Agenda item

Motions on Notice

Meeting of County Council, Wednesday 14 July 2021 10.00 am (Item 14.)

Motion by Cllr M Wilkes

In September the £20 a week uplift on universal credit will be scrapped by the government.

This was introduced to help people during the pandemic. However with many people still struggling, furlough coming to an end and inflation starting to rise for key essentials, it is clear that removal of the uplift will have a significant impact on hard working County Durham residents.

Scrapping the £20 uplift will result over the course of the following year from September in County Durham losing £55 million pounds from the economy.

Further it will put severe strain on so many low income families already struggling.

We therefore call on the government to make the uplift permanent.

Motion by Councillor R Crute

Last week (Wednesday 7 July 2021) Cabinet considered a report on MTFP (12) which highlighted the ‘significant financial uncertainty’ facing the local authority as a result of a number of contributory factors, including persistent delays to the government’s Fair Funding Review, Business Rates Retention Scheme and its proposed funding model for Social Care.

The constant delays to these government initiatives are having a direct impact on this council by restricting its ability to properly plan ahead. The delays have also resulted in the ‘significant financial uncertainty’ facing this council as outlined in last week’s Cabinet report.

To compound matters, figures published by the LGA illustrate the impact austerity and government funding cuts are having on the people of County Durham, with spending power reductions of £343 (or 16%) per household since 2011/12. This compares with spending power increases in other local authority areas such as Wokingham and Surrey.

Consequently, this council resolves to:

Write to the prime minister and call on the government to:

• demonstrate its commitment to ‘levelling-up’ by assuring this local authority that it will not lose out financially as a result of the government’s ongoing Fair Funding Review, Business Rates Retention Scheme and forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review

• and also commit to resolving the funding crisis in Adults and Childrens Social Care and the uncertainty, potential risk and financial burden it creates for this council and the people of County Durham

Motion by Councillor K Shaw

On Monday 10th February 2020, the Council received a planning application to demolish the former Hassockfield Secure Training Centre and build 127 new dwellings, including 25 for social housing, with over £900,000 for Section 106 funding.

Rather than give the community of Consett and Medomsley a clean break from the site’s history of human rights abuses, the MoJ seeks to build on a toxic legacy. Human rights groups have raised concerns about the treatment of women in similar detention facilities, including Yarl’s Wood in Bedford, which is now expanding into a larger detention centre for men. Detainees at Yarl’s Wood have spoken of racial abuse, poor hygiene facilities and experiences of sexual abuse. Local activists started the ‘No To Hassockfield’ campaign, which is supported by faith groups, the Police and Crime Commissioner and Health North East, to highlight their concerns that such abuses could take place in County Durham.

Human rights abuses do not take place in every prison-style facility, but given the history of the Hassockfield site, it is proposed that the site should be an alternative development, to move away from its shameful past.

Resolves:

1. To oppose the loss of the much-needed social housing in the Consett area, for the sake of another controversial detention facility.

2. To write to the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, to demand greater transparency and dialogue over future uses of the site.

Minutes:

Councillor Wilkes, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Neighbourhoods and Climate Change informed Council that the four Leaders of the Joint Administration had agreed to write to government to maintain the uplift on universal credit. Councillor Wilkes withdrew his Motion.

Moved by Councillor R Crute, Seconded by Councillor O Gunn:

Consequently, this council resolves to:

Write to the prime minister and call on the government to:

An Amendment was Moved by Councillor R Bell, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Finance, Seconded by Councillor J Shuttleworth, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Rural Communities and Highways:

Consequently, this council resolves to: Write to the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and calls on the government to:

• and also commit to ~~resolving the funding crisis~~ working with Local Government to find sustainable long term funding solutions for in Adults and Children’s Social Care and address the uncertainty, potential risk and financial burden ~~it creates for~~ faced by this council and the people of County Durham

And this council resolves to work with the County’s MPs, Local Government Association and County Councils Network and to make our case to Government.

Councillor R Crute Moved to suspend Standing Order 10.7 to allow sufficient time to debate the Motions on Notice. Seconded by Councillor A Surtees. Council agreed the suspension of Standing Order 10.7.

Councillor O Gunn requested a named vote on the Amendment.

