Agenda item

To enable Non-Cabinet Members to raise an issue of relevance to Brent for debate on which notice has been provided in accordance with Standing Order 34.

Members are asked to note that the subject identified for debate at this meeting is as follows:

Deterrence, Integration and Accommodation Impacts of Illegal Immigration on Brent

Please note: The motion submitted as the basis for this debate has been attached.

In accordance with Standing Order 34, the Mayor advised that the next item on the agenda was the non-cabinet member debate, with the subject chosen for consideration being “Deterrence, Integration and Accommodation Impacts of Illegal Immigration on Brent”.

Members were advised that the motion submitted as the basis for the debate had been circulated with the agenda and that the time available for the debate was 25 minutes.  Prior to the debate commencing the Mayor felt it important to remind everyone of his focus in seeking to celebrate the diverse nature of the borough and recognise the peaceful relationships that existed between the many different communities residing in Brent, reflecting the strong level of community cohesion across the borough.  As such he hoped all members participating in the debate would take these principles into account when speaking to ensure any contributions made were done so in an appropriate manner, also recognising the requirements placed on all members under the Code of Conduct, for which he thanked everyone in advance for their support.

The Mayor then invited Councillor Kansagra to introduce the motion which had been submitted as the basis for the Non-Cabinet Member debate.  In moving the motion, Councillor Kansagra began by welcoming the comments from the Mayor in terms of highlighting the need for a serious and at the same time honest debate on the growing pressures being experienced across the UK and within the borough as a result of illegal immigration.  Whilst emphasising the need for sensitivity, compassion and the creation of safe and legal routes for the most vulnerable it was also felt more robust deterrence and control was required in relation to the asylum system.  In raising the matter for debate, Councillor Kansagra advised that he was aware the current challenges in relation to immigration had not materialised in isolation and reflected a wider approach in relation to international foreign policy and intervention by governments in regions across the globe, including Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan with lessons needing to be learnt as a result focussed around the provision of support and aid to affected nations rather than direct military or political interference.

In terms of the impact across the UK and within Brent, the pressures being created on the supply of housing, education and the police along with health services were all cited as significant challenges and felt to be contributing factors to the recent civil unrest experienced across the UK.  As such, Councillor Kansagra highlighted what he felt to be the urgent need for practical action to restore public confidence in the integrity of the asylum system underpinned by an honest and open debate on the challenges faced.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Kansagra for introducing the motion and then opened up the debate for contributions from other members.

Opening the debate Councillor Lorber spoke first, highlighting what he felt to be the misinformed nature of the motion presented and request made to the Conservative Group in advance of the meeting for them to consider withdrawing it.  Outlining the basis of the request, he felt it important to clarify the reference to illegal immigration and implication that those migrants and refugees currently being housed in hotels having gained entry through irregular routes were of that status.  Referring to the 1951 International Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees he felt it important to note that under this Convention, a person situated outside their country of nationality who possessed a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion should infact be classified as a refugee rather than illegal immigrant. He pointed out the Convention further acknowledged that the pursuit of asylum might necessitate contravention of a particular nation's immigration laws and stipulated that those entering in such circumstances should not be penalised for irregular entry.  As a result, he advised those arriving in the UK and being placed in Brent should not be characterised as illegal immigrants but rather as asylum seekers, pending their application being assessed and right to remain established.  In ending his comments, Councillor Lorber highlighted what he regarded as the root cause of the current challenges in relation to the asylum system, which he felt had been the persistent failure of the previous Conservative Government to properly administer and resource the asylum system leading to a backlog of claims whilst focussing on more costly and unworkable options, including the Rwanda scheme.  As such he advised neither he or the Liberal Democrats Group would be supporting the motion moved as the basis for the debate.

