Modern.gov Breadcrumb
- Agenda item
Modern.gov Content
Agenda item
Motions
To consider motions as follows:
1. Bristol Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) – Protect our NHS and Social Care services
Motion to be moved by: Cllr Gill Kirk, Labour, Lockleaze ward
“Full Council notes that:
1.
The government is dividing the NHS in
England into 44 areas or 'footprints', each of which has a
'Sustainability and Transformation Plan' (STP).
2.
Government requires these STPs to deliver
collective cuts of at least £2.5bn nationally this year, and
£22bn within the next five years, to wipe out the NHS’
‘financial deficit’ by implementing ‘new models
of care’.
3.
The former head of NHS commissioning,
Julia Simon, has denounced the STP process as 'shameful', 'mad',
'ridiculous' and the plans as full of lies [1].
4. Locally it is envisaged that there will be a cumulative funding gap of about £305 million by 2020-21 and that the STP will need to change service provision to eliminate it [2].
5. Demands for the area STPs have been imposed by NHS England, with short deadlines, and senior health staff and managers have been expected to pull complex plans together, without the time or resources to carry out proper consultation with clinical staff, councillors or the public. This has led to a lack of transparency, and loss of trust in a process that has been imposed top down. The documentation made publicly available has been lacking detail and though an initial report on the STP has been made to council scrutiny committees there has been insufficient clarity about the power of democratically elected councillors to adapt, amend or influence the plan and its implementation.
6. Although closer integration between health services and the local authority is in principle a sound idea likely to result in better outcomes for residents, it cannot be achieved whilst at the same time making the huge cuts demanded by central government. It will be impossible for the STP for the area to make these cuts without measures which will seriously impact on the health and welfare of the local population. Pressure on acute services will not be reduced unless councils get the extra investment in social care, public health and early interventions to prevent ill health.
This Council believes:
1.
That the cuts demanded by central
government of £305 million are unfeasible and that there is
no safe way of implementing such reductions.
2.
That the only way to provide adequate
integrated health and social care is through adequate
funding.
3. That central government should increase NHS funding to at least 10.1% of GDP, to match the average of other EU countries.
4. That the government must address the crisis in social care funding, to allow councils to provide the adult social care needed to keep people well in their own homes and reduce the unnecessary costs of keeping people in acute hospitals when they could be supported in the community.
5. The STP does not have democratic accountability. BCC will have no accountability for the STP as it is ‘owned’ by Health. We are named as a delivery partner but our only entitlement is to question and scrutinise. We are expected to participate in a cost cutting process that will negatively impact on the health and wellbeing of our citizens, with no democratic power to change it, to pass it or reject it. This disempowers democratically elected councillors and the public
6. Although the authors of the local STP have tried to minimise the impact of these cuts, published the plan in full and opened it to democratic scrutiny, any consultation on the plan or on individual elements of the plan is essentially meaningless if there is no option to refuse the cuts. The only way to resist these cuts, which will seriously damage the health of the people of Bristol, is for the people of the City to learn what is being planned and to be able to respond vigorously.
Full Council resolves to ask the Mayor to:
1.
Write to thank the BNSSG STP group for
their efforts in trying to meet impossible demands.
2.
Write to the relevant government
Ministers to make them aware of this motion and of our opposition
to their unreasonable funding cuts.
3. Write to the City’s MPs asking for their support. Particularly in pressing for cross party talks to resolve long term issues of health and social care funding and in calling for an increase to NHS funding.
4. Empower the appropriate Scrutiny bodies (being the Health & Wellbeing Board, and People and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny in the case of Bristol) to identify the health impacts of changes outlined in the proposed plan, and to collaborate with neighbouring Councils by establishing a formal joint Scrutiny process to be set up as a matter of urgency.
5. Publicise likely impacts on key services and our opposition to these funding cuts to the people of Bristol and encourage them to make their views known and campaign against the national cuts to the NHS.”
