Priti Patel accused of ‘hypocrisy’ over plans to place asylum seekers on RAF site in rural village

Priti Patel has been accused of “hypocrisy” over her department’s plan to place asylum seekers in a rural Yorkshire village two years after she claimed they should not be placed in her own constituency because it was not a “major conurbation”.

The home secretary announced plans last week to open the UK’s first bespoke asylum reception centre, set to house upwards of 500 people while their claims are considered, at a former RAF site in Linton-on-Ouse, which has a population of 1,200 and is 10 miles from the nearest town.

But charities and the village’s Tory MP have said the move is contradictory, pointing out that only two years ago the home secretary ordered that asylum seekers be removed from a hotel in her constituency on the basis that the area was too rural and not in close proximity to a town or city.

In August 2020, the Home Office said alternative accommodation had been sought after an “operational failure” led to asylum seekers being placed at Rivenhall Hotel in Ms Patel’s constituency Witham, Essex. It came after former Ukip leader Nigel Farage posted a video of himself at the hotel.

The department subsequently tweeted that this has happened because “correct policy and procedures were not followed”, adding that asylum seekers “should be placed in major conurbations wherever possible so that appropriate support and services can be more readily provided”.

A Home Office spokesperson told the BBC at the time that asylum seekers should be placed in urban areas which encompass a number of cities or towns so that they can access support easier.

Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative MP who represents Linton-on-Ouse, wrote to Ms Patel this week pointing out this contradiction.

“Witham, the location of Rivenhall has a population in excess of 25,000, Linton a population of 1,200. It is located 10 miles North of York and there are only around four buses per day,” he wrote.

“There is very limited access to GP and health services and NHS dentistry is not available at any local surgeries.”

He added: “While I am supportive of providing safe harbour and government accommodation for those fleeing persecution, I do not believe that the small rural village of Linton-on-Ouse is the appropriate place to house up to 1,500 young, male asylum seekers.”

Mr Hollinrake later told The Independent: “There’s no doubt this is the wrong location. It’s not realistic. As the Home Office guidance stipulates, it should be a major conurbation, one that has access to towns and cities, where one can access public services.”

The Home Office also said following the Rivenhall Hotel incident in 2020 that there had been a “failure to ensure that appropriate engagement had taken place with council officials and other service providers”.

However, in the case of the asylum reception centre plans in Linton-on-Ouse, there was no consultation with the council or the local residents before the announcement was made.

Chair of Linton-on-Ouse Parish Council, Cllr Marc Goddard, said in a statement on Friday: “We are very disappointed and concerned that the government did not see fit to apprise the local community of their plans before making the decision to open the centre here.”

He said that during a meeting on Thursday evening, residents had “expressed their deep concerns regarding the failure of the Home Office to adequately assess the sites suitability or the impact it site will have on the village once it is in place”.

Cllr Goddard added that, due to the “lack of consultation and information from the government to date”, the council was “sceptical” about the Home Office’s commitment to ensuring the residents’ concerns were addressed.

Maddie Harris, director of Humans for Rights Network (HRN), said: “Having previously stated that asylum seekers should be accommodated in ‘major conurbations’, the home secretary shows clear hypocrisy by opening a new asylum camp, in a rural village.”

She added that the plans for the new site bore hallmarks of Napier Barracks, a military site in Folkestone that has controversially been used to hold asylum seekers since September 2020.

“Both are militarised, isolated and due to the communal living arrangements at Napier men are suffering from chronic sleep deprivation and deteriorating mental health,” Ms Harris added.

Sophie McCann, advocacy advisor for Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) UK, said: “It is astonishing that, despite severe concerns raised around the neglect and horrendous conditions asylum seekers were forced to endure in Napier Barracks, the government intends to replicate these conditions in another isolated army barracks.”

Jon Featonby, policy and advocacy manager at the British Red Cross, said the charity was “very concerned” about the reports of plans for the new asylum reception centre, given that military barracks were “completely inappropriate” for people who are fleeing war, violence and persecution.

“Instead of putting time and resource into creating these huge centres, the Home Office should focus on working with local authorities, devolved governments and charities to increase community housing for people seeking refuge here,” he added.

A Home Office spokesperson said provisions on-site would minimise the impact on the community, adding: “Anyone accommodated at Linton will have undergone a robust screening process, and the Home Office is committed to working closely with the local community to ensure the site operates safely and securely.”