Asylum Welcome has serious concerns about plans to accommodate up to 1,256 people seeking asylum at MOD Bicester. But we are equally clear that the people who may be sent there are not responsible for this proposal and must not become scapegoats for it.
When the plans[1] were first announced, Asylum Welcome raised concerns about the use of large-scale, institutional accommodation on an isolated former military site.[2] Those concerns remain.
For 30 years, we have supported refugees and asylum seekers across Oxfordshire. Our experience tells us that people thrive when they are able to live as part of communities, with access to healthcare, legal advice, public transport and opportunities to learn, volunteer, make connections and rebuild their lives.
We are concerned about the potential impact of isolation and institutional accommodation on people’s mental health and wellbeing, and about whether people housed at MOD Bicester would be able to access the specialist services and support they need.
Experience at large sites such as Wethersfield and Napier has raised serious concerns about mental health and wellbeing, safeguarding and access to services.[3]
We also recognise that a proposal of this scale raises legitimate questions for local communities about the suitability of the site. These are reasonable questions, and it is the Government’s responsibility to answer them openly and properly.
Oppose the policy, not the people
However, there is an important distinction between challenging a government policy and attacking the people affected by it.
The people who may be sent to MOD Bicester did not choose this policy. They did not choose the site. They are not responsible for decisions made by the Home Office.
As the debate around MOD Bicester has developed, we have become increasingly concerned by hostility being expressed towards asylum seekers, particularly rhetoric which portrays them as a threat to local women and children, although there is no evidence to show that asylum seekers are any more likely to commit crimes against women than the general population. In fact, and shockingly, according to Rape Crisis, 6 in 7 rapes against women are carried out by someone they know.[4]
Language which encourages people to regard an entire group with fear or suspicion fuels racism and division. At a time when emotions are running high, everyone involved in this debate has a responsibility not to contribute to that.
People seeking asylum are individuals and should be treated as such. Being a male asylum seeker does not make someone a danger to the community.
The people Asylum Welcome supports have experienced persecution, conflict, violence, displacement and separation from their families. They include fathers, brothers and sons, mothers and daughters, students, friends, neighbours and colleagues. They have skills, professions, hopes and ambitions. Above all, they are people.
We therefore urge politicians, campaigners and everyone taking part in the public debate to challenge misinformation, reject racism and avoid language which presents asylum seekers collectively as a threat.
Those being discussed are not a faceless group of “1,256 men”. They are individuals, each with a different life history and reason for seeking safety.
What’s the alternative?
At Asylum Welcome, we recognise that the current model of using hotels outsourced to private contractors is costly, inhumane and unsuitable. But replacing one form of institutional accommodation with another is not the answer.
There is a better alternative: safe, appropriate accommodation within communities, where people can access the services they need, build relationships and begin rebuilding their lives.
Crucially, this isn’t a new or untested idea.
For many years, the asylum accommodation system has used short-term initial accommodation followed by longer-term dispersal accommodation, traditionally in houses, flats and shared accommodation within communities. Hotels have been used as contingency accommodation when there has not been sufficient capacity in the usual asylum accommodation system.[5]
Rather than large, segregated sites, we want to see investment in safe, appropriate community-based accommodation, delivered in partnership with local authorities and communities.
Community makes welcome possible
People seeking safety are already part of our communities. Our asylum accommodation system should help them become neighbours, not isolate them from the communities in which they may eventually make their homes. We believe this approach is ultimately in everyone’s interest.
Sources
[1] Home Office: MoD Bicester (site A), Oxfordshire: factsheet (V2)
[2] BBC News: Concern over ‘astounding’ asylum military base plans
[4] Rape Crisis England & Wales: Rape and sexual assault statistics (November 2025)
[5] House of Commons Library: Asylum accommodation briefing (July 2023)