[2] https://www.bristolccg.nhs.uk/media/medialibrary/2016/11/bnssg_stp_10-2016_M722a8w.pdf
2. Living Rent
Motion submitted by: Cllr Charlie Bolton, Green, Southville ward
“Full Council notes:
· The desperate situation faced by many Bristol residents in the private rented sector. While welcoming recent government moves to stop up-front letting agent fees, there is clearly a need to take further action to limit the amounts tenants are forced to pay out just to have somewhere to live.
· That the London Assembly is consulting on proposals for a 'Living Rent', after both Sian Berry (Green) and Sadiq Khan (Labour)’s mayoral campaigns focused on getting a better deal for renters.
Full Council resolves to ask the Mayor to:
1. Investigate the pros and cons of introducing a Living Rent in Bristol.
2. Report back to Council the progress in Bristol towards setting up and resourcing a Bristol Renter’s union to support the implementation of a Living Rent.
3. Determine the level at which such a rent should be set and produce a plan to determine how best to make such a 'Living Rent' fully effective, including whether it should apply to the whole private rental sector or a subset (as London’s is proposed to do);
4. Lobby MPs and Government for the power to implement such a 'Living Rent'.”
Note:
Under the Council’s constitution, 30 minutes are available for the consideration of motions. In practice, this realistically means that there is usually only time for one, or possibly two motions to be considered. With the agreement of the Lord Mayor, motion 1 above will be considered at this meeting, and motion 2 may be considered subject to time. Details of other motions submitted, (which, due to time constraints, are very unlikely to be considered at this meeting) are set out below for information.
3. Parking
Motion submitted by: Cllr Gary Hopkins, Liberal Democrat, Knowle ward
“This Council believes that parking on grass verges and pavements is a widespread problem that requires localised solutions to find the right balance between the needs of pedestrians, particularly disabled and parents, and those seeking to park their vehicles. In some areas the need for effective enforcement is clear and it is the lack of appropriate regulations that is the easily identifiable problem. In others, the balance of need is less clear.
This Council therefore calls upon the Mayor to thoroughly examine and, unless found to be unsuitable, adopt the strategy used in Milton Keynes. This is to have one blanket traffic regulation order but to only enforce where there is clear, positive local demand to do so.
This approach could reduce cost, remove traffic officers from having to make difficult value judgements and allow local residents to help find solutions.”
4. Call for changes to council tax exemption scheme covering student households
Motion submitted by: Cllr Mark Weston, Conservative, Henbury and Brentry ward
“This Council welcomes the success of our internationally acclaimed Universities in attracting students to live and study in the city.
Whilst recognising that this is generally a positive development which contributes greatly towards enriching and promoting Bristol’s unique identity, it also has to be conceded that a student population of over 50,000 places a strain on local infrastructure and services.
Students in full-time education enjoy a 100% exemption on paying Council Tax under the current rules and regulations governing discounts and dispensations. This potentially represents a very substantial loss of income to local authority coffers. Given the extraordinary amount of student accommodation springing up around the city, this position is financially simply unsustainable.
Accordingly, Council calls on the Mayor to make representations to central government for changes to be made to the Council Tax exemption scheme covering student households. This should aim to enable at least a proportion or percentage of this charge to be levied on all student occupied properties.”
5. Clause 21 – The Bus Services Bill
Motion submitted by: Cllr Eleanor Combley, Green, Bishopston and Ashley Down ward
“Full Council notes:
1. That the Bus Services Bill currently passing through Parliament, as originally proposed, included Clause 21 that will effectively “prohibit a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service”.
2. The House of Lords voted for an amendment that got rid of clause 21.
2. That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.
3. That municipal bus companies like Reading and Nottingham provide some of the best bus services in the country and have a successful track record of increasing bus passenger numbers and providing high quality bus services.
4. That polling by We Own It found that a majority of the public (57%) oppose clause 21, whilst just 22% support it. The opposition to Clause 21 is consistent across voters from all political parties.
Full Council believes:
1. Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011.
2. If there is a need and a demand from their public, then Councils should be able to provide their own bus services.
3. Should they wish, Councils should be legally able to follow the model developed by Reading and Nottingham.
4. Consequently Clause 21- or any clause to a similar effect - should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill and the government should refrain from bringing such a clause back into the Bill as it goes through the Commons.
