771
Sir Bob Russell addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to offer his congratulations to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. He explained that Councillor Ellis could be the last full-term Mayor of Colchester, if local government reorganisation went ahead. Colchester had had some form of self-governance since 1139 and was the oldest surviving borough in Essex. It was understood that consideration was being given to proposals that would see Colchester merge with additional areas as well as Tendring and Braintree, which would lead to an area with a population greater than the 500,000 set out in the government guidance. Support was expressed for the role of town and parish councillors, and if local government reorganisation went ahead, Colchester would need a parish council to enable some form of self-government to continue. The United Kingdom had the most centralised form of government in Europe and bigger local government did not necessarily mean better local government.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded. The Council was closely monitoring the position in respect of local government reorganisation, but there had been no material change from the position agreed by Full Council at its meeting on 17 March. The interests of the city were paramount and there was an opportunity to explore self-governance for non parished areas. There was a desire to keep City Status, and this had happened elsewhere. The Council was doing its best to act in the city’s best interests, and he would seek to keep both members and the public informed.
Barry Gilheany of RAMA addressed Council pursuant to the provisions of Council Procedure Rule 6(1) to raise concerns about the impact the status of No Recourse to Public Funds on its clients. This meant that many of its clients could find that they had no right to work, no right to benefits, no right to free medical treatment and no access to housing. The problem was particularly acute for victims of domestic abuse. Individuals married to British partners and residing in the UK on a spousal visa often faced challenges after the end of a relationship. These individuals, often women with children, were unable to access public funds as they did not qualify for legal aid. Consequently, they could not seek assistance from refuges or night shelters without help from specialist charities such as RAMA . If RAMA did not address the needs of such vulnerable people they could end up as victims of exploiters and abusers. As a city working towards Sanctuary status and home to Colchester against Modern Slavery and as a Council working towards DAHA (Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance) accreditation, it was important that support was provided where it would have maximum impact and not when people reached crisis point. Details of a case study illustrating these issues was provided.
Councillor King, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Strategy, responded and thanked Mr Gilheany for his concern and for highlighting these issues. He would share details of the case highlighted with the new Portfolio Holder for Communities and Colchester’s Member of Parliament as there were issues for both central and local government to address. The Council would look at how it supported those who supported others and see if it could provide extra capacity to RAMA to help it deal with such cases.