Agenda item

To consider any motions, due notice of which have been given in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12.

There were three motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12.

 

(A)        Use of Asylum Hotels in North Hertfordshire

 

RESOLVED: That the motion was lost.

 

(B)        Local Government Pension Scheme and Responsible Investment

 

The Chair advised that this motion had been withdrawn and would be considered at a future meeting of Full Council. This was confirmed by the proposer and seconder.

 

(C)        Waste Service Rollout

 

RESOLVED: That the motion was lost.

Audio recording – 1 hour 14 minutes 44 seconds

 

There were four motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12.

 

(A)      Use of Asylum Hotels in North Hertfordshire

 

The Chair advised Members to refrain from referencing specific hotels in use for asylum accommodation both in and outside the district during the course of the motion.

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer proposed the motion as follows:

 

‘2025 has been the worst year ever for small boat crossings with over 30,000 people having crossed the Channel, meaning since the Labour Government came to power in July 2024, over 50,000 people have now crossed the Channel leaving the immigration policy of this Government in tatters.

 

The number of asylum seekers being housed in hotels is still higher than when the Conservative Government left office despite Labour pledging to end the use of asylum hotels.

 

According to a Home Office report, as of 30 June 2025, 156 asylum seekers are being housed in hotels in North Hertfordshire, with most being housed in Needham House Hotel in Little Wymondley, a location which is wholly unsuitable for this purpose and has resulted in Hertfordshire Constabulary attending the hotel on a regular basis.

 

The use of local hotels as long-term accommodation for asylum seekers is not a sustainable solution and places disproportionate pressures on local infrastructure and services, as well as threatening community cohesion.

 

Therefore, the Council resolves to:

 

(1)       Instruct the Chief Executive and Director – Governance to urgently assess the merits of seeking legal advice to prevent local hotels from being used as accommodation for asylum seekers, considering every option including the use of injunctions, stop notices and other planning enforcement mechanisms.

 

(2)       Instruct the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for the Home Department expressing this Council's concern about the use of hotels in North Hertfordshire for asylum seeker accommodation, requesting the Government close the remaining hotels currently in use for this purpose and do not open any further asylum hotels within the District, nor employ the use of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in North Hertfordshire for the purpose of providing accommodation to asylum seekers.

 

(3)       Instruct the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, calling on the Government to adopt the Conservative proposals to clarify in law and policy beyond doubt that such asylum hotels should always require a change of use application.

 

(4)       Reverse the decision of Council in September 2023 and withdraw from the City of Sanctuary's Local Authorities Network.’

 

Councillor Steven Patmore seconded the motion.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·                Councillor Nigel Mason

·                Councillor Mick Debenham

·                Councillor Clare Billing

·                Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·                Councillor Sean Prendergast

·                Councillor Val Bryant

·                Councillor Tim Johnson

·                Councillor Sadie Billing

·                Councillor Vijaiya Poopalasingham

·                Councillor Keith Hoskins

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·                Net migration had fallen 52% since its peak in 2024.

·                Councillor actions had consequences and Members should encourage hope rather than hate given the outlook of the country.

·                This motion was pandering to prejudices held by certain groups in society.

·                Refugees had not significantly impacted the district as only 11 claims for permanent social housing had been granted to them in the last 4 years.

·                Asylum seekers were not the problem as they were in desperate need of safety and removing accommodation for them would only increase their vulnerability.

·                The Council should focus on real issues that residents faced and ensure a strong community where the vulnerable were supported.

·                Reversing a commitment that had been voted overwhelmingly in favour for would show that the Council only held their values when it was convenient.

·                The use of hotels as asylum seeker accommodation was due to the infrastructure collapse over many years and the Government had pledged to fix this already.

·                Asylum seekers did not undermine communities, but the presence of hate did.

·                Members had been elected to improve the lives of everyone in the district which included those that had arrived from overseas.

·                Abandoning their commitment to the City of Sanctuary Network would isolate the Council from groups that had compassion for asylum seekers and show that the district was no longer a place of kindness, humanity and safety.

·                The Council should work with the Government and its partners to find solutions.

·                Hotels were not a long-term accommodation solution, but backing this motion would fuel fear, anger and division in the district.

·                Members should consider the reasons that the Council originally joined the City of Sanctuary Network in 2023.

·                The Council should continue to indirectly support asylum seekers through the facilitation of support for local groups.

·                The motion was thinly vailed and passive aggressive.

·                Asylum seekers were not a burden, they were people who needed safety.

·                North Herts Minority Ethnic Forum was a brilliant example of a real community looking out for people. 

·                The district was a welcoming place irrespective of circumstances and backgrounds and there was a responsibility for Members to do better as leaders in their communities.

