Refugee scheme decision cleared as Lancashire County Council Reform UK cabinet member admits having 'a view' beforehand

Lancashire County Council will not be ordered to reconsider a decision to withdraw from a scheme that provides support for refugees.

Opposition groups failed in an attempt to force the Reform UK-run authority to think again over the move, which will see it stop co-ordinating the delivery of services to help 745 refugees in the county who are currently receiving government-funded support.

It came after the cabinet member who led the process admitted to having “a view” on the matter before formally recommending the proposal to his colleagues. However, Joshua Roberts – the portfolio-holder for communities, environment and rural affairs – denied his mind was “closed” and that he could not have been persuaded to suggest another course of action.

County Hall’s cabinet voted earlier this month to stop administering a total of five refugee resettlement schemes. Four of the initiatives are for Afghans who assisted British military operations in their home country, while the fifth covers other vulnerable people who have fled conflict and persecution around the world – excluding Ukrainians and some other nationalities. All of the individuals arrived in the UK legally and have been given the right to remain in the country.

County Cllr Roberts made the case at the time on the basis of what he said were issues of fairness, practicality and “value for money”.

However, 19 county councillors – drawn from all five opposition groupings – ‘called in’ the decision, promoting a special meeting of the authority’s community, cultural and corporate services scrutiny committee.

Members of that cross-party – but Reform-majority – committee were tasked with considering whether the cabinet had adhered to the county council’s “principles of decision making” when opting to end its involvement in the refugee schemes from next spring. They voted by a six-to-four majority that it had, meaning the decision – which was not, in itself, what they were adjudicating upon – stands.

During a 90-minute sitting, County Cllr Roberts was probed on the rationale for his recommendation to fellow cabinet members – and accused of having made up his mind before the meeting at which the decision was taken had begun.

Presenting the case for the call-in, Our West Lancashire group leader Adrian Owens said a video posted on social media in May in which County Cllr Roberts declared “he had the intention of withdrawing from the scheme[s]” pointed towards “evidence of predetermination”.

“These comments were made four months before any report came [to cabinet], before officers laid out the options and the implications of those options [and] before any equalities impact assessment was produced,” County Cllr Owens said.

County Cllr Roberts said that under government legislation – the Localism Act – it was permissible for him to be “predisposed” to a particular policy choice provided he was not “predetermined”.

He told the committee that he had never said in advance – either on social media or in a Guardian article on the subject – what “would” or “will” happen in relation to the issue.

“I have a view, but on the day of cabinet, I looked at all three options, I listened to the debate – and then I made my judgment after hearing everyone’s say,” County Cllr Roberts said.

In addition to the chosen option of withdrawing from the schemes by 31st March 2027, the other two possibilities on the table were a more phased withdrawal or continuing with the current arrangements of the county council co-ordinating refugee support. The cabinet report did not recommend which of the options be pursued – and instead invited members to consider them all.

However, scrutiny committee members questioned County Cllr Roberts’ assertion that he was equally open to each outcome when the meeting began.

Aidy Riggott – Conservative group leader and also one of those who backed the call-in request – said that “perception matters a great deal”.

Quoting the social media post in which County Cllr Roberts had said, “I am announcing my intention to withdraw Lancashire from the government’s refugee resettlement scheme”, County Cllr Riggott stated:

“I think if you ask the general public in Lancashire, they would consider that [to be] somebody [who] has made their mind up. ‘I’m announcing my intention to do this, to do that’ – [so] you’ve thought about it,” he told the cabinet member.

He also asked County Cllr Roberts whether – because of how it may appear to the public – he had considered not taking part in the cabinet discussion and decision as a result of his established position on the subject.

However, County Cllr Roberts said he had been given legal advice that said he “was not [of] a predetermined opinion” and he therefore believed that “the public would also agree” that he had an open mind at the start of the cabinet meeting.

But Gina Dowding – deputy leader of the Progressive Lancashire official opposition group and another scrutiny committee member who had requested the call-in – rubbished the suggestion that there had been any meaningful debate during the cabinet gathering for County Cllr Roberts to consider.

Noting that only one other cabinet member even spoke on the matter, she said: “I would go as far as to say it’s disingenuous of you to say that you came open-minded and you listened to the debate – … it was absolutely clear that you’d made your mind up beforehand, because there was nothing that was said that anyone [could consider to have] influenced you,” County Cllr Dowding said.

In reference to separate comments making a similar allegation, Reform scrutiny committee Tom Lord expanded on County Cllr Roberts’ own claim to have been in compliance with the Localism Act.

Referencing that legislation, County Cllr Lord said that a so-called ‘decision maker’ is “not to be taken to have had, or to have appeared to have had, a closed mind when making [their] decision just because [they] had previously done anything that directly or indirectly indicated what view [they] took”.

Telling the committee that the cabinet had been presented with a comprehensive set of reports, produced after 15 months of work on the issue, County Cllr Roberts claimed that the call-in attempt was not “a complaint that something was left out – this was a complaint about the weight we gave to things that were in front of us”.