As a further contribution Councillor Clinton, also speaking in opposition to the motion, expressed concern at what appeared to be the alarming increase in hate crime throughout the UK over recent weeks, recounting numerous accounts of offences committed against individuals from a range of diverse backgrounds. He felt this had been fuelled by an increase in the level of uninformed, anti-immigration rhetoric.  As such, he felt the motion moved as the basis for the debate would only serve to contribute to this wider rhetoric and had the potential to further increase hostility being directed towards those individuals seeking asylum.  In highlighting the range of current significant challenges faced across the country and within Brent, including the ongoing pressures arising from the pandemic, Russian invasion of Ukraine, cost of living crisis, previous Conservative Government’s economic policies, other geopolitical challenges (including US trade tariffs) as well as the lack of provision of affordable social housing, UKs ageing population and impact of climate change, he felt it clear that none of these issues had been created by migrants or refugees.  In contrast, he took the opportunity to highlight the positive contributions being made by immigrants to society through employment and taxation and the key roles they often played in supporting the construction industry and NHS.   As such, he advised he would also be opposing the motion and hoped all members would take the same stance.

Also speaking against the motion, Councillor Afzal expressed concern and reservations about the way it had been framed and presented, perceiving it to be opportunistic in nature.  In support of the previous comments made, he felt it was deplorable to target asylum seekers and refugees who were seeking safety and sanctuary.  Drawing parallels between the current increase in rhetoric being witnessed nationally and those previously employed by the far right, Councillor Afzal observed that whilst currently concealed beneath humanitarian sympathy and arguments concerning burdens upon taxpayers and cultural tensions, the implicit element of this ideology remained evident and characterised the calls within the motion for immigration restrictions predicated upon housing shortages as hypocritical, noting the previous Conservative Government’s failure in relation to the delivery of affordable social housing provision.  Rather than focussing on immigration, Councillor Afzal attributed the current housing crisis to the previous Conservative Government’s programme of austerity, housing deregulation, inadequate funding, privatisation, and economic policies favouring the rich and landlords.  In highlighting that refugees existed as a consequence of war, poverty, famine, disease, colonial legacy, and the ongoing exploitation of poorer nations globally by the West, he concluded by affirming that Brent had consistently been an inclusive borough and expressed pride in the commitment to maintaining this character both presently and in the future.

Speaking next, Councillor Maurice responded to the concerns raised, acknowledging the propagation of hatred by far-right elements in recent weeks whilst equally condemning hatred disseminated by the left. This latter phenomenon was, in Councillor Maurice's view, particularly evident amongst those participating in demonstrations in support of Palestine. He then turned to the matter of hotel accommodation for asylum seekers feeling that this did not provide an appropriate solution for either those seeking asylum or families currently waiting to be housed across the borough living within unsuitable temporary accommodation who he felt were also being overlooked, notwithstanding that they met the necessary criteria.  As such, Councillor Maurice advised the motion was seeking to advocate for the equitable treatment of those individuals, contending that the placement of people in inadequately managed Houses in Multiple Occupation as well as those in hotels was unacceptable.  Concern was also expressed at the current Government’s attempts to deter illegal and unsafe channel crossings, which were also felt to be inadequate with the need identified to establish a more robust and equitable system, incorporating genuine and tangible deterrents.  To support the process he felt reform of the asylum system was required to enable faster decision making, ensuring that those seeking asylum were not waiting for clarity on their immigration status for long periods of time and that a process was established enabling firm humane returns for those with no right to remain supported by the establishment of safe and legal routes for the most vulnerable with clear caps linked to local capacity.  Councillor Maurice referred to the examples of other nations implementing such measures set out within the motion as ways in which appropriate deterrent and processing measures could be established without the need to veer into more extreme policy measures and concluded by advising that on this basis he would be supporting the motion in seeking the adoption of a fair and more transparent approach to immigration.

Councillor Nerva then spoke, advising that he felt compelled to contribute having also listened to the tone of the debate and urging those in support of the motion to recognise the composition of the chamber and how Brent celebrated diversity.  Highlighting the range of backgrounds from which a majority of councillors had been drawn and the experience of many of their parents or grandparents in seeking to enter the UK, he outlined his objective as a councillor in supporting the promotion and development of community cohesion, which he knew most members would also support.  Referencing the unanimous support for the earlier motion, which called for support in combating racism Councillor Nerva hoped all Members would once again honour that spirit in seeking to oppose the motion moved as the basis for the current debate.  He also felt it important to recognise what he felt had been the role of Brexit in precipitating the current crisis, noting that the UKs withdrawal from the European Union had complicated and delayed the mechanisms available for managing the refugee situation more effectively.  In concluding, Councillor Nerva expressed his unequivocal support for refugees across the UK and those currently being placed in hotel accommodation and hoped that all members would join him in voting against the motion.