·                Fearnhill School was the first school in Hertfordshire to be made a School of Sanctuary due to their work with students from disadvantaged countries.

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer replied to the debate and made the following points:

 

·                Polling showed that many residents were concerned about this issue and it would be a dereliction of duty to ignore them, therefore, it was important that they discussed the issues raised to make them feel represented.

·                The use of asylum hotels as a medium to long-term measure had been wrong.

·                This was not a motion to deny support for genuine asylum seekers, it was to deter illegal boat crossings and smugglers that benefitted from this. 

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the motion was LOST.

 

(B)      Local Government Pension Scheme and Responsible Investment

 

The Chair advised Members that the motion had been withdrawn and would be considered at a future meeting of Full Council and this was confirmed by Councillor Dave Winstanley as the proposer and Councillor Daniel Wright-Mason as the seconder.

 

N.B. There was a break in proceedings following this motion and the meeting reconvened at 21.20. During the break Councillor Lisa Nash left the Chamber and did not return.

 

(C)      Waste Service Rollout

 

Councillor Caroline McDonnell proposed the motion as follows:

 

‘May 2025 saw the start of the new waste contract with Veolia, a shared service covering North and East Herts. Many residents in North Herts experienced problems and, worryingly, the process for resolving them has often been slow and confusing for residents and Members alike.

 

The chief concerns are:

 

·                Ongoing missed collections despite reporting by residents and members

·                Lack of crew knowledge of rounds including assisted collections

·                “Narrow round” arrangements not continued

·                Customer Services completely overwhelmed

·                Inaccurate advice given to members e.g. on flats

·                Inconsistent advice given to residents on multiple issues including side waste

·                Blue-lid bins not delivered in time for roll-out

·                Collapse of system for collecting communal bins

·                System unable to cope with commercial and domestic waste at same property e.g. farms

·                Member uncertainty about how to report problems and whether the portal works

 

North Herts Council believes that:

 

·                The introduction of the new service could and should have been better managed and the above-stated problems prevented

·                The Executive Member for Environment must accept responsibility for the shortcomings in the implementation of the new arrangements in North Herts which have unnecessarily caused inconvenience to many residents.

 

Therefore, Council resolves that:

 

(1)       The Executive Member for Environment makes a public statement apologising to all residents who have been unnecessarily inconvenienced by the failure of the service implementation. This should include writing apologies to all parish and town councils where avoidable problems such as those listed above have been identified.

 

(2)       The Executive Member works more closely with her counterpart in East Herts to ensure that they are giving the Shared Waste Service Manager and her officers a clear direction of travel and doing so with a common voice. This should entail scheduling meetings together in addition to the calendared briefings organised by officers.

 

(3)       The Executive Member takes responsibility for ensuring that all IT systems operate effectively and that coherent, accurate information is accessible wherever and whenever needed, including by Customer Services.

 

(4)       The Executive Member reports, as a matter of urgency, to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on actions taken, at a date to be agreed with the Chair.’

 

Councillor Bryony May seconded the motion.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor Dominic Griffiths

·                Councillor Matt Barnes

·                Councillor Amy Allen

·                Councillor Bryony May

·                Councillor Ralph Muncer

·                Councillor Jon Clayden

·                Councillor Laura Williams

·                Councillor Joe Graziano

·                Councillor Sam Collins

·                Councillor Steve Jarvis

·                Councillor Val Bryant

·                Councillor Martin Prescott

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

·                Councillor Tim Johnson

·                Councillor David Chalmers

·                Councillor Keith Hoskins

·                Councillor Ruth Brown

·                Councillor Tamsin Thomas

·                Councillor Nigel Mason

·                Councillor Sean Prendergast

·                Councillor Claire Strong

·                Councillor Tom Tyson

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·                Not only had villages experienced problems with bin collections since the rollout, but towns such as Royston had too.

·                The new three weekly collections had encouraged residents to recycle more.

·                Due to more missed bin collections, the Customer Service Centre (CSC) had received more contacts and wait times to speak to a representative over the phone had become unreasonable.

·                Despite the assurances of the Council, there had been a persistent lack of collections in some areas.

·                In some cases, communal recycling bins had been incorrectly measured which had led to overflowing bins and presented health and hygiene hazards to the public.

·                Crews had worked tirelessly under huge pressure to deliver the service and deserved thanks and support from Members rather than criticism.

·                A change of this scale would always bring challenges and as anticipated, the rollout had initially led to more reports of repeat missed collections, however, the situation had improved after notes had been added to crew systems and guidance had been reinforced.

·                After problems had been experienced with the merger of the former ‘narrow rounds’ with a round in East Herts, Veolia had aligned the properties of the narrow rounds back under the supervision of the Council which had led to a more stable service with the hope of further improvements.