Full Council resolves to ask the Mayor:
1. To write to Lord Ahmad and to call on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 – or any ban of new public bus companies - from the final legislation.
2. To write to all Bristol MPs to ask them to oppose or continue to oppose Clause 21 or similar in the House of Commons and ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the Department of Transport to raise concerns about Clause 21.
3. To publicise our opposition to Clause 21 and any ban on public ownership of buses in the local media.”
Minutes:
Motion 1 – Bristol Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) – protect our NHS and social care services
Councillor Kirk moved the following motion:
“Full Council notes that:
1. The government is dividing the NHS in England into
44 areas or 'footprints', each of which has a 'Sustainability and
Transformation Plan' (STP).
2. Government requires these STPs to deliver
collective cuts of at least £2.5bn nationally this year, and
£22bn within the next five years, to wipe out the NHS’
‘financial deficit’ by implementing ‘new models
of care’.
3. The former head of NHS commissioning, Julia Simon,
has denounced the STP process as 'shameful', 'mad', 'ridiculous'
and the plans as full of lies [1].
4. Locally it is envisaged that there will be a cumulative funding gap of about £305 million by 2020-21 and that the STP will need to change service provision to eliminate it [2].
5. Demands for the area STPs have been imposed by NHS England, with short deadlines, and senior health staff and managers have been expected to pull complex plans together, without the time or resources to carry out proper consultation with clinical staff, councillors or the public. This has led to a lack of transparency, and loss of trust in a process that has been imposed top down. The documentation made publicly available has been lacking detail and though an initial report on the STP has been made to council scrutiny committees there has been insufficient clarity about the power of democratically elected councillors to adapt, amend or influence the plan and its implementation.
6. Although closer integration between health services and the local authority is in principle a sound idea likely to result in better outcomes for residents, it cannot be achieved whilst at the same time making the huge cuts demanded by central government. It will be impossible for the STP for the area to make these cuts without measures which will seriously impact on the health and welfare of the local population. Pressure on acute services will not be reduced unless councils get the extra investment in social care, public health and early interventions to prevent ill health.
This Council believes:
1. That the cuts demanded by central government of
£305 million are unfeasible and that there is no safe way of
implementing such reductions.
2. That the only way to provide adequate integrated health and social care is through adequate funding.
3. That central government should increase NHS funding to at least
10.1% of GDP, to match the average of other EU
countries.
4. That the government must address the crisis in social care funding, to allow councils to provide the adult social care needed to keep people well in their own homes and reduce the unnecessary costs of keeping people in acute hospitals when they could be supported in the community.
5. The STP does not have democratic accountability. BCC will have no accountability for the STP as it is ‘owned’ by Health. We are named as a delivery partner but our only entitlement is to question and scrutinise. We are expected to participate in a cost cutting process that will negatively impact on the health and wellbeing of our citizens, with no democratic power to change it, to pass it or reject it. This disempowers democratically elected councillors and the public.
6. Although the authors of the local STP have tried to minimise the impact of these cuts, published the plan in full and opened it to democratic scrutiny, any consultation on the plan or on individual elements of the plan is essentially meaningless if there is no option to refuse the cuts. The only way to resist these cuts, which will seriously damage the health of the people of Bristol, is for the people of the City to learn what is being planned and to be able to respond vigorously.
Full Council resolves to ask the Mayor to:
1. Write to thank the BNSSG STP group for their
efforts in trying to meet impossible demands.
2. Write to the relevant government Ministers to make
them aware of this motion and of our opposition to their
unreasonable funding cuts.
3. Write to the City’s MPs asking for their support. Particularly in pressing for cross party talks to resolve long term issues of health and social care funding and in calling for an increase to NHS funding.
4. Empower the appropriate Scrutiny bodies (being the Health & Wellbeing Board, and People and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny in the case of Bristol) to identify the health impacts of changes outlined in the proposed plan, and to collaborate with neighbouring Councils by establishing a formal joint Scrutiny process to be set up as a matter of urgency.
5. Publicise likely impacts on key services and our opposition to these funding cuts to the people of Bristol and encourage them to make their views known and campaign against the national cuts to the NHS.”
