Labour's borders minister, Anna Turley, has defended the government's plan to house 1,200 asylum seekers near the village of Piddington in Oxfordshire, which has a population of approximately 400. The plan involves using a former military base in Bicester to accommodate the migrants.
Turley stated on LBC that the proposal is about establishing a "fair and equitable system" for distributing asylum seekers across the country, aiming to limit the impact on any single community. She emphasized that the migrants would be housed on a "self-contained site" where their needs would be met, and that they would be "managed" and "contained." The government is exploring the use of former military bases, industrial sites, and student accommodation as more affordable and manageable alternatives to hotels for housing asylum seekers.
"This is making sure that there is distribution around the country, and this is about a more fair and equitable system that limits the impact on local communities," Turley explained. She contrasted this approach with the perception that asylum seekers are disproportionately housed in "working class places" or areas with existing hotel capacity.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham has also weighed in, acknowledging the concerns of residents while reiterating the principle of shared responsibility. "We cannot have a situation where it's only the poorest communities in the country that receive all of the dispersal of refugees and asylum seekers," Burnham said, adding that "all parts of the country need to work, to play their part." He pledged to listen to and address the legitimate concerns raised by the people of Piddington.
Residents of Piddington have expressed strong opposition to the plans, with some voting to hold a symbolic referendum on leaving the UK as a form of protest. The proposed influx of migrants, which would more than triple the village's population, has raised concerns about local infrastructure and community impact.
Meanwhile, Tory shadow home secretary Chris Philp criticized Labour's approach, suggesting it would unfairly burden middle-class areas and potentially lead to an increase in serious crime, a claim that contrasts with the government's stated aim of managed containment and fair distribution.