Conservative voters in England, are bearing the brunt of the government’s failing asylum policy

Is it mere happenstance? After all, asylum accommodation centres are frequently located in rural areas, where the Conservatives tend to have a strong presence, holding a majority of 64 seats. However, it appears too convenient to be merely coincidental. It warrants further investigation and the posing of pertinent questions. If any of these questions receive an affirmative response, it may suggest that the government is willing to exploit its own Members of Parliament and party supporters to advance its own goals. This could result in substantial distress and anxiety for the very individuals who elected Home Office ministers to power.

Regardless of the reason, local residents, especially Conservative voters in England, are bearing the brunt of the government’s failing asylum policy.

Has the Home Office strategically chosen its own strongholds in hopes of avoiding backlash? If so, this strategy does not seem to have succeeded. In each instance, local residents have opposed the Home Office’s plans, and in nearly every case, Members of Parliament have stood by their constituents and supported legal actions against these proposals.

Has the Home Office intentionally selected constituencies represented by MPs who have held ministerial office in the expectation that they will support this key Conservative policy? For example, James Cleverly, Caroline Dinenage, Caroline Nokes, Simon Hart, Damian Collins, Richard Holden, Huw Merriman, and Edward Leigh. The fact that 8 out of the 11 Conservative MPs fall into this category is a remarkably high proportion (Rishi Sunak is excluded as he volunteered his constituency).

Is the Home Office demanding that its MPs and supporters “take one for the team”? Are they also being asked to shoulder the blame for the enormous asylum claim backlog of 166,000 cases, which has resulted in the high cost of accommodating them in hotels and, consequently, this hasty policy to clear those hotels?

Are local MPs now quietly being urged to consent to asylum sites, irrespective of their constituents’ views? Huw Merriman in Bexhill is a case in point, as he stands alone in not condemning the plans for his area. If so, should local constituents be aware that their MP is not representing their views?

Will the asylum accommodation site in Rishi Sunak’s constituency be treated the same as those in other areas? Notably, no details have been released for the Prime Minister’s asylum accommodation site at Catterick Garrison. Is this due to a different approach, such as housing a small number of Afghan families already in the county’s hotels in military housing rather than a camp? It seems unlikely that thousands of asylum-seekers would be placed on an active base alongside service personnel and their families. Is Mr. Sunak offering Catterick Garrison to demonstrate that even the Prime Minister is involved in the process, so that other MPs should not be labeled as “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBYs), all while mitigating the impact on his own constituency?

Why are the majority of the asylum accommodation sites in England? England appears to be disproportionately affected by this policy, with 13 sites accommodating up to 2,000 people each, while there are only 2 small sites in Wales and none in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Is it coincidental that the Ministry of Defence Disposal Database spreadsheet includes a column for “constituency”?

Local residents, especially Conservative voters in England, are the ones facing the consequences of the government’s failing asylum policy.

How can the anxiety of local residents be alleviated?

The impact of the sites, even just the announcements:

Whenever the Home Office unveils its large-scale containment plans or immigration removal (detention) centers, local communities are profoundly affected. Local residents become uneasy, local authorities must respond at significant cost and inconvenience, and far-right groups often descend on these areas, fostering racist and anti-refugee sentiments and causing damage to community relations. No local community has responded positively to the placement of an asylum containment or detention center. Refugee support charities also do not support these “camps,” as they believe they are inhumane, especially when located behind barbed wire on military sites, as they may traumatize individuals who are already traumatized.

There is a better approach: clear the backlog of asylum claims and allow people to return to living in communities, as they did before the COVID pandemic. #CommunitiesNotCamps

Why have hotels been used for accommodating asylum seekers? The government claims that the number of asylum claims is unprecedented. However, new claims totaled 74,751 in 2022, which is lower than the peak of 84,132 in 2002. The extended use of hotels is primarily attributed to the Home Office’s significant backlog of unprocessed asylum cases, which increased by 74% in 2022 compared to 2021. By the end of March 2023, the backlog had reached 173,000 cases. These individuals would typically have integrated into communities, but due to a problem of the Home Office’s own making, they were placed in hotels.

