Agenda item

(1)  By Councillor John Hurst:

 

“This Council considers that a policy of gradual and large-scale selling off of the provision of services – together with human and physical resources – would not be in the interests of the people of South Kesteven; of the employees of SKDC or of local and effective democracy: that a Council with merely  “strategic” powers would be a denial of democratic local government.”

 

          (2)  By Councillor John Kirkman:

 

(1)   This Council deplores the proposed reduction across all services at Grantham & District Hospital and other hospitals within the County managed by United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust.

 

(2)   That this Council requests Trent Strategic Health Authority find extra funding in order to overcome the current crisis looming over Grantham & District Hospital and other hospitals within the County.  We also request that an investigation be carried out into the mismanagement of United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust that has led to the current critical situation.

 

(3)   That this Council gives its full support to the staff at Grantham Hospital.

(1)           by Councillor John Kirkman, Chairman of the Council

 

DECISION: 

 

(1)  This Council deplores the proposed reduction across all services at Grantham & District Hospital and other hospitals within the County managed by United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust.

 

(2)  That this Council requests Trent Strategic Health Authority find extra funding in order to overcome the current crisis looming over Grantham & District Hospital and other hospitals within the County.  We also request that an investigation be carried out into the management of United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust that has led to the current critical situation.

 

(3)  That this Council gives its full support to the staff at Grantham Hospital.

 

(4) That the Chief Executive write a further letter to the Secretary of State for Health inviting her to meet the Health Scrutiny Committee and advising that this time the Council will continue to request such a meeting until it is held.

 

The following motion had been proposed by Councillor Kirkman:

 

(1)  This Council deplores the proposed reduction across all services at Grantham & District Hospital and other hospitals within the County managed by United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust.

 

(2)  That this Council requests Trent Strategic Health Authority find extra funding in order to overcome the current crisis looming over Grantham & District Hospital and other hospitals within the County.  We also request that an investigation be carried out into the mismanagement of United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust that has led to the current critical situation.

 

(1)     That this Council gives its full support to the staff at Grantham Hospital .

 

In presenting his motion, the Chairman gave notice that he wished to make a small amendment – to delete the letters “mis” from the word mismanagement in the second part of the motion.  To refer to mismanagement would give the appearance that the Council sought to prejudge the issue.  Subject to this amendment, the motion received a seconder.

 

A Stamford member asked the Chairman if he would agree to include Stamford Hospital within the wording of his motion.  The Chairman declined to do so but stated he would accept an amendment to that motion.  An amendment was so moved and seconded that the first part of the motion read:  (1) This Council deplores the proposed reduction across all services at Grantham & District Hospital, Stamford Hospital, and other hospitals within the County.

 

Support was expressed for the amendment on the grounds that it would send a clear message to residents and the government about the community’s united front.  Whilst expressing sympathy for the problems faced in the south of the district, other speakers felt that the Grantham hospital issue should be kept separate to avoid danger of clouding the issue; two distinct health authorities were involved and combining the different circumstances of both hospitals in one motion could dilute the message.  It was pointed out that the Council was already in dialogue with the Peterborough & Stamford Hospitals Trust and therefore that issue was at a different stage to Grantham.  The mover of the amendment was asked to withdraw her proposal but she declined.  Accordingly, a vote on the amendment was taken and lost.

 

A further amendment was then proposed: This Council condemns the appalling behaviour of the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust Executives when they suspended a member of staff and we demand his immediate reinstatement.

 

After the amendment was seconded, the mover of the motion stated he considered that the Chairman’s motion was “tame” and that the Council should be united in supporting both Grantham and Stamford hospitals.  He referred to recent treatment he had received at Grantham Hospital and warned of the danger of losing such valuable community services.  He began to make mention of the press coverage about the hospital employee who had recently been suspended and suggested he had been made a scapegoat.  The Monitoring Officer immediately reiterated the advice he had given earlier in the meeting in relation to publicly speaking about individual staff in other organisations and the inherent dangers of doing so.  The amendment was then put to the vote and also lost.

