refugees is shared around the nation – then the Government must use powers to compel them.

The report said: 'It is clearly unfair that the brunt of the burden of accommodation and related asylum provision should be borne by many local authorities where there is recognised deprivation and hardship, while local authorities in undoubtedly far more prosperous areas continue to refuse to be party to the dispersal scheme.'

Maidenhead, Berkshire, where Prime Minister Theresa May is the MP, has not taken any asylum seekers

Yvette Cooper, Labour chairman of the committee, said: 'It is completely unfair on those local authorities and communities that have signed up and are now taking many more people, when so many local authorities in more affluent areas are still doing nothing at all.'

Sources in Whitehall suggested the high prices of rented property in the South East and lack of available homes in rural areas meant it was more cost-effective to place asylum seekers outside the region.

The 78-page report also blasted the state of asylum accommodation as 'disgraceful'. It said housing for those who applied for sanctuary in the UK was often 'substandard, unsanitary and... unsafe to live in'.

The committee heard evidence of families living in homes infested with rodents and insects.

Yvette Cooper, Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said it's 'completely unfair' that wealthy areas are 'doing nothing at all'

Since 2012, accommodation has been provided to asylum seekers by three private firms – Serco, G4S and Clearsprings Ready Homes. But the number of people housed has almost doubled since the contract was signed, from around 20,000 to more than 38,000.

David Simmonds, chairman of the Local Government Association's asylum, migration and refugee task group, said: 'Councils are stepping up to the plate.

'We hope the Government's future contracts for asylum accommodation and support address the challenges in securing accommodation in other local authority areas, particularly where there is limited availability and high-cost housing.'

A Home Office spokesman said: 'We work closely with our contractors to ensure they provide accommodation that is safe, habitable and fit for purpose.'