UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham (Image: Getty)

More than 40 Labour-held seats face pressure to host extra asylum seekers under Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s preference for fairer distribution, an investigation has showed. The analysis identifies 42 Labour seats that rank above Bicester and Woodstock — the constituency covering the village of Piddington — on both median house prices of £390,000 and median weekly wages of £862.

Mr Burnham has faced local anger over plans to house 1,250 migrants at the MoD Bicester site near Piddington. In comments made last month, Mr Burnham argued that wealthier communities should “play their part,” saying: “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… I do believe all parts of the country need to work, to play their part.”

The investigation, conducted by GB News, ranked the seats and found that 25 fall under local authorities currently sitting below their regional averages for supported asylum accommodation. These include Altrincham and Sale West, Battersea, Beckenham and Penge, Bexleyheath and Crayford, Chelsea and Fulham, Cities of London and Westminster, Clapham and Brixton Hill, Earley and Woodley, Eltham and Chislehurst, Greenwich and Woolwich, Hammersmith and Chiswick, Hampstead and Highgate, Harrow West, Hertford and Stortford, Hitchin, Holborn and St Pancras, Islington South and Finsbury, Kensington and Bayswater, Lewisham North, Leyton and Wanstead, North East Hertfordshire, Putney, Tooting, Walthamstow and Watford.

The remaining 17 seats are covered by local authorities already above their regional averages. They include Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Bethnal Green and Stepney, Chipping Barnet, Dulwich and West Norwood, Ealing Central and Acton, Finchley and Golders Green, Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Hackney South and Shoreditch, Hornsey and Friern Barnet, Lewisham West and East Dulwich, Poplar and Limehouse, Reading West and Mid Berkshire, Stratford and Bow, Streatham and Croydon North, Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, and Welwyn Hatfield.

Across the 32 local authorities covering these 42 seats (plus 14 further constituencies), about 10,108 asylum seekers are in supported accommodation, according to recent Home Office data. The national total stood at 93,293 in June 2026.

GB News contacted all 42 Labour MPs; only Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) replied. Mr Coyle stated his area had previously hosted one hostel and two hotels under the Conservatives and was “proud to do our part,” while noting Labour had closed the hotels as part of faster processing.

Some listed MPs, including Diane Abbott, Catherine West, Emily Thornberry, Andy Slaughter, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Apsana Begum, have publicly supported greater provision for refugees.

Local resident Ian Darby in Piddington argued the 42 areas should take a population-based quota for fairness, while describing the proposed numbers for his village as disproportionate.

Mr Burnham has said he will listen to Piddington concerns. A consultation runs until September 17, with the Home Office having submitted an urgent planning application. The government continues efforts to end hotel use by 2029 while addressing what it sees as an uneven national distribution of asylum accommodation.

Andy Burnham’s New Migrant Plan Could See 42 UK Areas ‘Forced to Take Them’

Andy Burnham’s plans to spread asylum accommodation more evenly across Britain have triggered a fresh political row, with an analysis identifying 42 Labour-held constituencies that could come under greater pressure to accommodate asylum seekers.

The figure has attracted attention because many of the constituencies identified are in relatively affluent parts of England, including areas of London and the south-east.

But the claim that these communities will be “forced” to take migrants needs some qualification.

The government already operates a Full Dispersal Model under which all local authorities are expected to participate in asylum accommodation. The latest parliamentary answer from the Home Office says allocations are determined by local pressures, housing availability and an evidence-based indexing system.

Burnham’s intervention has nevertheless brought the issue back into the political spotlight.

Burnham’s argument: poorer communities cannot carry the burden

The Prime Minister made his position clear in August when he said Britain could not continue with a situation in which asylum seekers were accommodated predominantly in the country’s poorest communities.

Speaking about the controversy surrounding the proposed asylum centre near Piddington in Oxfordshire, Burnham argued that wealthier parts of the country also needed to participate.

“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,” he said, according to reports of his comments.

He added that all parts of the country needed to “play their part”.

The principle is therefore broader than a plan to target 42 individual parliamentary constituencies.

Burnham’s argument is that the existing distribution of asylum accommodation should be made more geographically balanced.