 

There followed an impassioned debate on the original motion.  Very strong concerns were expressed about the threat to local health services and the effect this was having on the morale of those employed in the NHS.  The Health Scrutiny Committee for Lincolnshire was due to meet again on 9^th November and both Councillor Mike Williams and Councillor Mrs Radley would be attending.  Fears were expressed that Grantham was gradually being reduced to a cottage hospital status with taxpayers’ money being used to fund more managers than frontline staff where it was needed most.  A comment was made that the Government was implementing a nationwide policy on the NHS but the country was made up of very different areas where local solutions ought to apply.

 

Councillor John Hurst stated that the crisis in health provision went to the heart of the issue of democracy, whereby the community had to find a way to make a difference.  He had recently been permitted a meeting with the Secretary of State for Health, Patricia Hewitt at which she had asked what could be done to restore confidence in Grantham hospital and the NHS.  Councillor Hurst’s response to this question was for the present Chairman of the NHS Trust Board to be replaced; the community could not engage in a meaningful dialogue with someone they did not trust.  The case put forward for a centre of excellence at Lincoln was, he asserted, a lie – there was only an aspiration for a centre of excellence.  A further lie was that safe services could be provided at a remote location; they were not safe because they were not accessible.  He called for the Council to join with the other 28% of those who lived in rural areas to form an irresistible resistance to the notion that a rural health service could be run in the same way as city hospitals.  The Secretary of State has the power to resolve this issue.

 

Comment was made that in an increasing affluent society, how much money was allocated to the NHS had always be a bone of contention whichever government was in power.  This was not a party political issue and has united all sections of the community for a return to the principles on which the NHS was founded in 1945-46.  A call was made for the government to reorganise its thinking; hospitals need to be accessible by the majority of those who need them.  It was suggested that one of the problems lay in the targets set by the Government and the fact that funding was dependent upon these targets being met.  Hospitals should have flexibility so that services can be driven according to the local need.

 

A member expressed anger that the Secretary of State had stated she was unable to meet with the Council’s DSP, yet had time to meet an individual Councillor from this authority.  He asked if he could make an addendum to the motion to ask that another letter be sent to the Secretary of State for her to attend the DSP meeting and that the Council would not accept another refusal.

 

The Chairman advised that this was not permissible under the Council procedure rules.  However, he was willing to accept a proposal to suspend procedural rules in accordance with rule 23.1 for this matter.  A vote was taken on suspension of procedure rules and supported by more than two thirds of those present.

 

An additional motion was proposed and seconded that the Chief Executive write a further letter to the Secretary of State for Health inviting her to meet the Council’s Healthy Environment DSP and advising that this time the Council was not prepared to accept a refusal.  Upon being put to the vote, the motion was unanimously carried.

 

In his summing up, the Chairman stated he was putting his motion to the Council on behalf of the Council; this was a non-political matter.  He was confident that members would give it their full support so that the Council could do whatever it could to ensure proper health care for its residents.  A vote was taken on the original motion and again unanimously supported.

 

[The meeting was adjourned at 3.35pm and resumed at 3.52pm.  Before moving to the next item of business, Councillor Selby made a public apology to the Council for comments he had made during debate on the Chairman’s motion.  He acknowledged that he had made the comments contrary to the advice previously given by the Monitoring Officer.]

 

 

(2)      by Councillor John Hurst

 

DECISION:  To not support the motion proposed by Councillor John Hurst.

 

 

The following motion had been proposed by Councillor John Hurst:

 

“This Council considers that a policy of gradual and large-scale selling off of the provision of services – together with human and physical resources – would not be in the interests of the people of South Kesteven; of the employees of SKDC or of local and effective democracy: that a Council with merely  “strategic” powers would be a denial of democratic local government.”

 

Speaking in support of his motion, Councillor Hurst stated that it concerned the issue of effective, non-partisan democracy.  Although he acknowledged that tenants would have the right to vote on how the Council’s housing stock was to be managed, he was aware of rumours within the authority that there was a firm intention to sell off virtually all services, assets, and human assets the Council has.  He asked the Cabinet to deny those rumours.  He asserted that if services were sold off, Councillors would no longer have the same responsibilities and powers.  The essence of his motion was about having those powers to take effective action on behalf of the people whom the Council represents.  The motion received a seconder.

