Andy Burnham Demands “All Parts of the Country” Have Homes for Asylum Seekers
Andy Burnham has reignited Britain’s increasingly bitter immigration debate by insisting that every part of the country must play a role in accommodating asylum seekers, including more affluent communities that have historically been less exposed to the pressures of the asylum system.
The prime minister’s intervention comes at an especially difficult moment for his government. More than 900 people reportedly crossed the English Channel in just three days, while the arrival of a huge inflatable boat carrying around 230 migrants has highlighted the increasingly dangerous tactics being used by smuggling gangs. Burnham has simultaneously promised to be relentless in tackling the crossings and argued that responsibility for accommodating people who are already in Britain cannot continue to fall disproportionately on poorer areas.
That combination of messages has created a political dilemma.
On one hand, Burnham wants voters to believe that his government will take control of Britain’s borders and eventually eradicate dangerous small-boat crossings. On the other, he is demanding that communities across Britain accept asylum accommodation while the system continues to deal with large numbers of people who have already arrived.
For critics, the contradiction is obvious.
How can the government claim that it is determined to reduce irregular migration while simultaneously telling communities that they must prepare to accommodate more asylum seekers?
Burnham’s answer is that the two issues are separate.
Stopping dangerous Channel crossings is a long-term task involving international cooperation, action against criminal smuggling networks and changes to enforcement tactics. Providing accommodation for people whose asylum claims are already being processed is an immediate responsibility.
The government cannot simply leave people without somewhere to live while their cases are considered.
But this argument has done little to calm opposition in communities that have been selected for large-scale accommodation.
One of the most controversial examples is Piddington in Oxfordshire, where the government has proposed housing up to 1,250 single adult male asylum seekers at a former military site. The proposal has caused considerable anger in the small village, where residents have questioned whether the location has the infrastructure and services necessary to support such a large population.
The scale is what makes the proposal particularly controversial.
Piddington is a small rural community. A facility housing more than a thousand people would represent a dramatic change in the local population, raising obvious questions about transport, healthcare, policing, education and other public services.
Residents have also complained about the consultation process and whether local people have genuinely been given an opportunity to influence the decision. Reports indicate that some villagers have emphasised that their objections are not based on hostility towards asylum seekers themselves but on concerns about the suitability and scale of the proposed accommodation.
That distinction deserves attention.
Britain’s immigration debate has become so polarised that criticism of asylum accommodation can quickly be interpreted as hostility towards migrants. Yet a resident can believe that refugees should be treated humanely while also believing that a particular accommodation centre is too large, badly located or inadequately planned.
Equally, the government can reasonably argue that poorer communities should not be expected to accommodate almost all asylum seekers simply because property is cheaper there.
The difficult question is what “fairness” actually means.
Burnham clearly believes that fairness requires geographical distribution.
If asylum is a national responsibility, he argues, its costs and consequences should be shared nationally. Wealthier parts of Britain cannot expect poorer communities to carry the burden indefinitely.
That is a politically understandable argument.
But it becomes much harder to defend when accommodation is imposed on small communities without convincing residents that the decision is proportionate.
There is a major difference between saying that affluent communities should contribute and saying that any particular village should accept hundreds or thousands of asylum seekers.
A fair national system needs to account for population size, infrastructure, transport links, healthcare capacity, housing availability and the ability of local authorities to provide services.
Simply drawing a map and distributing people across it would not necessarily produce fairness.
It could produce new problems.
That is why Piddington has become such a powerful symbol of the wider debate.
To Burnham, it represents the principle that asylum accommodation cannot remain concentrated in poorer areas.
To local residents, it represents the fear that a national policy is being imposed on a community that lacks the resources to manage it.
To his political opponents, it is evidence that Labour’s immigration policy is failing to address the root cause of the problem.
And to asylum seekers themselves, it is simply another place where they may be housed while waiting for a decision that could determine the future of their lives.
The government’s biggest challenge is therefore not simply finding beds.
It is fixing the system that creates the demand for those beds.
If asylum applications are processed quickly, people should spend less time in temporary accommodation. If people are found to qualify for protection, they should be moved into more stable arrangements. If applications are rejected, lawful removal procedures need to work effectively.
Without those changes, Britain will continue to require large amounts of temporary accommodation.
And every new accommodation site will become a political flashpoint.
Burnham understands at least part of this problem. His government has simultaneously promised tougher action against illegal Channel crossings. Today he insisted that he wants to “eradicate” the crossings, while acknowledging that achieving that objective may take years.
That admission is politically significant.
It suggests that the prime minister recognises that the crisis cannot be solved with a single policy announcement.
Smuggling gangs are adapting.
They have begun using larger vessels to carry more people, increasing their profits while creating even greater dangers for those on board. A recent record-breaking inflatable boat demonstrated just how quickly tactics can change. Burnham has therefore said that the government needs to change its own tactics in response.
