Embed from Getty Images
A couple of weeks ago, the BBC reported that the High Court had ruled that the Home Office’s decision to house cross-channel migrants in a “squalid” barracks in Folkestone was unlawful.
Six asylum seekers brought the case, claiming Napier Barracks was “unsafe” and dormitory use caused a Covid-19 outbreak earlier this year.
The ruling could see a damages claim against Home Secretary Priti Patel.
The Home Office said use of the barracks would continue, and it was considering its “next steps”.
This report is so different from the assurances by the government.
In answer to a question that I asked on January 29 Baroness Williams, home office minister in the Lords, justified the use of Napier Barracks – built 1794 – for Asylum Seekers. She wrote:
Following a review of available government property, the Ministry of Defence agreed to temporarily hand over two of their sites: the Penally Training Camp in Pembrokeshire and the Napier Barracks in Kent.
These sites were both suitable and immediately available to be used to house asylum seekers.
The accommodation, which until recently was used by the MOD is safe, habitable, fit for purpose and correctly equipped in line with existing asylum accommodation standards contractual requirements.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The hidden history of Euston, a lost canal and Cumberland Market
Liverpool Labour's lack of ambition over the Commonwealth and Europe
First Clacton by-election opinion poll released
The funding fog surrounding Nigel Farage and Reform UK
Nigel Jones 
Andy Daer 
Mick Taylor 
David Le Grice 