·                CSC had been busy but not overwhelmed due to the recruitment of extra staff and introduction of web forms leading up to the rollout.

·                Call numbers to CSC were expected to return to normal in October.

·                Due to a data error, some communal bin collections were wrongly scheduled but this had been corrected and interim weekly collections had been put in place.

·                Council policy on side waste had not changed.

·                Despite delays to the delivery of new bins due to system incompatibility issues, 97% of bins had been delivered to residents by 3 August.

·                Missed bin deliveries were prioritised through a dedicated web form and residents that had not received their new bin were still able to recycle in the meantime through side waste or use of their side recycle box.

·                Special data for mixed commercial and domestic properties had been updated and they had been monitored to ensure reliability.

·                The Councillor Portal had remained operational for the course of the rollout, however, reduced staffing had caused a backlog of requests which they had been working to clear and return to normal.

·                Residual waste had decreased 50-60% in comparison to earlier in the year which showed a strong shift to recycling.

·                A detailed report on the rollout would be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on Tuesday 11 November. 

·                They would continue to work with their partners, Officers and residents to deliver a good service.

·                For some Members, the rollout had generated the greatest number of resident enquiries and requests since they had been elected. 

·                Despite raising multiple cases on the Councillor Portal, missed communal bin collections in residential flats had not yet been addressed and no advice had been provided to those with communal bins prior to the rollout except for the generic information leaflets.

·                Members recognised the sheer amount of work that had gone into this project and appreciated its aims. However, it was important for the Council to recognise that there were underlying problems with the service that needed to be resolved.

·                Issues from the rollout could be investigated at the next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

·                It was recognised that the rollout had been complex, however, an apology should be issued to residents as there were long-standing issues which had not been resolved. 

·                Overall service for the waste collections had been good, however, there had been too many instances where the service had fallen short of standards.

·                The rollout had been technically complex with the integration of the waste management system into their customer relationship management system which had required extensive collaboration across the Council but had yielded automated processes to assist CSC and decrease contacts from residents.

·                The ‘Find Your Bin Collection Day’ app which had been developed to aid residents during the rollout had been used over 150,000 times.

·                The motion would not resolve the cause of the problems.

·                In some instances, issues raised by residents had been resolved within 24 hours.

·                Given the opinions expressed by Members, the Council should issue the apology rather than the Executive Member for Environment.

·                The increase in recycling resulting from the rollout had been positive.

·                The motion asked the Council to do things that they were already addressing.

·                The rollout had been a good initiative with positive feedback from some residents, however, instances where issues had not been resolved for 9 weeks was not acceptable.

·                Overall, the rollout had been a success and they should not lose sight of that.

·                Lessons needed to be learned from the teething problems that had been experienced from the service.

·                Officers and the Executive Member for Environment should be commended for delivering the new service and dealing with problems where they had arisen.

·                Distress had been caused by the lack of communal bin collections and the Council had an opportunity to take responsibility by acknowledging the shortfalls of the rollout and issue a heartfelt apology through this motion.

·                Any big project such as this one could not be error free and missed bin collections had and would always be a continuous issue.

·                Some residents had been unsettled by the change of collection days. 

·                Recycling advice on product packaging contradicted the guidance provided by the Council.

 

Councillor Amy Allen put on record her thanks to Officers in the Waste Team and Customer Service Team, in addition to the waste collection crews.

 

N.B. Councillor Tina Bhartwas left the Chamber at 21.50 and returned at 21.54.

 

In response to points raised in the debate, Councillor Amy Allen advised that companies could not change their product packaging on a local level and changing it nationally would mean that the packaging would become a contaminant in other local authorities that did not share the same recycling scheme as them. 

 

In response to a question from Councillor Michael Muir, the Chair advised that questions would be answered by the Executive Member for Environment outside of the meeting.

 

Councillor Caroline McDonnell replied to the debate and made the following points:

 

·                It was good to hear that there were wards who had experienced little to no problems with the rollout.

·                Waste collection crews had been pleasant and perseverant where collection problems had occurred.

·                Residents deserved to know that their complaints and frustrations had been heard by the Council through an apology.

 

In response to the debate, the Chair proposed an amendment to the motion that the Council made the public statement apologising to all residents rather than the Executive Member for Environment and this was accepted into the substantive motion by Councillor Caroline McDonnell as proposer and Councillor Bryony May as seconder.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the motion was LOST.

 

N.B. Following this item, Councillors Cathy Brownjohn, Dominic Griffiths, Sarah Lucas, Martin Prescott and Tamsin Thomas left the Chamber at 22.18 and did not return.