 |
| Grand Burstin Hotel in Kent- facilities include a swimming pool and sea views |
Britain’s “soft touch” immigration system came under fire last night after it emerged that 130 asylum seekers are being put up at a seaside hotel.
Taxpayers are footing the bill for bed and board as officials struggle to cope with the latest influx.
Folkestone councillor Bob Neaves added: “A lot of people are disgusted this has been sprung on them with no consultation. We don’t want this to become another Calais.” Those applying for asylum are entitled to accommodation and a generous cash allowance.
Married couples get £72.52 a week and even those whose applications are refused get somewhere to live and £35.39 a week for food, clothing and toiletries.
An Eritrean refugee, who gave his name as Abraham, 33, said: “It’s not bad at this hotel, although the food is not very nice.”
The Home Office said: “The UK has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those who need it.
“We have made clear to our providers the use of hotels is only ever acceptable as a short-term measure and they must make alternative forms of accommodation available as a matter of urgency.
“The hotel will be used for a maximum of two weeks and we have instructed providers to reduce the number staying there as soon as possible.”
The migrants are staying at the Grand Burstin Hotel in Folkestone, Kent, where they have free run of the facilities, including a swimming pool.
 |
| Asylum seekers staying at Grand Burstin Hotel |
All have been allowed to stay at the hotel by Home Office officials while their asylum applications are processed. Many entered the country illegally.
The move has sparked anger among residents in the town who fear a migrant influx will turn it into “another Calais” with refugees gathering in huge numbers. Last night there was also real concern the refugees would be tempted to leave the hotel and travel undetected to other parts of the UK.
Former Home Office Minister and Daily Express columnist Ann Widdecombe said: “It’s all very well putting them up in a hotel but it’s not secure accommodation. The Home Office know where they are for about five minutes.
“You have to automatically detain all new asylum seekers because it’s the only way we know where they are. There is nothing to stop them hopping on the first train to London, or anywhere.
“People don’t think we are a soft touch, we are a soft touch.”
The group was moved to Folkestone to ease overcrowding at centres in London. The migrants from Eritrea, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and Iran will stay at the £40-a-night hotel for at least two weeks.
The move appears to have been prompted by news last week that 600 refugees were bundled into a hotel with just 98 bedrooms in Croydon, south London.
Folkestone resident Robert Fage said: “It is a bit rich UK taxpayers are paying to put up asylum seekers. We are mugs.”
Widower Theresa Franks, 94, from Deptford, south-east London, was so disgusted she cancelled a week-long stay at the 550-room hotel.
She said: “I have been coming here for 15 years and have so many happy memories. After seeing all this I’ve decided to go back home.” Son-in-law David Follins, 53, added: “It looks like a doss house.”
Yesterday the refugees gathered around the harbour in T-shirts and sunglasses while visitors looked on in amazement.
Kath Mahon, 52, from Preston, Lancs, who has been staying at the hotel with her daughter Heather, 27, said: “It makes us feel very uncomfortable.
“We don’t know who some of these people are and whether they have criminal records. There’s old people staying here who are petrified.”
A lot of people are disgusted this has been sprung on them with no consultation. We don’t want this to become another Calais
Married couples get £72.52 a week and even those whose applications are refused get somewhere to live and £35.39 a week for food, clothing and toiletries.
An Eritrean refugee, who gave his name as Abraham, 33, said: “It’s not bad at this hotel, although the food is not very nice.”
The Home Office said: “The UK has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those who need it.
“We have made clear to our providers the use of hotels is only ever acceptable as a short-term measure and they must make alternative forms of accommodation available as a matter of urgency.
“The hotel will be used for a maximum of two weeks and we have instructed providers to reduce the number staying there as soon as possible.”
Post a Comment Blogger Facebook Disqus