Preston City Council offer running support services for refugees living in Lancashire

Preston City Council wants to be one of the authorities that takes over the running of support services for refugees living in Lancashire.

Four of the five parties represented at the Labour-led town hall backed a move to approach the government about co-ordinating resettlement programmes that are currently assisting 745 people across the county.

The move follows a controversial decision by the Reform UK administration at Lancashire County Council to withdraw from that role by the end of March 2027.

It is expected the Home Office will turn to the 14 district and standalone councils in Lancashire – including Preston – to ask them to take on the responsibility for delivering the government-funded support packages in their areas.

The county council says the shift makes sense, because those authorities – not County Hall – have responsibility for housing, which is a key part of the schemes.   

However, the policy was pilloried during a city council debate on the subject – and denounced as the “nasty politics of Reform” by deputy leader Valerie Wise, who proposed Preston step into the void.

“We recognise that people who arrive as refugees – with support – become good neighbours, workers, volunteers, business owners, taxpayers and contributors to Preston’s economy and civic life. 

“Helping people learn English, access employment, understand local services and build relationships with their communities is not simply an act of welcome, it’s a practical investment in successful integration,” Cllr Wise added.

Four of the five refugee schemes covered by the county council’s current support regime relate to Afghans who assisted British military operations in their home country – and the fifth covers other vulnerable people who have fled conflict and persecution from various other countries around the world.   All have been granted a legal right to remain in the UK.

An at times emotive debate heard from councillors who themselves had refugee backgrounds.

Liberal Democrat George Kulbacki (Sharpe Green) said his father had fought in the Polish and British armies in the Second World War, while his mother had been a prisoner of war in Austria. They were both placed in a resettlement camp in Cumbria, he revealed.

“So [in] 1946, even though resources were absolutely stretched to the limit…the politicians and people of this country had the decency and compassion to allow 250,000 Polish people to remain [here] and help rebuild it.  I…would like to continue with those post-war sentiments and values, helping vulnerable refugees who have lost everything.

“This is a cold-hearted decision – and it does not reflect what this council chamber stands for…or what this country stands for,” Cllr Kulbacki said.

Conservative deputy group leader Sue Whittam (Preston Rural North) stressed that the Afghan refugees were “not illegal immigrants” – and, in many cases, had been driven to move to the UK in the wake of a data breach in 2022 that risked exposing to the Taliban their part in assisting British forces.

“Just imagine giving up your home, your birthplace, and moving your family to a foreign country. They didn’t ask for it and many didn’t really want to do it – but what would you do in these circumstances to keep your own families safe?” asked Cllr Whittam, who condemned what she said was the county council’s “gesture politics”.

It was left to the Reform group on the city council to defend the position of their counterparts at County Hall.

Cllr Rob Walsh (Brookfield) said the proposal for Preston to replace the county council as co-ordinator of the refugee programmes was to put “virtue signaling and ideology ahead of the interests, safety and fairness owed to the residents of Preston”.

“This scheme gives arrivals a named caseworker for up to five years, help registering with a GP, help finding school places, help claiming benefits – the list goes on – and they get to skip to the front of the queue. Ordinary Preston families, including vulnerable and deprived people, get no equivalent coordinated support – and they get sent to the back of the queue.

“There is a fundamental unfairness at the heart of this scheme that demotes those who elected us to second-class citizens. These [refugees] are people from foreign countries who have nothing to do with our area – and we should be putting people in our wards first,” Cllr Walsh said.

Reform’s group leader at the town hall, Stephen Thompson, added: “I’m not against refugees. I’m against the system that is absolutely flooding our country with people who need assistance. And what about the other places in the world that can give assistance?”

However, that sentiment was in the minority.  Green Party group leader Gabie Lowe said:  “We are a country who are proud of our refugee history, looking back to the First World War…[and] to even not that long ago with the Homes for Ukraine [scheme].  We are able to, when we put our minds to it, help those who need it the most, 

“Our country’s involvement in a lot of wars has destroyed a lot of lives and so we owe it to…anyone who has helped our country…to not stab them in the back.”

Labour councillor James Hull said he had an Afghan refugee in his Ashton ward.

“He has [built up] an international business… in Preston that brings benefits not just to the country, but to the town. The position of the Lancashire County Council on this is abhorrent,” Cllr Hull said.

Reform’s Jemma Rushe (Lea and Larches) said the room had the feeling of an “echo chamber” – and called for the issue to be put to a public consultation before the city council made any agreement with the Home Office.  

However, Labour council leader Matthew Brown said residents would have their say at next year’s local elections.

He added:  “Reform are attacking people who supported our military [in] Afghanistan, but they’re happy to receive £72m from donors who are based internationally, not in this country – isn’t there an irony in that?”

In a statement issued after the meeting, Cllr Brown said the city council will “work to ensure that these vulnerable residents continue to receive co-ordinated support, rather than falling into crisis – and we will work closely with other Lancashire authorities to ensure that there is no break in support across the services we currently provide”.

For Lancashire as a whole, the county council has claimed £18m from the government since 2020 for its support for refugees under the affected schemes.  Future funding would transfer to the authorities who take over the co-ordinating role.  

Preston Lib Dem Fiona Duke (Greyfriars) said the fact that some of that money supported services that were accessed by other residents, as well as refugees, showed that the county council’s move was “financially inept” as well as “morally bankrupt”.

“We are here to represent everyone in Lancashire, not just the residents that have the right skin colour or…religion, according to your own personal beliefs,” Cllr Juke said.

However, Cllr Vacile Alecu, who represents the Ribbleton ward for Reform, said as an immigrant to the the UK himself, he nevertheless had to question:  “Do we have the capabilities financially and institutionally to support everyone here?” 

The Local Democracy Reporting Service approached the Reform UK group at Lancashire County Council for comment about the Preston City Council debate and decision.

Speaking on the matter at County Hall earlier this month, the county council’s cabinet member for rural affairs, environment and communities Joshua Roberts – who proposed exiting the resettlement co-ordination role – said: 

“[The programmes provide] a named caseworker for up to five years, help accessing services, help with getting a GP, help with a school place, help claiming benefits, help into work [and] regular contact to check how they’re getting on and [to] deal with problems as they arise.

“That is a serious package of support – and there is no equivalent co-ordinated offer for any other vulnerable group in Lancashire…that’s the most important [thing].

“This scheme is dedicated to one group – and yet other people have to go through five [or] six different avenues to receive the same level of support. I don’t think that’s fair – and I don’t think we can justify this scheme to the people we represent,” County Cllr Roberts added.