A Reform bid to withdraw Wigan council from all discretionary refugee resettlement schemes has been rejected after an hour-long debate at a full council meeting.
Motion details
Coun Simon Silcock, of Reform, brought forward a motion claiming optional refugee schemes were 'adding serious pressure on council housing, private rented accommodation, HMOs, schools, GP services and community cohesion'. The motion called on the council to withdraw from all discretionary refugee resettlement schemes and write to the Home Office, confirming that the borough will not accept further placements until housing, public services and community capacity are independently assessed and shown to be sufficient.
Reform arguments
Coun Silcock said: 'During the election we knocked on tens of thousands of doors across Wigan and Leigh and we heard the same concerns time and time again. Residents spoke about the current levels of immigration and the impacts it's having on housing, public services and local communities. Above all they spoke about fairness. People feel that national and local government does not see their own citizens as a priority. Discretionary refugee settlement schemes are voluntary and the council can decide whether it has the capacity.'
Reform group leader Paul Watson said: 'It's simply about supply and demand. We simply don't have enough social housing for our own residents let alone those from elsewhere. Wigan council does not have an unlimited amount of housing, unlimited GP capacity and school places and unlimited resources. The data does not lie, we are beyond capacity. We've got 250 people bidding for every council home that becomes available.'
Labour opposition
Labour's Debbie Parkinson spoke to oppose the motion. She said: 'We all recognise the real pressures on housing, schools, GP services, community safety and council finances but this motion points to the wrong cause. It proposes action largely outside the council's legal control and risks dividing communities without providing one extra home, one GP appointment or one extra school place. We must be honest about where the responsibility lies. Immigration, asylum decisions and accommodation are matters for central government and the Home Office.'
She added that local authorities do not set asylum policy, who is granted asylum or control where people seeking asylum are dispersed. 'For accommodation it is commissioned to private provider Serco, not selected or controlled by this council. But the council has a legal duty to provide for those people when we have no choice but to have them here. Government grants pay for this and they are ring-fenced. A motion implying the council can simply stop placements risks giving residents false assurances. Our duty is to be honest about what we can control, what we can influence and what we can challenge directly with the government.'
Vote outcome
The vote was supported by Reform councillors and many Independent members with Labour members voting against. The vote was 32 in favour, 35 against with one abstention, meaning the motion failed.
