A SENIOR city councillor was “unhappy” a debate on accommodation for asylum seekers was held behind closed doors at the Guildhall.
The item was on the agenda at Worcester City Council’s Communities committee but during a part of the meeting in which members of the public and press were excluded.
Alan Amos, the council’s sole Conservative councillor, argued that the report should be discussed in public.
“My view has always been that everything, if it affects Worcester people, it should be in the public domain so that people know about what’s going on,” said Cllr Amos.
DEBATE: The meeting was held at Worcester's Guildhall (Image: Phil Wilkinson-Jones/LDRS)
“It says on the agenda that it is exempt because it contains ‘matters relating to the financial affairs or business affairs’.
“There is no information relating to the financial affairs of Serco, which is the business in question, so I’m confused as to why it is exempt and it is private.
“It is a highly charged and politically sensitive issue so my view would definitely be that this should be in the public domain, I’m not quite sure why it isn’t.”
Cllr Jabba Riaz said: “A lot of the information in this report is something the general public would want to find out.”
Lloyd Griffiths, the city council’s corporate director for operations, homes and communities, said: “We’ve got two items that have got elements that we’ve classed as exempt in the agenda pack.
“We’ve probably unintentionally misled members. They are confidential items and not exempt items.
READ MORE: Labour to end use of Bibby Stockholm asylum accommodation barge
“The item that relates to the full dispersal asylum seeker policy, that’s been provided by the West Midlands Strategic Migration Partnership, it’s come from the Home Office. But it’s not for public consumption.”
Cllr Amos responded: “We’re talking about an issue that is highly politically charged and that’s all the more reason not to discuss it in secret, because people say ‘what’s in it, why is it secret?’
“It does not help democracy and I think there’s got to be a very good reason why.
“In this item, I can’t see what is in this that we’re not allowed to discuss in public, what the public may not be allowed to know.
“And it bothers me because I think there’s an ulterior reason why this may be confidential and it’s not the reason why I understand we have exempt items.”
Mr Griffiths said the information had come from the Home Office and the council had been asked not to put it into the public domain.
Cllr Riaz, who was chairing the meeting, later asked members of the public and press to leave and asked councillors if they were happy to go into a closed session.
“I’m not happy,” replied Cllr Amos.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel