To consider the following motions submitted by members in accordance with Standing Order 5:
(1) Labour Group Motion
Motion
It has been reported to local councillors that a significant decline has occurred in the number of families accessing the aid of the Family Support Workers by as much as 30-40% in some settings in Warwickshire
In support of its commitment to the Family Support Worker service, this Council asks the Strategic Director for People to investigate the reasons why there has been a sharp decline in access figures and to report the outcome of the investigation to the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Proposer: Councillor Caroline Phillips
Seconder: Councillor Corinne Davies
(2) Green Group Motion
Motion
This council recognises the massive contribution health centres have played during the Covid pandemic. However, some areas are currently underserved with difficulty in finding suitable locations for blood tests, blood donations, vaccinations and other services. New health centres can reduce health inequalities as well as providing employment and footfall to our town centres.
Therefore, this Council,
1. Will seek with partners to identify resources to progress the development of a strategic business case for the planned provision of the health services within the Transforming Nuneaton project.
2. Requests the Adult Social Care and Health OSC to review the way in which the County Council can support, and the opportunities for, the inclusion of accessible town and village health centres as part of future regeneration projects across the county by September 2021
Proposer: Councillor Keith Kondakor
Seconder: Councillor Johnathan Chilvers
Minutes:
Motion 1 - Family Support Workers
Councillor Caroline Phillips proposed the following motion.
“It has been reported to local councillors that a significant decline has occurred in the number of families accessing the aid of the Family Support Workers by as much as 30-40% in some settings in Warwickshire
In support of its commitment to the Family Support Worker service, this Council asks the Strategic Director for People to investigate the reasons why there has been a sharp decline in access figures and to report the outcome of the investigation to the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee”.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Corinne Davies who reserved her right to speak.
In support of her motion Councillor Phillips stated that Family Support Workers were now only available at children’s centres for 16 hours a week. This was down from a maximum of 90 hours a week. The Family Support Workers are at the front line of support for incidents of domestic abuse. Their presence can help prevent problems turning into crises.
Amendment
Councillor Jeff Morgan tabled the following amendment.
“Regarding the concerns raised with some local councillors and to maintain the high number of families accessing the aid of the Family Support workers across the county, this Council will maintain its commitment to the Family Support Workers’ service and will continue to work with providers to ensure effective service delivery to those most in need and asks that the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee keeps the Family Support Workers' service under review as part of its on-going performance monitoring”.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Pam Williams who reserved her right to speak.
Councillor Jeff Morgan stated that he could not accept the Labour Group motion as it was inaccurate. Across Warwickshire access to Family Support Workers is very high.
Debate
Councillor Dave Parsons suggested that the evidence is very clear. The Labour Group motion asks the council to investigate the circumstances behind a reported decline. Councillor Helen Adkins questioned why there appeared to be an effort to make it appear that there was no issue to investigate. Issues, she said, should not be brushed under the carpet.
Councillor Bill Gifford questioned whether the Conservative amendment could be regarded as such. The Labour motion was not unreasonable in his view.
Councillor Keith Kondakor supported the Labour motion adding that if Councillor Caroline Phillips had heard of a decline in access to services then the circumstances should be investigated. No criticism was being levelled at the service.
Councillor Pam Williams, the seconder of the amendment, stated that she has witnessed an increase in services provided by Family Support Workers. She suggested that with Covid recovery it may be a good time to review the service. No such review has been undertaken sine 2007.
Councillor Corinne Davies, the seconder of the original motion, informed council that it can be difficult to contact Family Support Workers. Forms have to be completed or the council phoned. For some people this makes access difficult.
Councillor Jeff Morgan, the proposer of the amendment, reminded council that the reason behind the amendment was to contest the claim that service delivery by Family Support Workers had declined. If there are issues at some centres, then these need to be flagged up separately. He suggested that the Pandemic may have led to a drop in foot fall but a drop in attendance does not necessarily mean that services have been reduced in quantity. The Family Support Line can be used to access Family Support Workers. Their role has changed during the Pandemic. For example, they have not been involved in stay and play sessions.
Councillor Caroline Phillips, the proposer of the motion, noted that the figures on which the motion is based are for pre-pandemic levels of support. Telephone discussions and signposting are not good enough she added. Councillor Phillips closed by stating that family break down and debt contribute to ill health. There has been a decline to access to services in some areas and this should be explored.
A vote was held on the Conservative amendment.
Votes for the amendment 34
Votes against the amendment 19
Abstentions 0
The Conservative amendment thus became the substantive motion that was duly voted on.
Votes for the substantive motion 34
Votes against the substantive motion 17
Abstentions 0
Resolved:
“Regarding the concerns raised with some local councillors and to maintain the high number of families accessing the aid of the Family Support workers across the county, this Council will maintain its commitment to the Family Support Workers’ service and will continue to work with providers to ensure effective service delivery to those most in need and asks that the Children and Young People Overview and Scrutiny Committee keeps the Family Support Workers' service under review as part of its on-going performance monitoring”.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.55
The meeting re-convened at 13.45
Motion 2 – Health Centres
Councillor Keith Kondakor moved the following motion.