For the Amendment

Councillors Abley, Avery, Bainbridge, A Bell, C Bell, R Bell, Blakey, D Brown, Cairns, Cosslett, Coult, Duffy, Elmer, Freeman, Haney, Heaviside, Henderson, Holmes, Hood, Hopgood, Howey, Hunt, Jackson, Jones, Jopling, Lines, Maddison, Martin, E Mavin, McDonnell, McGaun, Moist, Molloy, Nicholson, Oliver, Ormerod, Peeke, Potts, J Quinn, Reed, Richardson, M I Roberts, Robson, Rooney, Rowlandson, Savory, Scott, Shield, Shuttleworth, Simpson, Stead, Stelling, Sterling, Stoker, Stubbs, Sutton-Lloyd, Varty, Watson, Wilkes and Zair.

Against the Amendment

Councillors Adam, Adcock-Forster, Andrews, J Atkinson, P Atkinson, A Batey, Binney, Chaplow, Crute, Deinali, Fenwick, Fletcher, Griffiths, Gunn, Hall, Hanson, Henig, Higgins, Hovvels, Hutchinson, Kennedy, Manchester, McKenna, McKeon, McLean, McMahon, Miller, Nicholls, Pringle, Purvis, S Quinn, Shaw, Surtees, Tinsley, Townsend, Waldock, M Wilson, and Wood.

The Amendment was carried and therefore became the Substantive Motion.

Councillor M Wilkes, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Neighbourhoods and Climate Change requested a named vote on the Substantive Motion.

For the Motion

Councillors Abley, Adam, Adcock-Forster, Andrews, J Atkinson, P Atkinson, Avery, Bainbridge, A Batey, A Bell, C Bell, R Bell, Binney, Blakey, D Brown, Cairns, Chaplow, Cosslett, Coult, Crute, Deinali, Duffy, Elmer, Fenwick, Fletcher, Freeman, Griffiths, Gunn, Hall, Haney, Hanson, Heaviside, Henig, Higgins, Holmes, Hood, Hopgood, Hovvels, Howey, Hunt, Hutchinson, Jackson, Jones, Jopling, Kennedy, Lines, Maddison, Manchester, Martin, E Mavin, McDonnell, McGaun, McKenna, McKeon, McLean, McMahon, Miller, Moist, Molloy, Nicholls, Nicholson, Oliver, Ormerod, Peeke, Potts, Pringle, Purvis, J Quinn, S Quinn, Reed, Richardson, M I Roberts, Rooney, Rowlandson, Savory, Scott, Shaw, Shield, Shuttleworth, Simpson, Stead, Stelling, Sterling, Stoker, Stubbs, Surtees, Sutton-Lloyd, Tinsley, Townsend, Varty, Waldock, Watson, Wilkes, M Wilson, Wood, and Zair.

Against the Motion

Councillors Henderson and Robson.

The Substantive Motion was carried.

Moved by Councillor K Shaw, Seconded by Councillor A Surtees:

However, in January 2021 the Ministry of Justice revealed plans to develop the site into a Category 3 style prison for refugee women. As the Northern Echo reported, the MoJ did not pursue a Certificate of Lawfulness, thus depriving local residents of the chance to scrutinise plans through Durham County Council’s planning portal. The proposed detention centre would deny 127 local Consett family’s access to high quality housing, including 25 families the ability to access social housing. According to Durham Insight, 3.5% of Consett’s population live in areas in the top 10% most deprived nationally. Following the financial pressures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for social housing in this area is now more important than ever. Rather than give the community of Consett and Medomsley a clean break from the site’s history of human rights abuses, the MoJ seeks to build on a toxic legacy. Human rights groups have raised concerns about the treatment of women in similar detention facilities, including Yarl’s Wood in Bedford, which is now expanding into a larger detention centre for men. Detainees at Yarl’s Wood have spoken of racial abuse, poor hygiene facilities and experiences of sexual abuse. Local activists started the ‘No To Hassockfield’ campaign, which is supported by faith groups, the Police and Crime Commissioner and Health North East, to highlight their concerns that such abuses could take place in County Durham.

Resolves:

1. To oppose the loss of the much-needed social housing in the Consett area, for the sake of another controversial detention facility.

2. To write to the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, to demand greater transparency and dialogue over future uses of the site.

