Minutes:
The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Mr R C Lunn, Mr P M McDonald, Mr P Denham, Ms C M Stalker, Mr C J Bloore, Mr L C R Mallett, Ms P A Hill, and Ms P Agar.
The motion was moved by Mr R C Lunn and seconded by Mr A Fry who both spoke in favour of it, and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.
Those in favour of the motion made the following comments:
· The funding issues related to Adult Social Care could not be solved from within the Council's funding streams without the help of the additional funding from the Government. Unless other forms of funding were sought, there was a danger that the Council would become a social care council. The Government had not produced a Green Paper or any proposals to fund Adult Social Care. It was also a failure of financial services companies to design products/solutions to enable long term planning
· The aim of this motion was to enable the Council to come up with a plan to fund Adult Social Care up to 2021 and to provide for a framework for the next budget. It was noted that a report was going to Cabinet on this matter but no reference had been made in that report to member involvement
· People were living longer and healthier lives but as a result needed more care as they became more fragile. It was clear that this Council and society in general was not addressing this issue. The money from this Government and preceding Governments had not been forthcoming and this Government should be lobbied accordingly
· There was no reason to refuse the motion given that everything in it would be approved by Cabinet next week
· An assurance would be welcomed that ideas on Adult Social Care would be sought from all councillors.
Those against the motion made the following comments:
· The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care commented that although it was recognised that a national framework set out in the Green Paper was necessary, on a local level, the Council was taking action and producing a business plan for the next 3 years. The problem was complex and multi-layered. The plan focused on the Council meeting eligible needs under the Care Act, preventing, reducing and delaying the need for care, engaging with the market to establish need and increasing the number of people who stayed in their homes. The Plan included a Market Position Statement, a demand and capacity plan and a review of all existing policies including transport and charging. The Plan would considered by Council as part of the normal democratic process. He could not support the motion because the Council was already fulfilling the requirements of the motion with the exception of the request for a Council debate
· Members of the Council were already receiving information on Adult Social Care through the scrutiny process.
The motion was lost.