Cost of furnishing asylum seeker flats is too ‘sensitive’ to be released, says watchdog

[dutchman]

Information Commissioner rules in favour of Home Office, which refused to reveal cost of furnishing Hampshire accommodation



The cost of furnishing flats for asylum seekers cannot be released because the issue is too “sensitive”, a watchdog has ruled.

John Edwards, the Information Commissioner, has ruled in favour of the Home Office, which refused to reveal the cost of furnishing a block of flats to be used by 346 asylum seekers in Farnborough, Hampshire.

He rejected an appeal to release the information under freedom of information (FoI) laws, saying the public interest in revealing the cost to the taxpayer of the furnishing was outweighed by the need to protect the asylum seekers from protests and risks to their “health and safety”.

The apartments were allegedly finished with flat-screen TVs and satellite television.

Lee Anderson, the Reform UK MP for Ashfield, criticised the decision and said he planned to raise it in a parliamentary debate on immigration next week. He added: “The real risk is to the taxpayer, who is spending millions of pounds per day on people that should not be in the country.

“The fact that the Home Office and Information Commissioner are hiding or suppressing this information is a kick in the teeth for every single hard-working taxpayer in this country. They should have this information. I think they are probably embarrassed about the cost of it.”

James Cleverly, when he was home secretary, paused plans to move asylum seekers into the flats after a local backlash. It was claimed that, on the open market, the flats would have cost £1,400 a month to rent.

The Home Office had responded to the request by neither confirming nor denying whether it held the required information, or whether the apartments were to be used to house asylum seekers. It is standard policy for officials not to reveal locations of asylum accommodation by neither confirming nor denying it.

Mr Edwards said he accepted the Home Office’s reasoning, exempting it from the need to confirm or deny the FoI request.

“In the commissioner’s view, there is a very clear and weighty public interest in avoiding endangerment to the health or safety of any individual,” a statement from his office, giving his verdict, said.

“While the commissioner appreciates the public interest in the cost of providing accommodation used to accommodate asylum seekers, in his view this is outweighed by the Home Office neither confirming nor denying whether it holds any information falling within the scope of this request.”

[rebbonk]

I have a friend who, many years ago, used to let properties out to 'asylum seekers' under an agreement with (IIRC) the local council. She showed me a list of what she had to supply every time a 'tenant' moved in. The list was extensive not to mention expensive.

She withdrew from the scheme after about 18 months as she couldn't afford to keep renewing perfectly serviceable items every time a new tenant turned up.

Whilst second-hand is more than good enough for our own, it isn't when it comes to immigrants.

[dutchman]

I'm pleased they'll at least have somewhere warm to spend the winter, unlike a couple of million British pensioners!