Councillor A Shield, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Equality and Inclusion Moved the following amendment, Seconded by Councillor J Rowlandson, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources, Investment and Assets:

Durham County Council Planning Dept approved under Officer delegated powers~~On Monday 10^th February 2020, the Council received~~ a planning application to demolish the former Hassockfield Secure Training Centre ~~and~~ to build 127 new dwellings, including 25 proposed for social housing, and with over £900,000 allocated for Section 106 funding. This development was on the existing footprint of Hassockfield and an adjoining green field and in our view was considered as a predominantly unsustainable rural location.

However, in January 2021 the Ministry of Justice revealed plans to develop the site into a Category 3 style immigration removal centre (IRC) for a maximum of 84 female detainees’ ~~prison for refugee women~~. As the Northern Echo reported, the MoJ did not pursue a Certificate of Lawfulness, however there was no obligation for the MOJ to do so as there was no change of use from the previous Hassockfield Secure Training Centre/Medomsley Detention Centre and given that the location is considered as Crown Land, DCC had no jurisdiction at all to affect the intentions of this Govt dept. thus depriving local residents of the chance to scrutinise plans through Durham County Council’s planning portal. The proposed detention centre would deny 127 local Consett family’s access to high quality housing, including 25 families the ability to access social housing. According to Durham Insight, 3.5% of Consett’s population live in areas in the top 10% most deprived nationally. Following the financial pressures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for social housing in this area is now more important than ever.

Rather than give the community of Consett and Medomsley a clean break from the site’s history of human rights abuses, the MoJ seeks to build on a toxic legacy. Human rights groups have raised concerns about the treatment of women in similar detention facilities, including Yarl’s Wood in Bedford, which is now expanding into a larger detention centre for men. Detainees at Yarl’s Wood have spoken of racial abuse, poor hygiene facilities and experiences of sexual abuse. Local activists started the ‘No to Hassockfield’ campaign, which is supported by faith groups, the Police and Crime Commissioner and Health North East, ~~to highlight their concerns that such abuses could take place in County Durham.~~

It is acknowledged that most detainees in this type of facility are not criminals and that 86% of women detained in 2018 secured their freedom and now contribute positively to our society

This Council resolves:

1. To write to the to the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, to confirm that Durham County Council does not believe that the use of Hassockfield as an Immigration Removal Centre is an acceptable use of this site and requests that a new planning application be submitted so that a smaller housing development be built on the existing footprint of Hassockfield, providing a development predominantly for elderly residents but also including some aspect of social housing as per the requirements of the County Durham Plan.

2. In the event that we are unable to prevent the opening of the Immigration Removal Centre, local members to maintain the engagement with the Director of Immigration, Removal and Escorting Services to ensure security on site, the welfare of detainees, and the potential cost impact on local police, fire service, health and other services budgets which may be used by the IRC are closely monitored and controlled.

Councillor M McKeon requested a named vote

For the Amendment

Councillors Abley, Avery, Bainbridge, A Bell, C Bell, R Bell, Blakey, D Brown, Cairns, Cosslett, Coult, Duffy, Elmer, Freeman, Haney, Heaviside, Henderson, Holmes, Hood, Hopgood, Howey, Hunt, Hutchinson, Jackson, Jones, Jopling, Lines, Maddison, Martin, E Mavin, McDonnell, McGaun, Moist, Molloy, Nicholson, Oliver, Ormerod, Peeke, Potts, J Quinn, Reed, Richardson, M I Roberts, Robson, Rooney, Rowlandson, Savory, Scott, Shield, Shuttleworth, Simpson, Stead, Stelling, Sterling, Stoker, Stubbs, Sutton-Lloyd, Watson, Wilkes, and Zair.

Against the Amendment

Councillors Adam, Adcock-Forster, Andrews, J Atkinson, P Atkinson, A Batey, Binney, Chaplow, Crute, Deinali, Fenwick, Fletcher, Griffiths, Gunn, Hall, Henig, Higgins, Hovvels, Kennedy, Manchester, McKenna, McKeon, McLean, McMahon, Miller, Nicholls, Pringle, Purvis, S Quinn, Shaw, Surtees, Townsend, Varty, Waldock, M Wilson, and Wood.

The Amendment was carried and therefore became the Substantive Motion.

Upon a vote being taken the Substantive Motion was carried.