Asylum seekers must be shared across the “entire nation”, a cabinet minister declared as residents in an Oxfordshire village demonstrate their opposition to housing migrants at a former military base. Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: “Where in the UK would want more of this? We’ve got to share this throughout the entire nation.”

A symbolic independence referendum has been organised in Piddington in protest at plans to house 1,256 male asylum seekers at a nearby former military base. An open letter by 133 women in Piddington has been sent to Westminster’s 266 female MPs, claiming they faced a “crisis” and voicing fears for their “safety, security and freedoms”. Mr Reynolds said there is “no imaginary place these people can go” while acknowledging “none of this is pleasant” in his Good Morning Britain interview.

Mr Reynolds argued that a “former military site is a far more suitable location” than a hotel in a city or town centre. The cabinet minister claimed “you can more easily see who’s coming and going from a site like that”.

Former Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer declared the Conservative plan to send people who come to the UK illegally to Rwanda “dead and buried” upon arriving in Downing Street. Mr Reynolds insisted the Rwanda plan was not a solution for a system that was “completely out of control”.

He said: “None of this was being dealt with because there was this imaginary proposition that somehow people were going to be sent to Rwanda.”

Piddington voters decided to hold the unofficial referendum on July 4, the 250th anniversary of US Declaration of Independence by 96%.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will be able to bypass local planning authorities if the Government uses the Urgent Crown Development Process.

Heidi Meakin, 61, a resident who has met with MPs from different parties to voice her concerns, told the Press Association she would no longer feel safe if the plans go ahead.

She said: “I wouldn’t leave my front door unlocked like I do.”

Gloria Brown, 69, who has lived in the village for 23 years, said she would feel “imprisoned”.

She said: “I’ve felt very emotional about it just lately, and it’s just not correct, and it’s totally unfair.”

Safety Fears as Labour Minister Says Asylum Seekers Must Live ‘Throughout Entire Nation’

A bitter dispute over asylum accommodation in an Oxfordshire village has intensified after Cabinet minister Jonathan Reynolds said asylum seekers must be accommodated across the country, declaring that the burden has to be shared “throughout the entire nation”.

Reynolds made the comments as residents of Piddington, near Bicester, protested against Government plans to accommodate up to 1,256 single adult male asylum seekers at a former military site nearby.

The remarks have placed the Government’s national asylum accommodation policy directly against a backdrop of intense local concern, with residents raising questions about safety, infrastructure, policing and the scale of the proposed facility compared with the size of the surrounding community.

‘We’ve got to share this throughout the entire nation’

Speaking to ITV’s Good Morning Britain, Reynolds argued that the Government had limited options for accommodating people whose asylum claims were being processed.

“Where in the UK would want more of this? We’ve got to share this throughout the entire nation,” he said.

The Business and Trade Secretary also argued that a former military site could be more appropriate than placing asylum seekers in hotels located in town and city centres.

He acknowledged that the situation was difficult, saying that “none of this is pleasant”, but maintained that the former military site offered a more controlled environment.

Reynolds also said that because the asylum seekers would not be detained, a self-contained former military facility could nevertheless make it easier to monitor who was entering and leaving the site.

The Government’s broader argument is that asylum accommodation should not remain concentrated in a limited number of communities. Instead, the pressure should be distributed more widely while ministers work to close asylum hotels.

That approach is central to Labour’s attempt to reorganise the asylum accommodation system.

Why Piddington has become the flashpoint

The dispute in Piddington is particularly striking because of the enormous difference between the size of the village and the proposed population of the facility.

Piddington has a population of roughly 350 to 360 people. The proposed development at the former Bicester Garrison site would accommodate up to 1,256 people.

The planning application describes a temporary change of use of the former defence site for non-detained asylum accommodation. It includes accommodation, health and welfare facilities, security infrastructure, roads, wastewater facilities, staff accommodation and recreational areas.

The scale of the proposal has generated strong opposition among some residents.

An open letter signed by 133 women in the village was sent to female MPs at Westminster, expressing concerns about safety, security and personal freedom. Individual residents have also described fears about how the presence of such a large facility could change everyday life in the village.

Those concerns should be distinguished from evidence of actual criminality. Residents have expressed fears about what might happen if the centre opens, but such fears do not in themselves establish that asylum seekers living at the site would cause crime or pose a threat to local people.

That distinction has become increasingly important as the political debate around Piddington has intensified.

Symbolic ‘independence’ vote

The controversy reached an unusual point when Piddington residents organised a symbolic referendum on whether the village should declare independence from the United Kingdom.

The vote had no legal force, but it became a powerful demonstration of local opposition.

Residents voted overwhelmingly in favour, with 285 votes against 26, according to reports following the ballot.

The campaign was presented by organisers as a protest against the asylum accommodation plans and what they regarded as inadequate local consultation.

