Agenda item

5.1

Public Questions in respect of Mental Health

5.1.1

Adam Butcher asked what was the Council doing to make sure we had a joined-up Commissioning Plan for Mental Health for all ages? Mr Butcher also asked did we know what the number of Sheffield people was who were held in a police cell when having a mental health crisis?

5.1.2

Councillor Mary Lea, Cabinet Member for Health, Care and Independent Living, responded that the Council worked closely with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) on mental health issues to ensure good provision of services, which was underpinned by a Joint Needs Analysis.

5.1.3

Councillor Lea added that a Joint Commissioning Plan had been created with the CCG which involved some pooled budgets particularly in relation to Section 17 which focused on aftercare.

5.1.4

A Street Triage Team had been established which involved Mental Health Workers assisting the Police which hoped to reduce numbers being detained in a Police Cell with a mental health issue, with some success thus far. Mental Health workers could also visit a person’s house if this was felt appropriate. There were services for inpatient provision at Northern General Hospital if someone did need to be detained in an emergency.

5.1.5

Councillor Jackie Drayton, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Families, further commented that the Council were working on ensuring plans were joined-up with the CCG and the Children’s Hospital. The Health and Wellbeing Board had recently received a presentation from young people who had raised some of their concerns in relation to this issue, such as the gap in provision of services in the transition from 16-18. A pilot had been undertaken to provide support through to 18 years old, which was very welcomed but the young people aspired for the service to go up to 25 years of age.

5.1.6

Councillor Drayton believed it was important to focus on early intervention and prevention and offering support and advice in schools was a key part of this. Assisting with low level mental health issues in the early stages may help to prevent issues arising in the future. If support could be provided to parents as well this may make a difference to the overall health and wellbeing of a child.

5.1.7

There were a number of projects and pilots taking place around the City, such as the “Future in Mind” Pilot which had received money from the Government. A part of this was looking at alternatives to placing a person in a police cell.

5.2

Public Questions in respect of Devolution

5.2.1

Nigel Slack commented that Barnsley had voted in favour of the ‘devolution’ deal. Chesterfield was currently debating between full membership of the Sheffield City Region or the East Midlands region known as D2N2, with little news of forward movement on the Sheffield front.

5.2.2

He therefore asked was there yet a realistic timetable for the decision process in Sheffield City Council? Had negotiations on the City Council’s ‘red line’ issues been successful? More specifically, had the Mayoral veto clause been removed from the proposal or were the Council relying on the ‘constitution’ of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority (SCRCA) to temper this power? Which document would have legal precedence, the ‘devolution agreement’ with the Government or the SCRCA ‘constitution’?

5.2.3

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Julie Dore, responded that the Council had made it clear to the Government about its two ‘red lines’. The first of these was related to geography. Any agreement should not be a South Yorkshire devolution agreement, as the agreement was an economic agreement to enable Sheffield City Region (SCR) as an economic functioning area to grow its economy through investment in infrastructure and some control over skills in relation to young people and adults. This issue had been somewhat resolved and it required the Government to amend the Bill. Many people had said that it would be very difficult to get the Conservative Government to amend the Bill but the Council had stood firm on this and achieved its goal.

5.2.4

As a result of the agreement over geography, districts had now been given the choice of whether to join the SCR or the D2N2. Chesterfield, at its Full Council meeting, had agreed to become a full Constituent Member of the SCR. North East Derbyshire and Bolsover had agreed to become Full Constituent Members of D2N2. The decision of Bassetlaw was still awaited. Once this was confirmed the SCR could establish whether the ‘red line’ policy on geography had been achieved.

5.2.5

The second ‘red line’ was in respect of the Mayoral veto. It was clear that the constitution of the SCRCA took legal precedence over the devolution agreement. The constitution was being developed, but all 9 authorities involved were clear that the Mayoral veto would be removed. The constitution will have been agreed by the time the Order on devolution passes through parliament and the SCR could still withdraw from the agreement at that stage if it believed its ‘red lines’ had not been met.

5.3

Public Question in respect of Service Provider Contracts

5.3.1

Nigel Slack commented that he recalled being in attendance at a Community Assembly meeting chaired by Councillor Ben Curran, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources. At that meeting, a presentation was given by the City Council and Amey about the then proposed contract for ‘Streets Ahead’. Mr Slack had asked an awkward question about levels of profit for the contract. The response had been that it was a commercially sensitive matter. A female Council Officer from the Highways team also commented that they had been negotiating this contract for 6 years and they knew what they were doing. In Mr Slack’s opinion, recent public concerns over the contract would suggest otherwise.

5.3.2

With this in mind, will the Council commit to use their good offices as the lead Authority of the SCRCA to ensure that any good ‘service provider’ contracts proposed and agreed by the SCRCA will be handled on the same ‘presumed total disclosure approach’ that was supposed to be part of the City’s own contracting process?

5.3.3

Councillor Julie Dore stated that as the question mentioned Community Assemblies she would like to take the opportunity to clarify that, despite what had been said by a number of people, the Council still had meetings in the community, through Local Area Partnerships (LAPs) and Cabinet in the Community meetings. There were lots of reasons why Community Assemblies needed to change. The main reason being cost as they cost £2.5 million a year to run and this couldn’t continue. Since the abolition of Community Assemblies, no opposition party had put in their budget amendments a pledge for them to be reinstated which suggested that they accepted that they were unaffordable.

5.3.4

Councillor Dore then commented that no questions on profit for contractors were awkward as people had the right to know. However, the Council was often bound by legal confidentiality. Within the Sheffield City Region there was a need to negotiate with partners and follow policies and processes. People could be reassured that in such discussions the City Council would be making their position clear when it came to contract issues, arguing for fairness and the commitment to the Living Wage, amongst others.