He added: “Members are entitled to disagree with that balance, but disagreeing with a judgement isn’t the same as saying the judgement was made wrongly.”

The cabinet decision does not mean the end of the support to which the refugees who have made Lancashire their home are entitled – nor even that more more of them will not be placed in the county in future. It determines only that the county council will not be responsible for overseeing that support network.

Money matters

The call-in signatories had put forward a total of five ways in which they said the cabinet had breached the county council’s constitution in making the decision in the manner that it did – two of which revolved around financial considerations.

Progressive Lancashire group leader Azhar Ali – one of the proponents of the call-in – claimed in his presentation to the committee that withdrawing the county council from the refugee schemes was “gesture politics” that would “cost the taxpayers of Lancashire over £1m a year” on an ongoing basis.

He and County Cllr Owens noted that the Home Office funding for the refugee initiatives was used to finance services that also supported the wider population, suggesting that the county council was a net beneficiary of the cash coming from the government. These include a welfare rights team that County Cllr Ali said had helped “some of the most vulnerable” claim £35.6m in benefits over a four-year period.

He added that the cabinet had been provided with “insufficient information into what services would be cut” as a result of the county council no longer administering the refugee programmes.

Lancashire County Council has claimed a total of £18m in funding from the government since 2020 to deliver the initiatives from which it is now withdrawing. It will nevertheless be obliged to continue providing statutory services – those required by law – to refugees living in the county.

The cost of such services – which include ‘early help’, access to education and interpretation facilities – for the individuals currently supported by the five schemes that were under discussion is estimated to be £800,000 a year.

Liberal Democrat committee member – and call-in signatory – Mark Jewell asked whether the Reform administration was going to require council taxpayers to plug “the gap” in funding that he said would result from the decision or was instead prepared “to allow services to diminish”.

However, County Cllr Roberts said there was “no reason” why the county council will not be able to reclaim the costs of delivering its continuing support for refugees from the authorities that will receive the government funding for the schemes once they assume overarching responsibility for delivering them.

That is most likely to be the 14 district and standalone councils in Lancashire, including Preston, Blackpool and Burnley, which already have housing duties for the rest of the resident population.

County Cllr Roberts highlighted that distinction as one of the main reasons for ending the authority’s co-ordinating role.

“We are not a housing authority – and yet housing sits right at the heart of these schemes, while the actual duty sits with the districts and the unitaries [Lancashire’s 14 other main councils].

“We’ve ended up in a position where one authority is accountable to government for outcomes that other organisations deliver. I don’t think that’s a good use of public money – and I don’t think it’s good governance either, “ County Cllr Roberts said.

Cabinet members were previously told that the “vast majority” of the 350 properties that have been occupied by refugees on the five schemes during their lifetime were in the hands of “private landlords” – meaning they were not dwellings that would have been available for social rent by the 42,000 currently on housing waiting lists. As of the end of March this year, 180 homes remained in use for that purpose.

In addition, most families and individuals on the main Afghan resettlement scheme are expected to find their own accommodation, meaning their housing is not sourced by local authorities.

‘Why this group of people?’

At County Hall’s cabinet meeting earlier this month, County Cllr Roberts said he considered it unfair that refugees received a “serious package of support” in their everyday lives – for between three and five years – that was not open to “any other vulnerable group in Lancashire”.

However, during the scrutiny committee hearing, County Cllr Owens said it was not unusual for the authority to “tailor access to…services to people’s particular needs” – and ration them accordingly.

“[The refugees have] a particular need – and I’m not sure why their need is seen as less important,” he said, stressing that the individuals were not “illegal immigrants”.

County Cllr Dowding asked the cabinet member: “Why did [you] choose this scheme that offers help from the government for a specific group of vulnerable people?”

County Cllr Roberts said it had arisen from the county council’s broader “efficiency review” and because a “procurement” decision was due on contracts related to the refugee schemes which were due for renewal.

However, that prompted County Cllr Riggott to question whether the authority would be reassessing all of its non-statutory services when they came up for re-procurement.

“There is no say on whether we will look at [other] schemes or whether we won’t look at [other] schemes,” County Cllr Roberts said.

‘Why is everyone fixated on Afghans?’

County Cllr Dowding asked County Cllr Roberts whether he had ever “met any of the Afghan refugees who were fighting alongside our veterans”.

In response, he said that that had nothing to do with “the process” the committee was supposed to be judging – before claiming that there were “no registered [Afghan] veterans on this scheme currently”.

He pointed to the UK Resettlement Scheme – one of the five whose local administration was under consideration – which offers refuge to people from around the world, including “the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria, Iraq, etc.”.

“Everyone keeps fixating on one particular group, but you need to consider all of the options,” County Cllr Roberts said.

However, the four other initiatives are all for Afghans who have helped UK forces during the fight against the Taliban in their country. Support for some of them may now have lapsed, as a total of 1,250 people have arrived in Lancashire across all five schemes over the last decade – of which fewer than 750 are still being assisted.

Clare Coupe, the county council’s director of communities and engagement, clarified the situation: “We do know that some people on the scheme are veterans, but we don’t know who,” she said.