Agenda item

The following motion on Safeguarding Local Communities from Unconsulted Migrant Placements has been proposed by Cllr Steve Horner, seconded by Cllr Alex Hall and supported by the requisite number of Members within the procedural rules.

Background

Teignbridge cannot turn a blind eye to the growing national concern over the placement of individuals who have entered the UK illegally or through deception. Immigration policy may sit with central government, but the impact lands here—on our communities, our services, and our residents.

Recent cases across the country have raised serious questions about:

·       Housing pressure and competition for essential services

·       Safeguarding risks and community safety concerns

·       Erosion of public trust due to secrecy and lack of consultation

·       Criminal offences linked to placements made without local oversight

Our Council has a statutory duty to protect residents, uphold public safety, and ensure decisions affecting local resources are made openly and democratically.

While current numbers in Teignbridge are low, pressure for further placements is real—and will continue until national government tackles illegal migration effectively.

This motion calls for a clear stance:

·       No secret deals. No silent placements. No compromise on safety.

·       Full transparency, full consultation, and full accountability.

Motion

Teignbridge District Council resolves to:

1.     Guarantee transparency: Publish all communications on migrant placements and put residents’ welfare and housing needs first.

2.     Demand safeguards: Refuse any placement where immigration status is unverified or safeguarding checks are incomplete.

3.     Stand firm: Oppose and challenge any external placements made without prior consultation, using every legal and planning tool available.

The Chair referred to the Notice of Motion (NOM) as set out on the agenda, proposed by Councillor Horner, seconded by Councillor Hall and supported by the requisite number of Councillors within the procedural rules to enable it to be considered at the meeting.

The Head of Housing responded to the NOM advising that:

• The term migrant referred to those moving to a local authority area from other parts of the country, those moving to the UK from abroad, refugees and those seeking asylum in the UK. The NOM specifically related to asylum-seekers.
• Asylum seekers are not entitled to welfare benefits or allowed to undertake paid work. The Home Office is responsible for their accommodation and for their subsistence while their asylum claim is considered.
• Local authorities are not consulted on the individuals placed in such accommodation. Such placements are made directly by the Home Office or its approved contractor. The Council is notified of the name of the individuals placed in the accommodation.
• Where asylum is granted, they will at this point be entitled to welfare benefits, to seek paid employment and be entitled to assistance under homelessness legislation.
• The Council is responsible for safeguarding all residents, regardless of background or immigration status. Where safeguarding concerns are identified, they are addressed through established statutory processes embedded within public services, in line with our legal duties.
• 0.02% of Teignbridge population are Asylum Seekers in dispersal accommodation (no hotels are being used for dispersal).
• The NOM identifies three areas: transparency, safeguarding and refusing placements and challenging external placements:
• The Council is committed to transparency in all matters relating to migrant placements, but this must be within relevant legal bounds, and whilst continuing to support the welfare of all residents. Publicly providing the address of an individual property that is being or to be used for asylum dispersal would be in breach of UK GDPR.
• There are established safeguarding arrangements in place within the Council and across relevant agencies, applied to support the welfare of all residents in Teignbridge including asylum-seekers.
• The Council does not have the ability to refuse the placement of any individual person or household in asylum-seeker accommodation in the District.   

Councillor Horner presented his NOM as set out on the agenda, adding that there had been a net migration of 2.6 million in the last 2 years, an unsustainable demand on the NHS, and all immigration should be positive. 

During the debate issues raised included: the focus is on safeguarding and integration, the safety of all residents including immigrants, legal responsibilities including compliance with GDPR and that the NOM is contrary to the Council’s core responsibilities.

In response, Cllr Horner advised on 2024 statistics relating to offences by immigrants.

In accordance with section 4.13.5 of the Constitution a recorded vote was taken on the NOM and the Members voting for, against or abstaining from voting is as follows:

FOR the NOM: Councillor Horner - 1

AGAINST the NOM: Councillors Atkins, Bullivant, Buscombe, Cox, Foden,

Gearon, Hall, Hayes, Hook, Jackman, James, Keeling, Macgregor, Major, Morgan, Mullone, Nutley, Palethorpe, P Parker, Parrott, Peart, Rollason, Rogers, Ryan, Sanders, K Smith, M Smith, Steemson, Swain, G Taylor, J Taylor, Thorne, Williams and Wrigley – 34

ABSTENTIONS: Councillors Clarance, Radford – 2

The NOM was declared as LOST.