Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Igwe, Kearney and Watson and Christine Baker (Medway Pensioners’ Forum).

The Chairman will announce any late items which do not appear on the main agenda but which he has agreed should be considered by reason of special circumstances to be specified in the report. 

There were none. 

The Chairman explained, for the benefit of members of the public present, what a call in of a Cabinet decision is and what options were open to the Committee.  He also stated that the consultation on the proposals had closed and the decision taken by Cabinet.  On that basis he proposed not to call for any public speakers as he considered that this would give an impression of opening up the consultation again which he felt would be misleading.  He stated that he had already agreed prior to the meeting that Councillor Maple who had one of the Linked Service Centres in his ward, could speak for a maximum of 5 minutes.

Members of the public, and other Members of the Council present at the meeting who were not Members of the Committee, requested to speak.  The Committee voted on the matter and the vote was lost.

(a)               Personal interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, may stay, speak, and vote on the matter.

(b)               Prejudicial interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal and prejudicial interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, must withdraw from the room and take no part in the debate or vote on the matter.

Councillors who have declared a personal and prejudicial interest may make representations, answer questions and give evidence before leaving the room but only if members of the public are allowed to attend for the same purpose.

If an interest is not declared at the outset of the meeting, it should be disclosed as soon as the interest becomes apparent.

(c)               Whipping – the Council’s constitution also requires any Member of the Committee who is subject to a party whip (ie agreeing to vote in line with the majority view of a private party group meeting) to declare the existence of the whip and the nature of it before the item is discussed.

Councillor Christine Godwin declared a personal interest in the call in report by virtue of being chair of Medway Older People’s Partnership.  Shirley Griffiths declared a personal interest by virtue of being a member of the Medway Older People’s Partnership, a member of Medway NHS Foundation Trust and South East Coast Ambulance Trust.

This report details the call-in request from the Labour Group of Cabinet decisions 14/2012, 16/2012 and 18/2012 and asks Members to consider the decision and either support the Cabinet’s decision or report back to Cabinet with a different recommendation. 

Discussion:

Councillor Murray expressed her disappointment at the decision not to allow the public and Councillors present an opportunity to speak at the meeting and explained the reason for the call-in.  She stated that a number of issues had been raised, as part of the consultation process, which had not been responded to and she hoped that responses would have been available as a result of the call-in process.  She made the point that she had looked through the consultation responses and not one person had spoken in favour of the proposals.  On that basis a decision had been taken by the Cabinet, which ignored the views of the public.

She also stated that the Labour group were very disappointed with the Cabinet’s decision, and the decision of this Committee, for the reasons put forward by the Labour group at the last meeting held on 27 January 2012.  They felt that it was very important for there to be a mixed economy in relation to care homes.  She referred to the high standards of care offered by the Council run care homes and the fact they were regulated by people of Medway as opposed to private organisations many of which were run by organisations based in other countries.  If the homes were to be privatised she felt this left the Council in a weakened position with regards to any regulation and quality of service.  For many people experiencing problems with the private sector it often fell to the local authority to care for such people.

Reference was made to the consequences for the staff from the care homes and it was suggested that although they would be entitled to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) regulations 2006 often they were offered poorer conditions and less security in the private sector.

Councillor Murray, seconded by Councillor Shaw, then made the following proposal:

The Committee acknowledges the Cabinet’s decision to privatise the three Council care homes, regardless of the overwhelming majority views expressed in the consultation that the homes should not be privatised.  Cabinet are requested to permit a pause in the forthcoming tendering process and ask officers to bring forward a proposal for transferring the care home service to an arms length staff led co-operative.  This would enable the Council to retain the excellent service and specialist staff and in doing so explore how the new delivery model can affect efficiencies in a sustainable way and over a longer period of time than the current proposals are able to secure.  We ask the Cabinet to note that the new proposal accords with the duties placed upon the Council by the Localism Act.

Councillor Murray explained that other Conservative controlled authorities, such as Essex County Council, had chosen to take forward similar co-operatives successfully and urged the Committee to support the proposal.

Another Member referred to questions which had been posed to officers which were as yet unanswered and expressed disappointment with the decision that the Committee had decided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 850.