Rishi Sunak’s flagship sites to house asylum seekers have been criticised as eye-wateringly expensive, badly run and unsuitable – and now The Independent can reveal that hundreds of migrants have moved out.
More than 400 asylum seekers have left RAF Wethersfield in Essex and the Bibby Stockholm barge in Dorset in the first three months of the year, data shows.
The government has come under fire for splashing £145.7m on the former airbase and £15.8m on the boat in Dorset, and the ‘prison-like’ conditions.
However, data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act shows that 74 vulnerable people were moved from Wethersfield by the Home Office for their safety, and 170 people left voluntarily. The authorities say they have gone to live with friends and family but campaigners said some had become homeless because they were so desperate to leave.
A total of 162 migrants were “dispersed” from the Bibby Stockholm, the data showed. The remote airbase in Essex has seen desperate migrants attempting suicide and going on hunger strike, while one asylum seeker has died at the Bibby Stockholm.
Former home secretary Priti Patel said Wethersfield is “unsuitable for asylum accommodation”, adding: “The decision taken last year by the Home Office was ill thought through, taken in haste and without adequate consideration of the impact and costs.
“Instead of spending large sums of taxpayers’ money on this site, the government should have been investing in increasing detained capacity.”
Tory MP Sir Edward Leigh, who has campaigned against the use of another military site for asylum seekers, RAF Scampton, said the number of people leaving the site “just shows how useless these military bases are for migrants”.
Stephen Kinnock, Labour’s shadow immigration minister, added: “This is yet another example of Conservative chaos in the asylum system. Barges and military bases were meant to reduce costs, but instead they’re costing the taxpayer even more per head than the eye-watering sums spent on asylum hotels.”
At the end of January 2024, the Bibby Stockholm barge housed 321 people, when the Home Office had expected it to accommodate 430.
At Wethersfield, only 576 people were housed in January despite the government anticipating space for 1,445. Current numbers are expected to be even lower – at around 400 – and the government has said it will not increase the number of occupants to above 580 until crucial site checks have been completed.
The FOI data shows that suspected victims of torture were among the 74 vulnerable removed from the RAF base because the makeshift site was unsuitable for their complex needs. A further 170 people left after they decided to reside with friends or family, or were no longer destitute, the Home Office said. However, charities reported people fleeing the site out of desperation.
A recent analysis by the National Audit Office found that the cost of housing asylum seekers on the controversial barge and at military sites would be significantly more expensive than paying for hotels.
One document revealed in a legal challenge against Wethersfield showed that civil servants pressed ahead with the project despite knowing the value for money for the taxpayer would be “marginal”.
At the Bibby Stockholm barge in Dorset, the majority of the 162 migrants “dispersed” from the site, the majority were moved into shared housing while others were moved to hotels.
To ease pressure on the local Dorset council, asylum seekers from the Bibby are sent elsewhere in the UK when they are having asylum interviews or when they have got their grant. Unlike Wethersfield, which houses migrants who have recently arrived in the UK, those on the barge have often been in the UK for some years.
One young Iranian man got refugee status last week and was moved to a hotel in Wakefield, said local activist Nicola David.
The Iranian refugee, who had lived on the Bibby for six months, said that the barge had been “like a prison”, adding: “It was so cold during the winter and the waves would move the barge. There wasn’t anything to do so I spent most of my time in my room. There was a billiard table but the cues were broken. There was a gym but it was so smelly that you could not go in.
“It’s not easy to get in and out of the site and the conditions caused anxiety and depression. This would cause arguments and the recent suicide. I tried to distract myself by watching movies and the only positive was when I received my asylum decision.”
Like in Wethersfield, some asylum seekers have been moved off because the barge is unsuitable for them, such as one asylum seeker who was moved after safeguarding concerns were raised due to their sexuality. Twelve people were in this situation from January to March 2024, and 16 others were removed by the Home Office as “third country unit cases”, thought to be those who are eligible for the Rwanda scheme.
Maddie Harris, from Humans for Rights Network, who supports people inside Wethersfield, said more unsuitable asylum seekers should be moved out. She said the organisation has supported survivors of torture, those who have been potentially trafficked, and others with chronic mental or physical health conditions.
She said the high number of people voluntarily leaving the site was “very indicative” of the terrible conditions inside the base.
“We know people who have left and they are on the streets, and we are trying to get them into housing but they felt that Wethersfield was so bad that that was their only option,” she said.
“People also might be sleeping in someone else’s hotel or staying with friends – they will be staying in highly insecure accommodation in response to the traumas of Wethersfield.”
She said the network strongly disputed the Home Office claim that people who leave Wethersfield are no longer destitute, adding: “It’s a deeply cruel and harmful place that is forcing people into street homelessness.”
David Neal, the former chief inspector of borders and immigration, said vulnerable asylum seekers might end up in Wethersfield because problems are not picked up when they are triaged at the Manston processing centre.
He added: “I have always been positive about the use of large sites in principle because I think they offer part of the solution to mitigate the cost and isolation of hotels. This only applies if the sites are run well, and from visiting Wethersfield I am not at all clear that it was being run well. I made my observations clear to the Home Office.
“It would be a fascinating exercise to follow up on the migrants leaving Wethersfield, ostensibly to stay with friends and family, and establish what kind of accommodation they end up in. I was always concerned that the isolated location of Wethersfield might actually prompt people to leave.”
Andrew Hull, of Wethersfield Airbase Scrutiny Committee, a group of locals who oppose the asylum site, said: “The taxpayer has been lied to, repeatedly, by government claims these large asylum sites represent value for money in comparison to hotels.
“Judging by legal documents obtained by taking the Home Office to court and information gleaned from freedom of information requests, it is blatantly clear that Wethersfield was never intended to be value for money.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “All asylum seekers undergo health checks and a screening interview to establish any vulnerabilities, and the basis of their asylum claim. We take the welfare of all asylum seekers within the Home Office estate very seriously and anyone deemed as unsuitable will not be relocated.
“Accommodation is allocated on a no-choice basis and individuals may be moved to other locations in line with published guidance.”
