Principality of Piddington

It seems to me that this probably isn't about "fairness" of placement", it's more about shoe-horning people in wherever they can. The whole immigration system needs a huge overhaul, but where to start? The current situation reminds me of John Lanchester's novel "The Wall". When I read it in about 2020, I'd have said it couldn't happen in reality -- but now . . .?

Government points

1) AB highlights that the number of asylum seekers arriving over the past year has reduced by nearly half and at a 7 year low- can't argue with that achievement.

2) The government took on board public protest and strength of opinion they didn't want ASs housed in hotels and HMOs whilst awaiting their claims to be processed- can't argue the government has made good progress in reducing number of expensive hotels and HMOs also in line with public opinion.

3) The government inherited a huge backlog of claims from the Conservative government which it has largely addressed * and* reduced the time period to process claims- can't argue with that achievement.

3) The government's position is that location of other dispersal accommodation should include the use of previous military sites and there is one located in the town of Bicester, 4.5 miles away from Piddington, that will be converted to house ASs. The aim is to make the Bicester site as self contained as possible - open to debate.

OP points

1) "the appalling time it takes" the UK government to process a claim of an asylum seeker once they arrive in the UK- open to debate and comparison with other EU countries and other countries around the world- the uK is not an outlier.

2) "the areas chosen for them to live while they wait are often inappropriate" - discuss and debate where would be appropriate.

I don’t think placing 1,200 men that close to a very small village with just 300-350 people is a great plan, unless the barracks can genuinely be completely self-sufficient and self-contained.

This issue with the “processing” of the claims is 1) due to the ridiculously large previous backlog and 2), because staff cannot easily be recruited into the home office, even on a temporary basis, due to the huge amount of vetting required.

Even if they were to be transferred (on loan) from another Government department, unless it was the Treasury or Foreign Office, who have the same level of clearance as the Home office.

I expect many of you feel that perhaps if all migrants could be locked away, like criminals, this might be safer.

I would very respectfully remind you that in this country we don’t currently lock people up, unless they have either been arrested and refused bail, or been through the court system and been found guilty of a crime which justifies a custodial sentence.

As LemonJam, and many others, have stated, the LP have made massive in-roads into cutting down on arrivals and processing their claims.

Where I do think tightening up could be applied is reviewing the appeal process and ensuring that the criteria is strictly applied.

The Labour government since 2024 has significantly reduced the time it takes on average to process an AS's claim. Current UK average time to process an AS claim is around 6 months

Canada average time to process an AS claim is around 24 months

Australia - currently facing major backlogs and median review times taking 104 weeks, ie just over 2 years.

Complex cases in any country can take longer than average/median.

The Uk therefore is not an outlier and could not be reasonably accused of taking 'an appalling amount of time' compared to other countries. It's more likely to be the case that the general public are not aware of what is involved in the asylum seeker claim process in line with international law.

In all global countries- if they adhere to human rights law and international Refugee law must have in place after claim processing an appeals process. Legal court appeal process also subject to timescales.

No political party has the ability to change the claims process unless they overtly and intentionally choose to act outside the legal framework, ie illegally. Leaving ECHR would make no to little difference- there are international legal frameworks.

Unless of course a government seeks to take control of the judiciary and compel judges to make judgements in line with political bidding- that is an authoritarian state. In the uK currently we have democracy and an independent judiciary.

The planning documents explain why the site was chosen (as opposed to hotel accommodation which the public vehemently objects to):

The site forms part of a former Defence Storage and Distribution Centre east of Bicester, accessed from the B4011 and opposite HMP Bullingdon.

The use of the former MOD site at Bicester provides a more controlled and operationally resilient alternative that helps mitigate cohesion and public order risks. Unlike hotels located within, or immediately adjacent to, town centres and residential neighbourhoods, Bicester is a on an established military estate, with defined boundaries and gated access from B4011, enabling robust security management and controlled movement in and out of the site. Additionally, Bicester is to provide coordinated service provision and management and will subsequently reduce cumulative impacts on multiple communities from using hotels. Furthermore, the layout and infrastructure are designed for communal use unlike hotels which are not intended for sustained residential accommodation.

As I understand it, part of MOD Bicester is still operational as a military base housing 1 Regiment RLC, a regiment of the British Army's Royal Logistic Corps.

Genuine question. If you live or move to a village close to a military base and a prison for male offenders including a YOI, why is this latest plan so problematic?

Here is the link to the planning documents:

www.cherwell.gov.uk/info/118/communities/1404/site-a---bicester-garrison-home-office-proposals