Agenda item

This item was taken after Item 6 and before Item 7.

1)      The Petitioners, Ms Kate Townsend-Brazier and Ms Amy Watkins, provided a verbal statement.

2)      The Chairman invited Members to debate the petition.

3)      The Cabinet Member for Integrated Children’s Services responded to the petition and the debate.

4)         Mr Whiting proposed and Rich Lehmann seconded the motion that

“This Council resolves;

1.      to thank the petitioners for raising this important issue.

2.      to recommend to the Cabinet Member that she puts on hold her decision;

a.      until she has explored with Seashells a possible reduction in the contract value,

b.      until she has clarity over the government’s extension of its Family Hub Continuity Funding,

c.       until after Cabinet has considered the total cross-departmental cost to the County Council accruing from any decision to cancel the commissioned service at Seashells.”

5)      Following the debate, the Chairman put the motion set out in paragraph 4 to the vote and the voting was as follows:

For (18)

Mr Brady, Mr S Campkin, Mr Chittenden, Ms Constantine, Ms Dawkins, Mrs Dean, Mr Hood, Mr Hook, Mr R Lehmann, Mr Lewis, Ms Meade, Mr Passmore, Mr Sole, Mr P Stepto, Mr Streatfeild, Dr Sullivan, Mr Whiting, Mr Wright

Against (41)

Mr Baker, Mr Bartlett, Mrs Bell, Mrs Binks, Mr Booth, Mr Brazier, Miss Carey, Mrs Chandler, Mr Chard, Mr Cole, Mrs Cole, Mr Cooke, Mr Crow-Brown, Mr Dance, Mr Dendor, Mr Gough, Ms Hamilton, Mr Hills, Mrs Hohler, Mr Holden, Mr Jeffrey, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kite, Mr Love, Mr Manion, Mr Marsh, Mrs McArthur, Mr McInroy, Mr Meade, Mr Murphy, Mr Oakford, Mr Ozog, Ms Parfitt, Mr Rayner, Mr Richardson, Mr Robey, Mr Sandhu, Mr Shonk, Mr Thomas, Mr Watkins, Ms Wright

Abstain (1)

Mr Carter

Motion lost.

6)      Mr Jeffrey proposed and Mr Booth seconded the motion that

“Council recognises that this petition represents significant local opinion regarding the proposed decision to not recommission Family Hub Services at Seashells and asks the Cabinet Member to take that into consideration in addition to the consultation report before taking the decision.”

7)      Mr Lehmann proposed the following amendment to the motion set out at paragraph 6:

“Council recognises that this petition represents significant local opinion regarding the proposed decision to not recommission Family Hub Services at Seashells and asks the Cabinet Member to take that into consideration in addition to the consultation report, and detailed financial analysis, before taking the decision.”

8)      The Chairman put the amendment set out in paragraph 7 to the vote and it was agreed.

Amendment carried.

9)      Following the debate, the Chairman put the substantive motion set out at paragraph 7 to the vote and the voting was as follows:

For (56)

Mr Baker, Mr Bartlett, Mrs Bell, Mrs Binks, Mr Booth, Mr Brady, Mr Brazier, Mr Campkin, Miss Carey, Mr Carter, Mrs Chandler, Mr Chard, Mr Chittenden, Mr Cole, Ms Constantine, Mr Cooke, Mr Crow-Brown, Mr Dance, Ms Dawkins, Mrs Dean, Mr Dendor, Mr Gough, Ms Hamilton, Mr Hills, Mrs Hohler, Mr Holden, Mr Hood, Mr Hook, Mr Jeffrey, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kite, Mr Lehmann, Mr Lewis, Mr Love, Mr Manion, Mr Marsh, Mrs McArthur, Mr McInroy, Mr Meade, Ms Meade, Mr Murphy, Mr Oakford, Mr Ozog, Mr Passmore, Mr Richardson, Mr Robey, Mr Sandhu, Mr Shonk, Mr Sole, Mr Stepto, Mr Streatfeild, Dr Sullivan, Mr Thomas, Mr Watkins, Mr Wright, Ms Wright

Against (0)

Abstain (1)

Mr Whiting

Motion carried.

10)    RESOLVED that Council recognises that this petition represents significant local opinion regarding the proposed decision to not recommission Family Hub Services at Seashells and asks the Cabinet Member to take that into consideration in addition to the consultation report, and detailed financial analysis, before taking the decision.