Agenda item

This Council is committed to defend the human rights of all our residents, and to fulfil our public sector equality duty to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different people.

In 2019 this Council committed to join the Lift the Ban Coalition calling on the UK Government to change the law to give people seeking asylum the ability to seek work. The Council also committed to appropriate provision to support asylum seekers in Stroud District, including promotion of education and training to enable them to better integrate into the District and play an active role in the success of the local economy.

Since then, the Council has played an important role in cooperating and partnering with other Gloucestershire councils and GARAS (Gloucestershire Action for Refugees and Asylum Seekers) to support asylum-seekers and refugees fleeing war and persecution, from Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine and other countries.

This Council notes that:

·         At the end of 2021, around 89 million people were forcibly displaced across the world. Of these, 27 million were refugees, whilst 53 million were internally displaced within their country of origin.

·         Of all the refugees in the world, 72% are living in countries neighbouring their country of origin, often in developing countries. The UK is home to approximately 1% of the refugees who were displaced across the world.

·         In 2022, 75% of initial asylum decisions made by the UK Government resulted in a grant of asylum or other form of protection.

·         The Government has brought forward yet another immigration bill, at a time when there are currently no safe routes to the UK for nationalities of many countries most likely to be granted asylum including those with family members in our local communities.

·         People who arrive irregularly, when there are no safe and legal routes available to them, would never be allowed under the provisions of the new Illegal Migration Bill, to access the asylum system. Instead, they are likely to be detained and / or left destitute, without the right to work and in limbo indefinitely.

·         The Illegal Migration Bill would also remove vital protections for women and children, and victims of trafficking, meaning they could all face detention.

This Council resolves to:

·         Condemn the Illegal Migration Bill, which it considers to be in opposition to fundamental tenets of international human rights law, and represents an attack on migrants’ rights.

·         Commit to defend the rights of all people in our communities to live side by side in dignity and to continuing to welcome those who make our district their home.

·         Call on the Home Secretary to:

a)    Withdraw the Illegal Migration Bill.

b)    Commit to resourcing an asylum system that can deliver fair and timely asylum decisions.

c)    End the Home Office contracts with providers of temporary, often poor quality and unsuitable accommodation for asylum seekers.

·         Call on the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities to open discussions with local authorities about the best ways and resources needed to provide good quality long term accommodation for all those in need, including asylum seekers, within our communities.           

·         Mandate our Chief Executive to write to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to this effect.

Councillor Cornell presented the Motion and advised that the UK had been a key signatory to the refugee convention in 1951 which aimed to protect refugees. On the Government website it stated that the aim of the Illegal Migration Bill was to “make it unambiguously clear that, if you enter the UK illegally, you should not be able to remain here. Instead, you will be detained and promptly removed either to your home country or to a safe country where any asylum claim will be considered.” She stated that evidence showed that the bill was unlikely to work, the UK only currently had an agreement with one country willing to accept asylum seekers and this agreement was not currently operational. Asylum seekers who were not removed to another country would remain in the UK indefinitely with no legal status and would not be able to work. It was not clear how the government planned to provide suitable accommodation for those who were not granted status. Furthermore she stated that the bill would not deter people from arriving in the UK as evidence showed that refugees had limited knowledge on asylum policies and this was not the largest factor in them making decisions as to where to go. She asked for the government to drop the bill and create safe and legal routes for people to travel to the UK to claim asylum.

Councillor Studdert-Kennedy asked what alternatives could be considered. Councillor Cornell stated that safe routes were needed so that citizens from other countries e.g. Sudan, could flee to the UK. She also advised that resources needed to be put in place to clear the backlog.

Councillor Green proposed an amendment as laid out with the changes in red below, the amendment was seconded by Councillor Stephen Davies.

Council resolves to:

•        Condemn the Illegal Migration Bill, which it considers to be in opposition to fundamental tenets of international human rights law, and represents an attack on migrants’ rights.

•        Commit to defend the rights of all people in our communities to live side by side in dignity and to continuing to welcome those who make our district their home.

•        Call on the Home Secretary to:

a)     Withdraw the Illegal Migration Bill.

b)     Commit to resourcing an asylum system that can deliver fair and timely asylum decisions.

c)     Welcome the ending of the Home Office contracts with providers of temporary, often poor quality and unsuitable accommodation for asylum seekers.

•        Call on the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities to open discussions with local authorities about the best ways and resources needed to provide good quality long term accommodation for all those in need, including asylum seekers, within our communities.

•        Mandate our Chief Executive to write to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to this effect.

Councillor Prenter stated that he didn’t think the bill had anything to do with immigration but instead aimed at appealing to marginal constituencies.

Councillor Smith asked what the point of the amendment was as it removed the central aim of the Motion.

Councillor Cornell stated that the condemnation of the bill was central to the motion, she stated that the government needed to rely on evidence so that they had an informed position.

Councillor Turner advised that she would not be able to support the amendment, she also advised that other organisations had condemned the bill including the Church of England.

Councillor Bennett highlighted the concerns raised by the law society and that there had been no public consultation to ensure that it was a workable policy.

Councillor Stephen Davies advised that as the bill had been passed by parliament they were suggesting the amendment due to the timing of the Motion.

The amendment was put to the vote, there were 9 votes for, 25 against and 1 abstention.

Councillor Drury-Layfield stated that without safe passage for refugees fleeing conflict, war and persecution the Illegal Migration Bill did not help and would drive people into slavery. He asked Councillors to vote with their hearts and send a strong signal to government that the bill was plainly wrong.

Councillor Jockel advised that he had a self-interest in the motion as he was a descendent of a migrant and that humans were intrinsically migratory. He highlighted the climate emergency which would not respect borders and would result in more refugees fleeing. He asked Councillors to show their moral purpose and compass.

Councillor Hynd informed Councillors that he had been brought up in lifelong conservative household and stated that the bill wasn’t the conservative politics he knew. He asked Councillors to imagine their loved ones in a situation where their life was under threat, he asked them to think about how they would want foreign governments to respond.

Councillor Cornell confirmed that the bill had passed through the House of Commons but had not yet been approved by the House of Lords. She highlighted concerns that they were betraying the previous generations who hoped to build a better world after the horrors of the second world war. She stated that the bill fuelled misconceptions and prejudice against genuine refugees. She asked Members to support the Motion and call on government to expand safe routes and address the backlog.

On being put to the vote, the Motion was carried with 25 votes for, 9 against and 1 abstention.