Agenda item

To recommend to Council whether or not the Motion to work with partners across Gloucestershire to assist displaced Syrian families to settle within the county should be supported.

69.1           The report of the Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 25-36, related to the following Notice of Motion which had been referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee from the Council meeting on 8 December 2015:  ‘Tewkesbury Borough Council notes that more than six million Syrian people have been displaced by civil war within their homeland and three million have fled to neighbouring countries.  The Prime Minister and the United Kingdom government are keen to support 20,000 refugees seeking sanctuary and have pledged £215M over the next five years to help rebuild their lives within this country.  I would ask Members of this Council to join with other agencies, including Severn Vale Housing Trust and Gloucestershire Action for Refugees and Asylum Seekers (GARAS), to help coordinate and support limited numbers of displaced Syrian families settle within the county of Gloucestershire’.  Members were asked to recommend to Council whether or not the Motion should be supported.

69.2           The Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager explained that many Districts Councils and Registered Housing Providers had offered to house families within Gloucestershire.  Three Syrian refugee families had already come through the rehousing scheme with one going to Gloucester and two to Cheltenham.  Whilst the family in Gloucester had settled in well and the children were attending school, the two in Cheltenham had been more complex as it had emerged that they were actually from the same extended family.  Assurance was provided that all of those initial teething problems had been resolved and the families had been successfully managed through existing links to social care, health etc.  Gloucestershire had agreed to a coordinated countywide approach to Syrian refugees and representatives had access to a ‘move-it’ portal which contained details of the families who needed rehousing.  Gloucester City Council was looking at accommodating 10 families within the first year, not necessarily from its own housing stock; Cheltenham Borough Council had indicated that it would look to rehouse up to 15 families; and Cotswold District Council had housed five families in private rented accommodation.  As a non-stock holding authority, Tewkesbury Borough Council would have a very limited role, however, Officers had held discussions with the principal local social housing provider, Severn Vale Housing Society, which would like to be involved in rehousing, pending the outcome of the motion.  Two Members of the public had offered properties in the Borough to be used by Syrian refugees but this would not be possible without a commitment from Tewkesbury Borough Council.  GARAS had 18 years of experience of working with refugees and would be looked to for support; it was noted that GARAS had helped to rehouse several families in Churchdown as part of a different scheme.  There were already a number of organisations in place to assist refugees with learning and translation etc. and Government funding had been made available for a five year period on a tariff basis to assist local authorities with the costs of resettlement.  There was an expectation from the Government that all public bodies would be supporting the commitment to help Syrian refugees and local MPs were keen for Gloucestershire to be part of the national agenda. 

69.3           A Member explained that he fully understood and supported the good intentions behind the motion but he felt that it had been put together in haste and without consideration for the consequences.  By supporting the motion, the Council would be making an open-ended commitment as there was no indication of the number of families which Tewkesbury Borough Council would be asked to re-house.  Furthermore, he raised concern regarding costs and whether Government funding could be relied upon in the longer term.  In addition, he questioned what kind of message this would send in light of the Royal British Legion’s statement that 30,000 ex-service personnel were suffering from Gulf Syndrome and were not getting the support and treatment which they needed.  He indicated that he spoke from a very informed position, having lived and worked in the Middle East, and he did not consider that helping refugees settle in the UK was the best way of helping; he suggested that it would be more beneficial to teach them the skills to go back to Syria to rebuild shattered lives.  Another Member supported this view and indicated that there was not enough housing for UK citizens with infrastructure and services already under considerable pressure.  A Member agreed that, as long as there was a housing waiting list and over-subscribed schools and GP surgeries, she could not support the motion.