Moving on, Councillor Mistry also spoke in support of the motion taking the opportunity to highlight the value placed on community cohesion and contribution made by those seeking to settle in the borough.  At the same time, however, it was felt that the concerns being expressed by many residents regarding the increasing number of migrants being placed in the borough also needed to be reflected in terms of the growing pressure on housing, primary care and policing given what were often regarded as a lack of shared values and increasing concern around incidents of assaults against women and girls allegedly being perpetrated by certain individuals being located within hotels whilst awaiting assessment of their asylum claims.  In contrast it was felt the Ugandan refugee resettlement scheme had demonstrated how such a scheme could be successfully established and operated in order to achieve successful integration and assimilation into British society rather than those individuals being regarded as a burden, which was seen as a failure of the current asylum system.  In highlighting the current number of asylum claims being received within the UK, the need was identified for urgent reform of the system and the introduction of appropriate deterrent (such as the Rwanda scheme) to ensure that those in genuine danger and at risk of persecution were protected and those with no right to remain were dealt with humanely and swiftly.

Speaking next, Councillor Chan addressed the motion, acknowledging the existence within society of individuals indifferent to the welfare of their fellow human beings. Notwithstanding this observation, he was pleased to acknowledge that such persons constituted a negligible minority.  In acknowledging the importance of friendship, family, safety, history, belonging and culture, Councillor Chan further observed that the British populace were not lacking in discernment and had taken note of the disposal of the nation's historic assets, the implementation of austerity measures, the outsourcing of public services, privatisation, and the imposition of enforced competition by previous Government’s which he felt had left many with a feeling of them being of no consequence and seeking a sense of belonging.  In echoing comments made by Dawn Butler MP that 'strangers are often those waiting to be friends' he also supported the need identified for the Government to renew, restore, and rebuild the UKs institutions to address this state of affairs. Whilst acknowledging that such an undertaking would necessitate substantial investment and resources, Councillor Chan expressed confidence that, as a nation possessing considerable skill and potential, this objective could be realised provided these resources were distributed equitably and therefore concluded, in opposing the motion, by advocating for a fair and just redistribution of wealth, skill, and potential.

As a final contribution, Councillor Moeen also spoke to express her opposition to the motion highlighting the need to recognise the humanitarian nature of the situation faced by those seeking refuge and fleeing persecution.  She contended that the application of enhanced deterrence measures and unfulfilled commitments would prove ineffective in preventing migration and would only serve to render vulnerable individuals more susceptible to exploitation by criminal elements.  In reminding members of Brent’s history in relation to Irish migrants, she identified the diverse nature of communities who had subsequently chosen to settle in the borough and their associated integration as a positive attribute and a source of strength for the borough.  Supporting the view that the current pressures being experienced in relation to the supply of housing were a consequence of previous government failures and inadequate funding rather than being attributable to those seeking refuge, safety and opportunity she felt the attempts to blame to migrants should therefore be regarded as a deflection from the substantive issues, namely the requirement for equitable housing policies and appropriate government support.  In drawing the debate to a close Councillor Moeen ended by highlighting the way in which she felt inclusion and compassion were the means necessary to foster trust, diminish exploitation, and strengthen community cohesion as opposed to deterrence and scapegoating.

In view of the remaining time available the Mayor then invited Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (as Cabinet Member for Housing) to summarise and close the debate.

In closing the debate, Councillor Donelly Jackson (Cabinet Member for Housing) began by reasserting the view that the motion on which the debate was based had been predicated upon a false premise, claiming that the use of hotels for people seeking asylum was somehow the cause of Brent’s housing crisis, which was strongly refuted.  Highlighting that the housing crisis had been developing over decades and as a direct consequence of the previous Conservative Government’s failure to invest adequately in affordable housing and to protect social housing stock driven by policies such as Right to Buy.  As a result, she hoped members would avoid falling for dehumanising rhetoric that oversimplified complex issues and demonised entire groups of people, highlighting the way in which the previous Government had allowed the asylum system to collapse leaving the people affected in limbo, unable to work or integrate and stranded in hotels with substantial financial resources having been committed on unworkable schemes like Rwanda resulting in chaos rather than focussing on seeking to build competence and fairness into the asylum system.