The symbolic nature of the vote is important. It does not give the village legal authority to reject the Government’s proposal, nor does it alter the planning process.

Nevertheless, it illustrates the extent to which the issue has become a major local political and community dispute.

Council formally objects to the plans

The opposition is not limited to the symbolic referendum.

Cherwell District Council formally objected to the Government’s proposal on September 17.

The council says significant questions remain concerning site security, community safety, infrastructure, public services and the wider impact on the surrounding community. It also says it was not consulted before the Government announced the proposal and only became aware of it shortly before the plans were made public.

ITV reported that the council described some of the risks associated with the proposal as “avoidable” and said urgency should not be used to justify unresolved problems.

Among the issues raised are questions concerning wastewater, surface-water flooding, ecology, access and the practical impact on the local area.

The council’s formal objection does not mean that the development has been rejected.

Under the process being used, the Government remains responsible for the final decision.

Cherwell District Council is a consultee rather than the final decision-maker. The application is being considered through the Urgent Crown Development process.

Home Secretary seeks to reassure residents

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has also addressed the controversy, attempting to draw a distinction between legitimate concerns from residents and protests led by extremist groups.

Mahmood said she understood the anxiety felt by people who were facing a major change to their community.

At the same time, she warned against far-right activists attempting to exploit those concerns.

Her message was that residents could raise genuine questions about planning, policing, infrastructure and safety without allowing the debate to become a vehicle for intimidation or disorder.

Mahmood has also argued that large, self-contained accommodation centres can reduce pressure on surrounding communities because facilities such as healthcare, welfare and other services can be provided within the site.

She cited other large asylum accommodation locations as examples of the Government’s approach.

The wider Government strategy

The argument over Piddington is part of a much larger change in how Britain handles asylum accommodation.

The Government has been seeking to reduce its reliance on asylum hotels, which became widespread under the previous Conservative administration.

The Home Office has instead been looking at alternative forms of accommodation, including former military and government sites.

Earlier parliamentary discussions showed that more than 100,000 people were living in asylum accommodation at the end of 2025. Ministers argued that the overall accommodation estate was under significant pressure and that the Government was attempting to reduce hotel use while speeding up asylum decisions and removals.

The Government’s argument is therefore not simply that Piddington should accept a particular facility. It is part of a wider policy principle that asylum accommodation should be distributed across different parts of the country rather than concentrated in a small number of areas.

That is the context behind Reynolds’ “entire nation” comment.

But distribution creates its own political problem

Sharing accommodation more widely may address one problem while creating another.

When asylum centres are concentrated in large urban areas, communities may already have experience of migration and established public services. When large centres are proposed in smaller communities, the numerical impact can be much more visible.

Piddington illustrates that dilemma particularly clearly.

A facility accommodating up to 1,256 people would represent a population several times larger than the village itself.

That does not automatically mean local services would be overwhelmed. The Government says the proposed site is intended to be largely self-contained and that relevant authorities, including police and local government, are involved in assessing safety and security.

But the concerns raised by Cherwell show that the practical questions have not disappeared simply because the site is self-contained. Infrastructure, emergency access, wastewater, transport, policing and environmental considerations still have to be addressed.

A dispute that goes beyond immigration

The Piddington controversy has therefore become about more than whether asylum seekers should be housed at one particular former military site.

It raises a broader question for the Government: how can the asylum system be reorganised without concentrating its consequences on communities that believe they have had insufficient involvement in the decision?

For ministers such as Reynolds, the answer is national distribution. The Government argues that there is no practical alternative to finding accommodation across different regions while reducing the use of expensive hotels.

For residents and local authorities opposing the Piddington proposal, the central questions are more immediate: whether the site is suitable, whether adequate safeguards are in place and whether the community has been properly consulted.

Those positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive in principle. A national accommodation policy can coexist with detailed scrutiny of individual sites.

What remains unresolved in Piddington is whether the proposed former military site can satisfy the planning, infrastructure, environmental and security requirements raised by local authorities and residents.

For now, the Government has not abandoned the proposal. Cherwell District Council has formally objected, while the Home Office continues to defend the use of the former military site as an alternative to hotels.

The “throughout the entire nation” argument is therefore likely to remain at the centre of Britain’s asylum debate: ministers insist that responsibility must be shared, while communities such as Piddington are demanding answers about what that responsibility will mean on the ground.

The next stage will depend not on the symbolic independence referendum, but on the Government’s assessment of the planning objections, infrastructure requirements and safeguards surrounding the proposed facility.

For Piddington residents, however, the controversy has already demonstrated how national immigration policy can become an intensely local issue when more than a thousand people are proposed for accommodation beside a village of only a few hundred.

And for the Government, the challenge is to demonstrate that spreading asylum accommodation across the country can be done while addressing legitimate questions about safety, infrastructure, transparency and local accountability.