69.4           A Member indicated that she took an opposite view and felt that the UK Government, and local authorities as public bodies, had a humanitarian duty to help the refugees.  Nevertheless, she was concerned about the financial implications and how much support would be provided by the Government.  A Member shared this concern, particularly in terms of the cost to the Council.  In response, the Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager advised that the Government had pledged £129M to help support 20,000 refugees.  There would be no cost to Tewkesbury Borough Council and Severn Vale Housing Society would be helping one family initially and, if that worked well, it would look to help another.  She explained that refugees could also be housed via Chapter 1, a private sector leasing project, or through offers made by members of the public, however, the Council would need to pledge its support in order for that to happen.

69.5           A local Member for Churchdown raised concern that the accommodation being used in the area to rehouse refugees was not always occupied by families and she questioned if there was any way to ensure that they were not used as transit properties.  The Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager clarified that Gloucestershire was a dispersal county for refugees and the Member was referring to a completely different scheme to that being debated as part of the motion.  Notwithstanding this, Tewkesbury Borough Council was working with the company responsible to ensure that the properties were used for families as opposed to single persons.  It was noted that Gloucester City had taken the brunt in terms of rehousing refugees via the dispersal system but consideration was now being given to other options so it was likely that there would be more refugees living within Tewkesbury Borough going forward.

69.6           A Member questioned what help the Council would be expected to provide and whether that could be claimed back from the Government.  The Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager clarified that the only help which was required was coordination and support; properties would be provided by Severn Vale, or other housing providers, and the Council would work with GARAS to help families to link into existing services e.g. GPs, education, social care.  The Deputy Chief Executive reiterated that the Government expected local authorities in each geographical area to offer ‘in principle’ support for the scheme; Tewkesbury Borough Council was not a stock holding authority and therefore its role would be limited.  The Member noted that two members of the public had offered properties to rehouse Syrian refugees and he queried why the Council had to confirm its support for the scheme in order to facilitate that.  In response, the Deputy Chief Executive advised that it was a national Government programme and it was expected that local authorities would support the scheme in order to enable GARAS to go ahead and do the work which was needed to assess the families.  A Member questioned whether the Council would be acting as a guarantor in the event that funding was withdrawn and he was informed that the Government had made it very clear that funding would be provided for five years, during which families would be supported to settle properly in the UK; there was no expectation of funding from local authorities.  The Deputy Chief Executive stressed that the majority of refugees coming into the country were professional people who were able to work and, after five years, refugees would have UK status and would be able to support themselves.

69.7           A Member explained that his main concern was that Syrian refugees may be housed in Severn Vale properties at the expense of others and would be accused of queue jumping.  He had no issue with other people providing privately owned accommodation for that purpose.  The Environmental and Housing Services Group Manage explained that it would be possible for the Council to give its support to rehousing Syrian refugees without using social housing.  Another Member noted that the average Syrian family was significantly larger than a UK family and that could lead to difficulties similar to those already experienced by Cheltenham Borough Council.  In response, assurance was provided that the portal contained information about each particular family, including size and ages.  In terms of the family in Cheltenham, this was one of the very first cases and improvements had been made since that time to ensure that the same mistakes were not repeated.  Several security checks were made by the Home Office, border control and the Department of Work and Pensions before families were passed to local authorities which had the ability to accept or reject cases. Members were reminded that the people needing homes were those who had suffered torture and atrocity in their own countries and were families in the first instance, mainly mothers and children.

69.8           The Chairman drew attention to Page No. 27, Paragraph 5.4 of the Officer report, which stated that a maximum number of five families were being considered and it was his personal opinion that the impact on the Borough would be much less than some Members feared.  The Deputy Chief Executive reiterated that the Government had set up the programme to settle Syrian refugees and there was clear commitment and funding which would not burden local tax payers.  Gloucestershire was a rural county and was looking at very limited numbers compared to urban areas which would be expected to take more.  Other local authorities in the county had signed up to the scheme to help coordinate support and Members needed to be mindful of the reputational impact of failing to support the motion.

69.9           Having considered the information provided and views expressed, it was

RESOLVED          That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the motion to work with partners across Gloucestershire to assist displaced Syrian families to settle within the county should be supported.