The importance in recognising and focussing on the human aspect of the issue was also highlighted, with members reminded that those seeking asylum had fled conflict, persecution and danger in seeking safety and of the Uks proud record in offering sanctuary as well as the moral and legal duty created as signatories of the Refugee Convention to act with humanity and fairness.  As a result, Councillor Donnelly-Jackson felt that rather than seeking to scapegoat people seeking refugee the asylum system required comprehensive reform and proper resources, including the provision of new safe and legal routes, noting that the Labour government was committed to restoring order and humanity to the system with faster and fairer decisions, an end to the reliance on hotels, and a proper plan that communities including those within Brent could trust.

In concluding, Councillor Donelly Jackson also took the opportunity to thank the charitable organisations, faith groups, and volunteers supporting asylum seekers across the borough for their invaluable contribution, advice, education, friendship and reassurance reflecting the best of Brent as a borough.  In rejecting the politics of fear, members were urged to stand up for a system that was competent, fair and humane and, in rejecting the motion, to reaffirm Brent's pride in its status as a Borough of Sanctuary.

Having thanked members for their contributions, the Mayor then moved to the vote on the motion moved as the basis for the Non-Cabinet Member debate which was declared LOST.

It was therefore RESOLVED to reject the following motion as the outcome of the non-cabinet member debate:

“Deterrence, Integration and Accommodation Impacts of Illegal Immigration on Brent

Background:

Brent has seen growing pressures on its housing stock, primary care and policing, in part due to hotels used for those arriving by irregular channel crossings by boats.

Hotels are used by the Home Office to place asylum seekers and those who arrive through illegal routes. This burdens the wider public purse and taxpayers and may create resentment towards those who follow these illegal routes.

There is currently no clear policy to integrate people arriving illegally, leading to cultural tensions, fears and safety concerns.  Although not in Brent, the high-profile case of sexual assault by a recent arrival has amplified public anxiety.

This Council Notes:

·            Illegal immigrants increase the demand for emergency hotel accommodation, diverting resources from Brent residents in need.

·            Brent households face extended waits for temporary housing while hotels remain filled with asylum claimants which could include those arriving by small boats.

·            The answer is deterrence to stop the boats, faster decisions that ensure people are not waiting for clarity on their immigration status for long periods of time and firm humane returns for those with no right to remain.

·            Safe and legal routes should exist for the most vulnerable, with clear caps linked to local capacity.

·            Other European countries have adopted deterrent and processing measures without veering into extreme policy e.g.

o      Italy agreed with Albania to process arrivals in centres under Italian jurisdiction, moving decisions away from beach landings. 

o      Denmark legislated for third country processing, explored partnership with Rwanda while seeking a path that fits with European rules.

o      The European Union has struck migration partnerships with Tunisia and Egypt to curb dangerous journeys upstream.

This Council Believes:

·            Genuine refugees fleeing persecution deserve protection and swift humane processing.

·            The integrity of our asylum system must be upheld by deterring dangerous journeys and prevent abuse of legal channels.

·            Faster decision-making is required to process asylum claims and that people arriving illegally should be deported.  Quick humane returns for those with no right to remain will restore public confidence.

·            Those in genuine danger should be protected and shown the integrity of the system.

·            That residents should not be made to subsidise national policy failures which result in inflated rental costs and overstretched public services.

·            The Government has removed the Rwanda option without putting a credible solution to remove illegal immigrants in its place. This does not serve the national interest.

·            If a workable model can cut the pull of illegal routes, a serious government should test it and be honest about results.

This Council therefore resolves:

?

(1)       To publish data on the number of hotels used for asylum accommodation in Brent and, once they are granted leave to remain, the impact on the housing waiting list.

(2)       To secure monthly data from the Home Office and an exit plan for hotel use in Brent with dates and milestones.”