What about the classification of this situation as a “national emergency”? The Home Secretary has described the situation as a national emergency, although this is currently being challenged in court by local communities where asylum camps are planned to be established. Several factors question the urgency:

• The COVID pandemic has ended.
• The number of asylum claims is not unprecedented.
• Communities should have a say in local matters.

Are the numbers truly unprecedented?

• In 2002, there were 84,132 asylum claims.
• In 2022, there were 55,146 claims.

Are these migrants considered “illegal”?

While the focus has been on individuals arriving by boat, there is no other safe route for claiming asylum in the UK. Moreover, 98% of these individuals apply for asylum, making them subject to tracking and vetting by the Home Office. The bar for obtaining asylum is set quite high. Nevertheless, 75% of these individuals have their claims approved, and an additional 51% are successful on appeal (2022 data). Some nationalities, such as Syrians, have an initial grant rate as high as 98%.

Where are the sites?

Conservative MPs’ Responses to Asylum Sites in Their Constituencies:

Kevin Hollinrake, RAF Linton-on-Ouse:

• “It is undeniably unjust and unacceptable that a single community is being sacrificed for a national policy.” – Meeting with local residents, 21 May 2022
• “Could this be a breach of the Home Office’s authority? It is a distinct possibility.” – Meeting with local residents, 21 May 2022
• “This will devastate the community.” [source: BBC]
• “[The Home Office] has ‘failed to follow its own guidance on the location of such a facility, which said that asylum-seekers should be placed in urban areas.'” [source: BBC]
• “Every single agency I have spoken to – in fact, there’s no cabinet minister defending this, and every single member of parliament I’ve spoken to thinks it’s a bad idea; the local authority does, the police do, the refugee agencies have said this is the wrong place for this facility… we keep up the fight on the basis that this is the wrong plan, wrong place.” – Meeting with local residents, 21 May 2022
• “Letters voicing concerns over the plan… have gone unanswered. As I understand it, no formal response letter has been received, nor has a response to valid questions and concerns from residents sent nearly three weeks ago – this is unacceptable.” [source: York Press]
• “The vote of no confidence [in the Home Office, by North Yorkshire County Council] is an embarrassment to the Home Office and to the Home Secretary. These plans need to be reversed.” – Meeting with local residents, 21 May 2022
• “I fully support Hambleton Council in its quest for a legal route to reverse this… I will continue to work on stopping these plans.” [source: The Northern Echo]

Caroline Nokes, Barton Stacey:

• “Inhuman… It will be like a prison camp, and conditions will be appalling… I am shocked anyone could think this is a good idea.” [source: Mirror]
• “It’s… next to an MoD firing range and a shooting school, so those seeking refuge from war will listen to the sound of gunshot.” [source: RAM Project]
• “Ministers had failed to prioritize people… ‘I think it’s a great shame that they aren’t being more compassionate toward some really vulnerable people.'” [source: The New European]
• “We know these people are going to have had huge trauma. It fills me with horror that our supported asylum accommodation processes have gone so hideously wrong that they can’t even recognize that this is not a decent way to accommodate people.” [source: The New European]

Richard Fuller, Yarl’s Wood:

• “I have long opposed the dysfunctional asylum system that has led to a large detention estate including Yarl’s Wood… of course, it is important that accommodation for asylum seekers is appropriate.” [source: Bedford Independent]
• “This [cancellation] is a welcome announcement… The use of Yarl’s Wood was stated as a temporary measure, needed over the winter to house asylum seekers safely during the national lockdown… As time has gone on, it has become clearer that the forecasted need had either not materialized or was being accommodated elsewhere.” [source: Richard Fuller’s website]

Richard Drax, Portland Barge:

• “Disingenuous… No consultation whatsoever has taken place, and there are many questions to which we have no answers. The whole matter is a shambles. We have received most of the information from the press and media.” [source: Richard Drax’s website]
• “‘Very concerned’ about the impact on businesses in the area.” [source: BBC]
• “…dumped on our doorstep without consultation by the Home Office… urged Ms. Braverman to scrap the idea… Every option’s being looked at, including legal action… We want to get this consigned to the dustbin.” [source: Dorset Echo]
• “This is not the port’s core business… the full impact on both the port and the wider community has not been thought through… My objections are not helped by the fact discussions have all been carried out in private between the port and Home Office officials. It was a fait accompli.” [source: Dorset Echo]
• “There are still many questions to be answered, not least why did the Home Office not have the courtesy to consult with us before the announcement was made… I have been working with Dorset Council and the police & crime commissioner to work up a joint position that we can all get behind. Legal action is being considered.” [source: Richard Drax’s website]

