Agenda item - White Paper Motion (in the name of Councillor Finnigan)

White Paper Motion (in the name of Councillor Finnigan) - Care Homes

Meeting of Council, Wednesday, 9th November, 2016 1.00 pm (Item 63.)

This Council agrees to ask the Executive Board to keep open Middlecross, Siegen Manor and the Green care homes for a further 2 years.

Minutes:

It was moved by Councillor Finnigan, seconded by Councillor Varley that this Council agrees to ask the Executive Board to keep open Middlecross, Siegen Manor and the Green care homes for a further 2 years.

An amendment was moved by Councillor Buckley, seconded by Councillor C Anderson:

After “a further 2 years” add:

“or until acceptable alternative provision in the independent sector is available.”

Motion will read:

"This Council agrees to ask the Executive Board to keep open Middlecross, Siegen Manor and the Green care homes for a further 2 years or until acceptable alternative provision in the independent sector is available."

A second amendment was moved by Councillor Golton, seconded by Councillor Campbell

After “Siegen Manor”, insert “, Home Lea House, Dolphin Manor, Spring Gardens”

A third amendment was moved by Councillor Charlwood, seconded by Councillor Dawson

Delete all after “This Council” and replace with:

“notes Executive Board accepted the recommendations listed below from the meeting of the cross- party Scrutiny Board held on 11^th October in relation to the implementation of the Better Lives Programme: Phase Three:

That the Green is retained until there can be a seamless transition to the new facility.
That where residents in any of the three care homes concerned are moved to alternative accommodation and, that accommodation should provide at least equal quality of care as currently provided.
That the Director of Adult Social Service provides extra focus on working to ensure that the quality of alternative care in the independent sector is improved significantly
The Scrutiny Board is satisfied with assurances given by the Director of Adult Social Services around the commitment and timescales in relation to Siegen Manor, so long as they are adhered to.
The Scrutiny Board has no further comment in relation to the decisions concerning Middlecross residential care home or any other establishment forming part of the Executive Board’s decision.
That the Scrutiny Board continues to be involved and monitors progress of any future decision in relation to the matters considered

Council also notes the continued commitment of the Labour Administration to provide in-house care provision, unlike many local authorities across the country, as well as the investment of the local authority in Adult Social Care, which has increased from £183.3 million in 2010/11 to £201.3 million in 2016/17, now totalling 40.6% of the overall Council’s budget compared to 29% in 2010. This is in addition to the £30 million the Council has agreed in the capital programme for Adult Social Care over the next 4 years.

Council further notes the commitment to ensure high quality long term care from the independent sector and the investment in alternative in house services focusing on prevention, reablement and recovery.

Council also supports the calls of the Local Government Association for the Government to allocate sufficient funding to Councils in the Autumn Statement to address the funding crisis in Adult Social Care nationally, where it is estimated that social care for the elderly and disabled could face a potential funding gap of at least £2.6 billion by the end of the decade.”

The full motion will then read:

“This Council notes Executive Board accepted the recommendations listed below from the meeting of the cross- party Scrutiny Board held on 11^th October in relation to the implementation of the Better Lives Programme: Phase Three:

That the Green is retained until there can be a seamless transition to the new facility.
That where residents in any of the three care homes concerned are moved to alternative accommodation and, that accommodation should provide at least equal quality of care as currently provided.
That the Director of Adult Social Service provides extra focus on working to ensure that the quality of alternative care in the independent sector is improved significantly
The Scrutiny Board is satisfied with assurances given by the Director of Adult Social Services around the commitment and timescales in relation to Siegen Manor, so long as they are adhered to.
The Scrutiny Board has no further comment in relation to the decisions concerning Middlecross residential care home or any other establishment forming part of the Executive Board’s decision.
That the Scrutiny Board continues to be involved and monitors progress of any future decision in relation to the matters considered

The amendments in the name of Councillor Buckley and Golton were declared lost.

The amendment in the name of Councillor Charlwood was carried and upon being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED – That this Council notes Executive Board accepted the recommendations listed below from the meeting of the cross- party Scrutiny Board held on 11^th October in relation to the implementation of the Better Lives Programme: Phase Three:

That the Green is retained until there can be a seamless transition to the new facility.
That where residents in any of the three care homes concerned are moved to alternative accommodation and, that accommodation should provide at least equal quality of care as currently provided.
That the Director of Adult Social Service provides extra focus on working to ensure that the quality of alternative care in the independent sector is improved significantly
The Scrutiny Board is satisfied with assurances given by the Director of Adult Social Services around the commitment and timescales in relation to Siegen Manor, so long as they are adhered to.
The Scrutiny Board has no further comment in relation to the decisions concerning Middlecross residential care home or any other establishment forming part of the Executive Board’s decision.
That the Scrutiny Board continues to be involved and monitors progress of any future decision in relation to the matters considered

On the requisition of Councillors Finnigan and G Latty the voting on the amendment in the name of Councillor Buckley was recorded as follows;

YES – 26

B Anderson, C Anderson, S Bentley, Buckley, Campbell, Cleasby, Cohen, Collins, Downes, Elliott, Finnigan, Flynn, Golton, Harrand, Lamb, G Latty, P Latty, Lay, Leadley, J Procter, R Procter, Robinson, Stephenson, Varley, Wadsworth and Wilkinson.

NO – 60

Akhtar, Arif, Blake, Bruce, Charlwood, Congreve, Coulson, Coupar, Davey , Dawson, C Dobson, M Dobson, Dowson, Dunn, Field, Gabriel, Garthwaite, P Grahame, R Grahame, C Gruen, P Gruen, Groves, Hamilton, Harland, Hayden, Heselwood, A Hussain, G Hussain, Hyde, Illingworth, Iqbal, Jarosz, J Lewis, R Lewis, Lowe, Lyons, Macniven, Maqsood, J McKenna, S McKenna, Mulherin, Nagle, Nash, Ogilvie, Pryor, Rafique, Ragan, Renshaw, Ritchie, Selby, Smart, Sobel, E Taylor, Towler, Truswell, Tunnicliffe, Walker, Walshaw, Wakefield , and Yeadon.

ABSTAIN - 3

A Blackburn, D Blackburn and Wilford.

On the requisition of Councillors Finnigan and G Latty the voting on the amendment in the name of Councillor Golton was recorded as follows;

YES – 29

B Anderson, C Anderson, S Bentley, A Blackburn, D Blackburn, Buckley, Campbell, Cleasby, Cohen, Collins, Downes, Elliott, Finnigan, Flynn, Golton, Harrand, Lamb, G Latty, P Latty, Lay, Leadley, J Procter, R Procter, Robinson, Stephenson, Varley, Wadsworth, Wilford and Wilkinson.

NO – 60

ABSTAIN - 0

Supporting documents: