Voluntary dispersal scheme unfair with Glasgow, Stoke and Middlesbrough housing majority while boroughs such as Maidenhead take none, MPs say

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

Destitute asylum seekers should be dispersed to the Tory shires, including the home secretary’s constituency town of Maidenhead, which currently receive none at all, a Commons committee has demanded.

The Commons home affairs committee said that under the current dispersal system the majority of asylum seekers are sent to low-cost housing in urban areas such as Glasgow, Stoke, and Middlesbrough – where the recent “red doors” row highlighted their concentration.

The MPs said too many local authorities were unwilling to take part in the voluntary dispersal scheme and ministers should bring pressure to bear on them to volunteer and provide suitable accommodation for asylum seekers.

Home Office ministers have said they are considering how to get more local authorities involved in the scheme.

The committee also said the arrival of Syrian refugees and others meant that as many as 50,000 asylum seekers would need to be housed by 2017 and the government should reconsider offers from individuals including the archbishop of Canterbury and others to house refugees.

“The dispersal system appears unfair, with whole swaths of the country never receiving a single asylum seeker,” said the committee’s chair, Keith Vaz.

“The majority are being moved into low-cost housing in urban areas such as Glasgow, Stoke, Cardiff and, of course, Middlesbrough, where the ratio is one asylum seeker per 137 people. However, on the data we have received, local authorities in areas such as Maidenhead, Lincoln and Warwick have housed none.”

As well as Theresa May’s Maidenhead constituency, the home affairs committee report also lists David Cameron’s West Oxfordshire council, George Osborne’s Cheshire East council, Philip Hammond’s Runnymede council and Michael Gove’s Surrey Heath council as having no destitute asylum seekers housed in their areas.

The committee’s report says that the largest numbers are housed in Glasgow (3,067), Birmingham (1,674), Liverpool (1,524), Cardiff (1,442), Bolton (1,023) Rochdale (1,020) and Manchester (954).

The largest number of asylum seekers are still to be found living in London but the vast majority support themselves, with individual boroughs such as Newham (111) and Redbridge (107) housing destitute asylum seekers.

The report also condemns the painting of the doors of asylum seekers’ homes red in Middlesbrough and the issuing of coloured wristbands to asylum seekers in order to receive meals at a hostel in Cardiff as “appalling” episodes of prejudice.

It says the episodes leave questions to be answered about the Home Office’s running of the Compass contracts under which three companies – G4S, Serco and Clearsprings – provide accommodation for asylum seekers.

“G4S, Serco and Clearsprings receive millions of pounds of public money to house asylum seekers, and revelations in recent months have been alarming. The compulsory wearing of wristbands and the infamous red doors demonstrate an unacceptable attitude towards vulnerable people. The Home Office has failed to provide proper oversight and inspection, and must do better,” said Vaz.

A Home Office spokesperson said they were trying to expand the number of local authorities taking part in the scheme .

”We work closely with local authorities to ensure the impact of asylum dispersals is considered and acted upon and are actively looking to expand the number of local authorities in the dispersal scheme. We will continue to consult with those who are currently not part of the scheme,” the spokesperson said.

“The Asylum and Immigration Act 1999, and its provisions, was introduced with the intention of sharing the impact of dispersals of asylum seekers across the UK and to ease the over-reliance on any one area.”

The Home Office funds “strategic migration partnerships” that consider the impact of dispersal on communities and local services and ensure that community cohesion, social welfare and safety issues are properly considered.