I wrote on the 4th September regarding the refugee crisis, seeking Medway Council's position and looking to offer cross party support for a positive stance.
We have seen Medway residents come together to form action groups like "Medway Masses doing their bit for the refugees in Calais" on Facebook and also creation of the Medway City of Sanctuary - the launch of which was attended by members of the two main political groups on Medway Council.
At the time of submitting this question (4.59pm on 6th October) there has not been a public statement from the Council regarding their position on the refugee crisis - could you please update on the position of Medway Council regarding the refugee crisis.
Minutes:
“I wrote on the 4th September regarding the refugee crisis, seeking Medway Council's position and looking to offer cross party support for a positive stance.
We have seen Medway residents come together to form action groups like "Medway Masses doing their bit for the refugees in Calais" on Facebook and also creation of the Medway City of Sanctuary - the launch of which was attended by members of the two main political groups on Medway Council.
At the time of submitting this question (4.59pm on 6th October) there has not been a public statement from the Council regarding their position on the refugee crisis - could you please update on the position of Medway Council regarding the refugee crisis.”
Councillor Jarrett stated that he had corresponded with Councillor Maple by email on this subject and that he thought that they were essentially both coming from the same place though Councillor Maple’s original question was much more along the lines of what was going to be done and committed to immediately.
He stated that until he understood the Government’s position on this, the Council would not be committing to anything.
He referred Members to an extract from motion 15b and in particular the first and third paragraph and that this was where he was coming from at this particular time. Because of the uncertainly about funding, Members would recall the first response from Government which was that there would be one year’s funding with no clarity about whether sustainable, recurring funding would follow.
He referred to the statement he had issued to the press, which was very brief and succinct along the lines of “keeping our powder dry” and that the statement noted it was for the Government to determine immigration policy and to adequately fund Councils who may be affected by national policy. He stated that he still believed that this was a very reasonable position to take at that particular time. The more public and more detailed statement was in fact the knowledge that this motion was being brought forward.
He stated that he thought that this position was well made. He stated that those Councils around the Country, including some in Kent, who had committed without any certainty of funding to take “x” number of refugees, no matter how worthy those calls on assistance were, did that without the certainty of funding and were behaving in a way that this Administration would not behave in.
He stated that when he had first looked at this issue and tried to take some of the emotion out of it and looked at the Council’s own demand on resources here in Medway and looking at housing numbers where the Council had over 6,000 on the waiting list of who were in highest need, where there were large numbers of Looked After Children, where there were large numbers of children in care, where there were have large numbers of unaccompanied asylum seekers, which was a different matter to the Syrian refugee crisis, all of those numbers were creating enormous pressures on Medway and the wider Kent area and all of those had to be taken into account.
He stated that he was pleased to say that there had been some considerable lobbying from the local government family not least the Local Government Association and the Government was now starting to take a more measured approach. He stated that Councillor Turpin would deal with the issue quite adequately later on in the meeting, that the Council was sympathetic, and would do what it could, but that the Council must, as a first and overriding principle, look after the people that already live here in Medway. If the Government wanted the Council to support their international initiative which was quite reasonable for them to expect, then they must help with the financing of it on a recurring basis.
Supplementary question
Councillor Maple stated that he was grateful to the Leader of the Council for the detailed response to his question and that he would be looking to second the motion which Councillor Turpin would be proposing tonight.
Councillor Maple referred to other Councils which had been given a very specific number, and he further referred to the motion tonight which would seek clarification from central Government about funding and when that clarification had been received, would the Cabinet and Council reconsider potentially, if appropriate, placing a specific number requiring potential assistance in place when the specific information about funding was received.
He stated that he accepted at this stage it was not a position to take without knowing the funding, but the motion tonight would make the position clear and he and the Labour Group would be supporting it, but it would be helpful to receive the clarification when that further information comes in from central Government.
Councillor Jarrett stated that he could not give any commitment about numbers. He stated that he could give an absolute assurance that the things that were set out in the motion represented the position of the Administration, this position was held very firmly, very seriously and with two of Medway’s three MPs here tonight they would understand the situation and that they may know more information than he did. Certainly once there was an assurance about recurring funding then the Council could start to make some serious plans to provide assistance.