The government says cooperation with France has already disrupted tens of thousands of attempted crossings and seized more than a thousand boats. It also points to a new arrangement under which patrol numbers on French beaches are expected to increase.
But none of those measures immediately resolves the accommodation problem.
Even if crossings fall substantially, Britain will still have thousands of people whose asylum claims need to be processed.
That means Burnham’s demand for wider dispersal is likely to remain politically important.
Yet the prime minister should be careful about how he presents it.
Describing the issue as simply a matter of wealthy communities “doing their bit” risks turning a complicated policy question into a class conflict.
Many middle-class families are already facing high mortgage costs, expensive rents, rising bills and pressure on public services. Being told that their community is wealthy and therefore has an obligation to accommodate asylum seekers may feel dismissive if they believe the government has ignored their own concerns.
At the same time, residents in poorer communities can reasonably ask why they should continue to carry the burden simply because their towns happen to have cheaper accommodation.
The answer cannot be to pit one group against another.
It has to be a system that is transparent and proportionate.
Local authorities should know how many people are being accommodated, for how long and under what conditions. Communities should be told what additional resources will be provided. Police, healthcare providers and transport authorities need to be involved in planning.
Most importantly, local consultation must be meaningful.
The government cannot give every community an absolute veto over national immigration policy. That would make the asylum system impossible to operate.
But consultation cannot simply mean informing residents of a decision that has already been made.
If Burnham wants to present himself as a prime minister who listens, the test will be whether he listens when communities tell him that they believe a particular plan is wrong.
This is particularly important because public confidence in Britain’s immigration system is already fragile.
For years, successive governments have promised to control the border. Yet small boats continue to cross the Channel, asylum accommodation remains controversial and political parties compete to offer increasingly tough solutions.
The result is a dangerous cycle.
Crossings create public anger.
Public anger produces political pressure.
Political pressure produces new policies.
New policies alter the behaviour of smugglers.
Smugglers adapt.
And the cycle begins again.
Breaking that cycle will require more than moving asylum seekers from one part of Britain to another.
Burnham needs to demonstrate that the system is capable of processing claims efficiently, removing people who have no right to remain and creating safe and legal alternatives for those who genuinely need protection.
He also needs to demonstrate that Britain can control its borders without abandoning its humanitarian responsibilities.
That is a difficult balance, but it is precisely what voters expect a government to achieve.
The Piddington dispute should therefore be treated as a warning.
It shows that the immigration crisis is no longer simply a problem of the Channel. It has become a problem of housing, local government, public services and community confidence.
Every new accommodation site brings the issue directly into people’s neighbourhoods.
That makes transparency more important than ever.
Burnham may be right that responsibility should be shared across the country.
But responsibility should not mean simply distributing the consequences of a dysfunctional asylum system.
It should mean distributing responsibility while simultaneously fixing the system itself.
Otherwise, the government risks creating a situation in which every community is asked to accommodate migrants while the underlying causes of the accommodation crisis remain untouched.
That would not be a solution.
It would simply spread the controversy more evenly.
For Burnham, the political stakes could hardly be higher. His government has promised a new approach to immigration and has pledged to tackle dangerous Channel crossings with renewed determination. Yet every additional accommodation dispute gives his opponents another opportunity to argue that the government is managing the consequences rather than solving the cause.
The prime minister therefore has a difficult argument to make.
He must tell poorer communities that they should not be left carrying the burden alone.
He must tell wealthier communities that they cannot expect to be permanently exempt.
He must reassure local residents that their concerns will be taken seriously.
And he must convince the entire country that his government is actually reducing the need for emergency accommodation in the first place.
That last part is crucial.
If crossings continue at high levels and asylum decisions remain slow, the demand for accommodation will continue.
If the government succeeds in reducing crossings and speeding up decisions, the pressure should eventually ease.
Britain does not need a permanent system of moving people around the country.
It needs a functioning immigration and asylum system.
Burnham’s insistence that “all parts of the country” should play their role may therefore be defensible in principle. But the success or failure of the policy will depend on how it is implemented.
Fairness cannot mean forcing communities to accept decisions without explanation.
Nor can fairness mean allowing poorer parts of Britain to absorb the consequences of a national problem indefinitely.
The government has to find a middle ground.
It must protect the rights of genuine asylum seekers while restoring public confidence in border control. It must support local communities while ensuring that national responsibilities are shared. And it must be honest about the fact that eliminating dangerous Channel crossings will take time.
For now, Burnham is asking Britain to share the burden.
The question is whether voters will believe that the burden is being shared fairly — and whether they will see convincing evidence that the government is doing everything possible to make that burden smaller.
Because if the boats keep coming, the accommodation crisis will continue.
And if the accommodation crisis continues, the political pressure on Andy Burnham will only grow.