Where did the number 42 come from?

The figure comes from an analysis reported by GB News and subsequently published by AOL.

The analysis examined Labour-held constituencies and compared them using indicators including median house prices and weekly wages.

It identified 42 Labour seats that ranked above the Bicester and Woodstock constituency — the constituency covering Piddington — on both measures.

The analysis then examined asylum accommodation across the local authorities covering those constituencies.

Of the 42 seats, 25 were in local authorities that were below their regional averages for supported asylum accommodation, according to the report.

Those included a number of well-known London constituencies, including Chelsea and Fulham, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Bayswater, Putney, Tooting and Hampstead and Highgate.

Other constituencies identified included Altrincham and Sale West, Beckenham and Penge, Hitchin, Hertford and Stortford and Watford.

The remaining 17 constituencies were in local authorities that were already above their respective regional averages.

That distinction is important.

Being named in the 42 does not mean that every constituency will necessarily receive additional asylum accommodation.

The analysis identifies areas that could face pressure under a policy of more evenly distributed provision.

The government already has a dispersal system

The Home Office has made clear that this is not an entirely new principle.

In a parliamentary answer published on 4 September, the government said it remained committed to the Full Dispersal Model.

Under that system, all local authority areas are expected to participate in the asylum accommodation system.

The government’s stated objective is to distribute responsibility more equitably so that no individual authority or region carries a disproportionate share of the burden.

However, the number of asylum seekers accommodated in each area is not simply determined by political preference.

The Home Office says its accommodation plans use an evidence-based model that considers local pressures and the availability of suitable housing.

It also says actual numbers are affected by factors such as existing participation in the dispersal system, the availability of properties and the ability of accommodation providers to procure suitable accommodation.

That means the implementation of Burnham’s principle is likely to be more complicated than simply assigning an equal number of asylum seekers to every constituency.

Piddington has become the symbol of the argument

The debate over distribution has been intensified by the controversy surrounding Piddington.

The Oxfordshire village has become a focal point for opposition to plans to accommodate approximately 1,250 asylum seekers at the former Ministry of Defence site near Bicester.

Piddington itself has only a few hundred residents, meaning the proposed accommodation has generated concerns about the scale of the development and its potential effect on local services and infrastructure.

Residents recently held a symbolic referendum in which 285 people voted in favour of declaring the village a “Principality of Piddington” and separating symbolically from the United Kingdom.

The referendum has no legal effect, but it demonstrated the intensity of local opposition.

Burnham has acknowledged the concerns.

But he has also resisted the argument that asylum accommodation should remain concentrated in poorer communities simply because those areas have historically hosted more of it.

The numbers show why distribution has become contentious

The Home Office’s own explanation highlights how historical patterns have shaped the current system.

In a September parliamentary answer, ministers said the North West has historically accommodated a significant proportion of supported asylum seekers because many local authorities there participated in earlier voluntary dispersal arrangements.

The government said this reflects the established availability of dispersed accommodation and the presence of providers in the region rather than simply a recent decision to concentrate asylum seekers there.

This creates a difficult policy problem.

If ministers attempt to reduce concentrations in areas that have historically hosted large numbers, other parts of the country will have to accept more accommodation.

That is essentially what Burnham is arguing for.

Wealthier areas are now being brought into the discussion

Burnham has specifically argued that affluent communities should participate.

That position has drawn criticism from opposition politicians.

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp, for example, argued that the government should not be accommodating people he described as illegal immigrants in any communities, regardless of their wealth.

His position differs fundamentally from Burnham’s approach, which accepts the need for asylum accommodation while arguing that its distribution should be fairer.

The dispute therefore has two separate dimensions.

One is whether Britain should provide accommodation for people seeking asylum while their claims are considered.

The second is where that accommodation should be located.

Burnham’s latest argument is primarily about the second question.

The 42 constituencies are not a confirmed allocation list

This is perhaps the most important qualification to the headline.

The analysis does not constitute an official government announcement.

There is no evidence in the published Home Office material that each of the 42 constituencies has been given a mandatory quota.