[2] https://www.bristolccg.nhs.uk/media/medialibrary/2016/11/bnssg_stp_10-2016_M722a8w.pdf
Councillor Hance seconded the motion.
Following debate, upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED (48 members voting in favour, 10 against, and with 1 abstention) and it was
RESOLVED:
Full Council notes that:
1. The government is dividing the NHS in England into
44 areas or 'footprints', each of which has a 'Sustainability and
Transformation Plan' (STP).
2. Government requires these STPs to deliver
collective cuts of at least £2.5bn nationally this year, and
£22bn within the next five years, to wipe out the NHS’
‘financial deficit’ by implementing ‘new models
of care’.
3. The former head of NHS commissioning, Julia Simon,
has denounced the STP process as 'shameful', 'mad', 'ridiculous'
and the plans as full of lies [1].
4. Locally it is envisaged that there will be a cumulative funding gap of about £305 million by 2020-21 and that the STP will need to change service provision to eliminate it [2].
5. Demands for the area STPs have been imposed by NHS England, with short deadlines, and senior health staff and managers have been expected to pull complex plans together, without the time or resources to carry out proper consultation with clinical staff, councillors or the public. This has led to a lack of transparency, and loss of trust in a process that has been imposed top down. The documentation made publicly available has been lacking detail and though an initial report on the STP has been made to council scrutiny committees there has been insufficient clarity about the power of democratically elected councillors to adapt, amend or influence the plan and its implementation.
6. Although closer integration between health services and the local authority is in principle a sound idea likely to result in better outcomes for residents, it cannot be achieved whilst at the same time making the huge cuts demanded by central government. It will be impossible for the STP for the area to make these cuts without measures which will seriously impact on the health and welfare of the local population. Pressure on acute services will not be reduced unless councils get the extra investment in social care, public health and early interventions to prevent ill health.
This Council believes:
1. That the cuts demanded by central government of
£305 million are unfeasible and that there is no safe way of
implementing such reductions.
2. That the only way to provide adequate integrated health and social care is through adequate funding.
3. That central government should increase NHS funding to at least
10.1% of GDP, to match the average of other EU
countries.
4. That the government must address the crisis in social care funding, to allow councils to provide the adult social care needed to keep people well in their own homes and reduce the unnecessary costs of keeping people in acute hospitals when they could be supported in the community.
5. The STP does not have democratic accountability. BCC will have no accountability for the STP as it is ‘owned’ by Health. We are named as a delivery partner but our only entitlement is to question and scrutinise. We are expected to participate in a cost cutting process that will negatively impact on the health and wellbeing of our citizens, with no democratic power to change it, to pass it or reject it. This disempowers democratically elected councillors and the public.
6. Although the authors of the local STP have tried to minimise the impact of these cuts, published the plan in full and opened it to democratic scrutiny, any consultation on the plan or on individual elements of the plan is essentially meaningless if there is no option to refuse the cuts. The only way to resist these cuts, which will seriously damage the health of the people of Bristol, is for the people of the City to learn what is being planned and to be able to respond vigorously.
Full Council resolves to ask the Mayor to:
1. Write to thank the BNSSG STP group for their
efforts in trying to meet impossible demands.
2. Write to the relevant government Ministers to make
them aware of this motion and of our opposition to their
unreasonable funding cuts.
3. Write to the City’s MPs asking for their support. Particularly in pressing for cross party talks to resolve long term issues of health and social care funding and in calling for an increase to NHS funding.
4. Empower the appropriate Scrutiny bodies (being the Health & Wellbeing Board, and People and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny in the case of Bristol) to identify the health impacts of changes outlined in the proposed plan, and to collaborate with neighbouring Councils by establishing a formal joint Scrutiny process to be set up as a matter of urgency.
5. Publicise likely impacts on key services and our opposition to these funding cuts to the people of Bristol and encourage them to make their views known and campaign against the national cuts to the NHS.
[2] https://www.bristolccg.nhs.uk/media/medialibrary/2016/11/bnssg_stp_10-2016_M722a8w.pdf