“This council recognises the massive contribution health centres have played during the Covid pandemic. However, some areas are currently underserved with difficulty in finding suitable locations for blood tests, blood donations, vaccinations and other services. New health centres can reduce health inequalities as well as providing employment and footfall to our town centres.
Therefore, this Council,
1. Will seek with partners to identify resources to progress the development of a strategic business case for the planned provision of the health services within the Transforming Nuneaton project.
2. Requests the Adult Social Care and Health OSC to review the way in which the County Council can support, and the opportunities for, the inclusion of accessible town and village health centres as part of future regeneration projects across the county by September 2021”.
In proposing the motion Councillor Keith Kondakor stated that the Transforming Nuneaton initiative should have included early provision for a town centre health facility. Council was informed that there are currently very long delays for blood tests in Nuneaton. It is possible to secure a test in Polesworth within 24 hours, but it is not easy to travel to Polesworth. The situation with an absence of health centres in towns is repeated elsewhere. A health centre can assist in increasing foot fall in town centres producing a good return for relatively little outlay.
Councillor Jonathan Chilvers seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
Amendment
Councillor Les Caborn moved the following amendment.
“This council recognises the massive contribution health centres have played during the Covid pandemic. However, some areas are currently underserved with difficulty in finding suitable locations for blood tests, blood donations, vaccinations and other services. New health centres can reduce health inequalities as well as providing employment and footfall to our town centres.
Therefore, this council:
1. Will seek with partners to shape future requirements for Health Facilities across the County and work with providers to deliver the same.
2. Requests the Adult Social Care and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to review and make recommendations about the provision of Health Centres within Warwickshire.
3. Asks the Clinical Commissioning Group to share with the Council its work on the provision of health facilities across the County”.
In presenting the amendment Councillor Les Caborn stated that this was not in opposition to the motion moved by Councillor Keith Kondakor; rather it aimed to be more realistic. He agreed that the situation in towns other than Nuneaton should be reviewed but added that there is a need to be realistic in our ambitions. A review would very resource intensive and it would be necessary to understand what the CCGs intentions were and what they felt could be achieved.
Councillor Clare Golby seconded the amendment and reserved the right to speak.
Debate
Councillor Dave Parsons expressed his support for the Green Group motion as did Councillor Helen Adkins.
Councillor Caroline Phillips supported the Green Group motion adding that with its high population density Nuneaton is well suited to have a health centre.
Councillor Bill Gifford supported the amendment stating that it served to enhance the original motion. He had hoped that it would be taken as a friendly amendment a view shared by Councillor Jeff Clarke.
Councillor Izzi Seccombe assured council that the purpose of the amendment was to be of assistance. She considered that health professionals had not provided adequate input into the Local Plans as they were evolving. It is not possible to instruct health commissioners and providers to take a particular action. It is important to work with them and provide the evidence they need to make their own decisions.
Councillor Clare Golby who seconded the amendment, reminded council that there is a plan to develop a health centre in the middle of Nuneaton. She stated that blood testing at the George Eliot Hospital in Nuneaton has been impacted on by the Pandemic. The amendment makes the motion more relevant to the whole county and the council’s partners.
Councillor Jonathan Chilvers, who seconded the original motion, recognising that there is a proposal for a health centre in Nuneaton considered that now is the time for the council to take a lead to move matters forwards. He was satisfied with points 2 and 3 in the amendment but consider the council should recognise its responsibility to mover matters on.
Councillor Les Caborn who proposed the amendment noted that the council is already putting funds int the Nuneaton project. The George Eliot Hospital is expanding and performing well. The council has no control over its health partners. It has to work with them. Pharmacies are looking to assist with blood tests and efforts are being made to ensure that health partners have more input into Local Plan development in the future. Building a health centre can take up to six years he concluded.
Councillor Keith Kondakor who proposed the original motion expressed his concern over the deletion of reference to a health centre in Nuneaton. It takes too long to build health centres and in the meantime, there is a shortage of rooms for blood tests etc.
Vote
A vote was held on the Conservative Group amendment.
Votes for the amendment 35
Votes against the amendment 9
Abstentions 1
The Conservative amendment thus became the substantive motion that was duly voted on.
Votes for the substantive motion 42
Votes against the substantive motion 4
Abstentions 5
Resolved:
This council recognises the massive contribution health centres have played during the Covid pandemic. However, some areas are currently underserved with difficulty in finding suitable locations for blood tests, blood donations, vaccinations and other services. New health centres can reduce health inequalities as well as providing employment and footfall to our town centres.
Therefore, this council:
1. Will seek with partners to shape future requirements for Health Facilities across the County and work with providers to deliver the same.
2. Requests the Adult Social Care and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to review and make recommendations about the provision of Health Centres within Warwickshire.
3. Asks the Clinical Commissioning Group to share with the Council its work on the provision of health facilities across the County.