 

A debate ensued during which support for and disagreement with the motion was expressed. In support of the motion, speakers agreed with Councillor Hurst’s statement that this was a fundamental principle of local democracy; the transfer of the Council’s housing stock representing an attack on this concept and local accountability.  It was no surprise that there was a very low turnout in local elections as local accountability was being eroded through turning local authorities into merely commissioners of services.  It was therefore legitimate and vital to defend Council services, including housing.  The fear was expressed that if the Council disposed of its physical assets it would become an organisation that only dealt with agencies.  It was difficult to encourage people to stand as Councillors now with the services the authority did provide; this situation could only get worse as more services are outsourced.  Concern was also voiced over proposals to pursue handing over the leisure and cultural services to a Trust.  The Council provided excellent services in these areas which had a role to play in preventing anti-social behaviour. Concern had been raised at the Stamford LAA about the future of the Arts Centre; here was an excellent facility in which the council had made significant investment.  A plea was made for the Council to not lose sight of the things it did well.  The motion therefore sought to draw attention to the increasing loss of control over services to unelected bodies. If the Council only retained a strategic role, this effectively would trample over democracy.

 

Speaking against the motion, the Portfolio Holder for Large Scale Voluntary Transfer stressed that democracy extended to the council’s tenants who would have the opportunity to vote on the issue.  If transfer was the preferred option, staff would not only be protected but could have opportunities to further their careers.  Other views were expressed that the Council had a duty to ensure value for money in the delivery of its services.  It could not fund all the services it would like and some may benefit from being outsourced.  Any savings achieved could be redirected to other areas and give better value for residents.

 

In responding to Councillor Hurst’s request to deny rumours, the Leader began by emphasising the need to consider what is best value for money for each particular service.  There was no policy on the part of the administration to outsource all the Council’s services.  She stated she was disappointed to hear what had been said about LSVT.  It had been the Stock Option Appraisal Commission who had undertaken the detailed work and analysis to arrive at the recommendation to transfer the housing stock.  The Council was a good landlord but it underestimated tenants’ aspirations for their homes, particularly in the area of security.  Members had been given the opportunity not to support the SOAC recommendation but had concurred with it.  The process was now moving forward to investigate the possibility of transferring the housing stock.  The Council had given tenants the opportunity they had asked for.  This process would be conducted as fairly as possible.

 

In his right of reply, Councillor Hurst re-asserted that the Council would face the situation of responsibility without power; it was not solely about housing or money in particular, but the throwing away of democracy.  He requested a recorded vote in accordance with Council procedure rule 16.4.  This was supported by more than ten members.

 

The vote on the motion was as follows.

 

FOR          AGAINST          ABSTAIN

Councillor Bisnanuthsing          Councillor Auger          Clr  Kirkman

Councillor Miss Channell          Councillor Mrs Bosworth

Councillor Mrs Gaffigan          Councillor Brailsford

Councillor Gibbins          Councillor Bryant

Councillor Fereshteh Hurst          Councillor Carpenter

Councillor John Hurst          Councillor Mrs Cartwright

Councillor Howard          Councillor Craft

Councillor Mrs Jalili          Councillor Fines

Councillor Joynson          Councillor Fisher

Councillor Kerr          Councillor Helyar

Councillor O’Hare          Councillor Lovelock

Councillor Selby          Councillor Moore

Councillor Steptoe          Councillor Nadarajah

Councillor Thompson          Councillor Mrs Neal

Councillor Wilks          Councillor Nicholson

Councillor A. Williams          Councillor Parkin

Councillor M. Williams          Councillor Pease

Councillor Wood          Councillor Mrs Percival

Councillor Mrs Woods          Councillor Mrs Radley

          Councillor Radley

          Councillor Sandall

          Councillor John Smith

          Councillor Mrs Judy Smith

          Councillor Stokes

          Councillor G. Taylor

          Councillor M. Taylor

          Councillor Turner

          Councillor G. Wheat

          Councillor Mrs Wheat

 

 

19          29          1

 

The motion was lost.