Jerome Mayhew, RAF Coltishall:

• “This would be a very significant mistake… it would have flown in the face of very strong local opposition… such centers are best placed in urban areas where there is access to community infrastructure.” [source: North Norfolk News]
• “Unsuitable for anything other than a short-term emergency stopgap to keep asylum seekers off the streets during the COVID pandemic.” [source: EDP24]
• “A small village, with inadequate community infrastructure or public transport… the number of asylum seekers to be housed there would have a disproportionate impact on a largely elderly small resident community.”

Simon Hart, Penally Barracks:

• “We all discovered [the plans] completely by accident because of some comments on Facebook. There was no official contact… this particular saga wasn’t handled particularly well, and the Home Office has actually admitted that… enough respect hasn’t been shown towards the area or the Welsh Government.” [source: Wales Online]
• “In a letter to local residents, Mr. Hart said he was ‘deeply conscious’ that the manner in which the use of Penally for asylum seekers had come about ’caused much frustration and anger’.” [source: BBC]
• “The lack of engagement or notice… has undoubtedly made a complicated situation even more challenging for all those affected, in particular the local residents.” [source: The Telegraph]

Damian Collins, Napier Barracks:

• “The best solution would be for the asylum seekers to have their claims processed and for this facility to be closed down.” [source: BBC]
• “I was against the use of Napier Barracks… I would like to see the end of the use of this temporary facility as soon as possible.” [source: InYourArea]
• “I have expressed my concerns about this decision before, and in particular the lack of notice or consultation from the Home Office… I remain of the opinion that creating a hostel-style open camp for over 400 asylum seekers in the heart of a residential community was the wrong decision.” [source: Damian Collins’ website]
• “I have long opposed the use of Napier Barracks for asylum accommodation… The housing of several hundred people on a single site with limited facilities and little to do was always going to cause problems, and so it has proved.” [source: Facebook]

James Cleverly, RAF Wethersfield:

• “I highlighted the remote nature of the site, the limited transport infrastructure, and narrow road network and that these factors would mean the site isn’t appropriate for asylum accommodation.” [Facebook]
• “This decision isn’t the result my constituents and I wanted.” [source: BBC]

Edward Leigh, RAF Scampton:

• “Sir Edward Leigh responded by saying an injunction will be sought against the ‘thoroughly bad decision’.” [source: Flyer]
• “Scampton is the wrong site at the wrong time.” [source: Forces.net]
• “Sir Edward… said he only found out about the alleged plan after a ‘tip-off’. ‘I’m very annoyed I’ve had no official notification’.” [source: BBC]

Huw Merriman, Northeye Prison:

• “I only found out that the site was being included three days before the announcement in Parliament.” [source: Huw Merriman’s website]
• “It’s a real challenge for the constituents, I absolutely recognize that. I am really sorry to the constituents impacted by it, but I’m just not going to be one of those politicians that says yes there’s a problem, but I’m going to turn my back on a solution.” [source: BBC]

Caroline Dinenage, Haslar IRC:

• “Gosport MP Dame Caroline Dinenage had reportedly asked the Home Office to hold a proper public presentation and question-and-answer session on the proposal with media in attendance, but the request was turned down.” [source: The Gosport Globe]
• “…told the BBC the center was in a ‘bit of a sorry state’ and would be the subject of a refurbishment program, although she could not supply costs.” [source: BBC]
• “A ‘boost for the area’.” [source: BBC]

Richard Holden, Derwentside IRC:

• “It is right that the former Hassockfield site be restyled into an immigration detention and removal centre?”

Are these MP’s saying one thing to their constituents and another to their paymasters?

We will have to get them to do a polygraph to determine the answers to that question.

Nicola David

One Life To Live

If you would like your interests… published, submit via https://dorseteye.com/submit-a-report/

Join us in helping to bring reality and decency back by SUBSCRIBING to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg SUPPORTING US where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/