Instead, the government’s Full Dispersal Model works through local authority areas and accommodation plans.

The Home Office says accommodation providers are continuing to procure additional properties in areas where capacity remains available.

Where local authorities have already met their accommodation targets, procurement is being reduced proportionally and redirected towards areas where there is still capacity.

Consequently, a constituency appearing on a media-generated list does not necessarily mean that a new asylum centre will be built there.

The wider problem is the number of people needing accommodation

Distribution is only one part of the government’s immigration challenge.

Britain has been attempting to reduce the use of hotels and other expensive temporary accommodation while processing asylum applications more quickly.

The government has also said it wants to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029.

At the same time, ministers are dealing with continued Channel crossings.

The number of small-boat arrivals has fallen significantly compared with the same period of the previous year, although crossings have continued.

The Guardian reported in August that crossings during the first part of 2026 were down by around 43% compared with the equivalent period in 2025.

Burnham has therefore argued that progress on crossings does not remove the accommodation problem.

He told MPs in September that although crossings and the number of people arriving had fallen, Britain still faced a significant challenge concerning asylum accommodation.

He specifically said that the burden could not be placed entirely on the most deprived parts of the country.

Burnham’s plan creates a difficult political calculation

The policy has obvious advantages from the government’s perspective.

If accommodation is spread more widely, individual towns and cities may be less likely to carry a disproportionately large share of the national total.

It could also make it easier for the government to close hotels in areas where asylum accommodation has become particularly concentrated.

But there are potential political costs.

Communities that have not previously hosted significant numbers of asylum seekers may object to new accommodation being introduced.

The Piddington controversy demonstrates how quickly such plans can become politically sensitive, particularly when proposed accommodation is large compared with the population of the host community.

And if the government insists that wealthier communities should participate, some residents may argue that their economic position does not necessarily mean they have spare housing, infrastructure or public-service capacity.

The policy is ultimately about distribution, not simply numbers

Burnham’s position is not that Britain can solve the asylum issue simply by moving people from one part of the country to another.

The government still needs to process claims, return people who have no legal basis to remain where removals are lawful, tackle criminal smuggling networks and reduce the need for expensive temporary accommodation.

Burnham has also made reducing irregular migration a stated priority.

Ahead of his meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, he said Britain and France needed to work together against smuggling gangs and described the small-boats issue as a shared European challenge.

The government is therefore pursuing two tracks simultaneously: reducing the number of people entering irregularly while managing the asylum caseload already in the system.

What happens to the 42 areas?

For the 42 Labour constituencies identified in the analysis, the immediate question is not whether they have been officially ordered to take asylum seekers.

They have not.

The more relevant question is whether the government’s national dispersal policy results in additional accommodation being procured in some of these areas.

That will depend on local housing availability, existing accommodation levels, the government’s accommodation plans and the ability of providers to secure suitable properties.

Some of the constituencies already have substantial asylum accommodation.

Others have comparatively little.

And some are located within local authorities that have already met their regional targets.

The government’s own data therefore points towards a case-by-case process rather than a simple national quota.

A new immigration battle for Burnham

The political significance of Burnham’s policy is nevertheless substantial.

By arguing that wealthier communities should “play their part”, he has deliberately challenged the historic concentration of asylum accommodation in poorer areas.

That may satisfy those who believe the current system distributes responsibility unfairly.

It also risks creating new local opposition in areas that have previously experienced little direct involvement in asylum dispersal.

The 42-seat analysis has given opponents a simple political frame for that argument.

But the underlying policy is broader.

The government is trying to create a nationwide dispersal system in which every local authority is expected to contribute according to local circumstances.

Whether that produces a genuinely fairer distribution will depend on the eventual accommodation figures, the speed of asylum processing and the government’s ability to reduce the overall demand for temporary housing.

For now, the “42 areas” figure should therefore be understood as an analysis of constituencies potentially affected by Burnham’s approach, not a confirmed list of communities that have been ordered to accept migrants.

The central political question remains much larger: whether Britain can distribute the responsibilities of the asylum system more evenly while simultaneously reducing irregular arrivals and ending its dependence on costly temporary accommodation.