East Ayrshire Council has called on the UK government to end the ‘inhumane’ policy of sending refugees to Rwanda.
The SNP motion was backed by Labour members, while three of the four Conservative councillors offered no opposition to the criticism of their party’s policy at last week’s final council meeting before summer recess.
Just one councillor, Conservative Neill Watts, opposed the move, claiming “I am not anti-immigration, however I am against illegal immigration.”
Earlier this year, Home Secretary Priti Patel signed a deal that would see ‘illegal immigrants and asylum seekers’ arriving in the UK by boat or lorries, flown to Rwanda for ‘processing’. If they were accepted for asylum, they would have to remain in Rwanda, a country with a track record of human rights abuse.
Kilmarnock North councillor David Richardson said called for East Ayrshire Council to agree a motion which ‘totally rejects the inhumane Westminster policy of forcing refugees to Rwanda’.
He said: “When I see on national news people fleeing war-torn countries and seeking asylum portrayed as people come UK to live off our benefits. nothing makes my blood boil more than that.”
Councillor Richardson also talked about the need for immigrants to help fill hundreds of thousands of vacant jobs across the UK.
Labour group leader Maureen McKay seconded the SNP member’s motion.
Provost Jim Todd highlighted the UK Government’s failure to back up promises, such as those made to Afghan people who supported the British Army only to be let down when the Taliban returned to power last year.
He also questioned the rationale behind a policy that essentially reduced ‘human beings to a product’ and sought to tackle the issue of smuggling by removing access to this ‘product’.
He said this would be like Ayrshire police telling victims of crimes that they would be forcibly removed so that the perpetrators didn’t have the opportunity to carry out the crime against them.
“It is abhorrent in this day and age. Who could have come up with the policy other than the far right wing?”, he continued.
“It is incumbent on anyone with ounce of human dignity to challenge this policy.”
Labour Councillor John McGhee pointed out that there may be confusion when conflating asylum seekers with economic migrants.
He said: “I fully support the motion, but I don’t think it is helpful to mention the jobs that are vacant as it only helps confuse the issue. Suppose there were no jobs to offer, these folk are seeking asylum, but cannot seek asylum until they are in the country. ”
His colleague Councillor Kevin McGregor said: “We’ve seen children washing up on beaches and people dying in articulated lorries because they are desperate looking for help from us to escape all sorts of things we will thankfully probably never understand.”
The motion was set to be agreed unanimously before Cumnock and New Cumnock Conservative Councillor Neill Watts put forward an amendment against the motion.
However, none of his party colleagues seconded the amendment.
Councillor Watts later told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “Whilst I understand the feelings expressed by some councillors at the full council meeting on this issue, I personally felt that as a Conservative councillor, I could not support a motion which criticised my own Conservative Government in Westminster.
“I was not elected as a Conservative Councillor to just support or follow the SNP view on such issues, it needs to be and is important that it is seen that there are differences of opinion within our council chamber.
“I would state that I am not anti-immigration, however I am against illegal Immigration. The Conservative UK Government’s Policy on immigration is to act as a deterrent to help stop this and in the long run protect against the people smugglers’ actions.”
Cllr Watts added that he believed the motion was ‘outwith the competence of the council’.
He defended putting forward his amendment despite having no backing: “By putting forward an amendment against the SNP motion it meant that my name would be recorded as being against the motion and would also mean that it could not be seen as passing through Council unanimously.”
Don't miss the latest Ayrshire headlines – sign up to our free daily newsletter here
