Mid Ulster ‘Council of Sanctuary’ branding fiercely defended amid claims inclusive ethos could increase pressure on services

The ‘Council of Sanctuary’ branding is about creating a welcoming environment for people in need of refuge, including asylum seekers and others, and the call to rescind such status particularly resonated with a number of councillors in the run-up to Christmas, as they felt it was at variance with the spirit of the Christian message.

Councillor Clement Cuthbertson (DUP), however, felt that such designation had the potential to increase pressure on available housing and NHS resources.

The Dungannon representative’s motion stated: “That Mid Ulster District Council rescinds its January 2025 decision to pledge support to the City of Sanctuary movement and to designate itself as a Council of Sanctuary.

“That Council reaffirms that its primary duty is to deliver core services for the ratepayer, and that it should not associate itself with external campaigning or political pressure groups, and recognises that the January 2025 decision was taken without meaningful consultation with the residents of Mid Ulster.

“That Council does not need to designate as a Council of Sanctuary, as we have always welcomed, and continue to welcome, newcomer EU passport holders and others that come here to settle, work and contribute to the area, especially in the NHS and local industry, but we recognise the increasing public concern across Dungannon and Mid Ulster regarding extreme pressures on housing, access to healthcare, access to education and the lack of transparency around Government immigration and refugee policy, including resettlement and illegal immigration.

“That this Council now immediately withdraws from any involvement in the Council of Sanctuary/City of Sanctuary programme; formally notifies the City of Sanctuary organisation in writing; remove all references to ‘Council of Sanctuary’ from Council communications, websites, and materials; ensure that no Council funding, staff time, buildings or resources are used in support of the Sanctuary programme.”

Explaining the rationale behind his motion, Cllr Cuthbertson stated: “In January 2025, a decision was taken for this council to associate itself with the City of Sanctuary campaign and declare itself a Council of Sanctuary.

“Many people across Mid Ulster were completely unaware this was even being discussed, never mind decided upon.

“There was no meaningful public consultation, no mandate from ratepayers, and no proper consideration of the full community impact.

“There is a lot of concern across all communities in Dungannon. I have been contacted by people from both nationalists and unionist backgrounds, something which was evident in other council areas when this was debated, and also in particular the protest rallies in Newry.

“There is much mistrust from the ratepayers in the district regarding this issue, due to the extreme pressures public services are facing, housing shortages, the increasingly difficult access to GP and health services.

“It is untenable for Council to continue to participate in this campaign.

“Our Westminster Government have said that they are committed to stop using hotels to house asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

“At a time when they are seeking alternatives to these hotels, here in Mid Ulster we have our hands in the air, sending out the message ‘Come to Dungannon’.

“Well, I can tell you the vast majority of the ratepayers, unionist, nationalist, and even our newcomer communities that have made Dungannon their homes, are saying loud and clear ‘No’.

“It is time this council focused on delivery of the core services that the ratepayers expect, rather than joining political campaigns and trying to sort out the world’s problems.”

The motion was seconded by Councillor Mark Robinson (DUP).

Councillor Malachy Quinn (SDLP) felt the motion unfairly blamed migrants for housing shortages and NHS pressures.

He stated: “This is not a motion about services or scrutiny. It’s a motion about fear and who this council chooses to turn its back on.

“I oppose this motion because it is not about ratepayers, services or consultation. It is a calculated attempt to ride a wave of fear and misinformation, and to launder through this council chamber.

“Let’s deal in facts and not slogans. The City of Sanctuary is about co-ordination, training, and sharing best practice. It costs the ratepayers nothing and does not turn this council into a campaigning organisation. To claim otherwise is not just wrong, it is deliberately misleading.

“Asylum seekers are being blamed for pressures they did not create. They make up about 0.1 per cent of the population. They are not the reason homes aren’t being built. They are not the reason waiting lists are exploding. They are not the reason classrooms are overcrowded.

“If members opposite are genuinely concerned about housing and education, they should take a look at their own ministers. Both portfolios are under DUP control, and both are failing because of political choices, not migration.”

“Let’s call this out plainly. It’s Christmas time and this motion runs directly against everything Christmas is supposed to represent, welcome, compassion, and shared humanity.

“Mid Ulster has always welcomed people who come here to work, to care for others, and to contribute in our hospitals, our industries, and our communities. The City of Sanctuary simply recognises that reality.

“I will not support fear masquerading as policy, and I urge members to reject this motion.”

Councillor Dominic Molloy (Sinn Féin) refuted the assertion that elected representatives had not been consulted on the Council of Sanctuary status.

“On January 16, at the Development committee, 15 members were present, including three members of his own party, and there was no opposition to this proposal.

“On January 23, at full council, the minutes of the Development committee were ratified and nothing was raised.

“On February 27, when the minutes of the January 23 Council meeting were ratified, there was no opposition.

“The motion has no material or practical effect. It is simply grandstanding and an attempt to distract from years of British Government austerity on underinvestment in our services.”