To put questions, if any, to Cabinet Members and Chairmen (or their representatives) under Council Procedure Rules 11(1) and 11(3).
Minutes:
(1) Councillor Short asked what steps did the Council take to ensure the “Hand Car Wash” firms which operated in our town did not exploit workers?
The Independent Anti-Slavery Commission had concerns that car wash workers were being paid less than the minimum wage, were kept in squalid housing and subject to possible modern slavery.
Councillor Hoddinott confirmed this was an issue that affected many people including foreign nationals and UK victims. Following the Modern Slavery Act and new legislation a national system was set up for dealing with victims called the national referral mechanism. There was more information about referrals and the types of referrals coming through. The Commissioner had quite rightly highlighted the use of car washes, nail bars and other cheap services as actually fuelling modern slavery and people were being trafficked and put into forced labour.
Work was taking place with partners to co-ordinate a response to modern slavery and at the next meeting of the Safer Rotherham Partnership this would be considered and plans put in place.
With regards to car washes and enforcement, the Police and Council would react to any concerns by the public or Councillors. The service was aware of a couple of incidents and premises had been inspected based on reports. Consideration would need to be given as to what could be done, how to be more proactive and raise awareness of the issue amongst the public. This would be raised at the next meeting of the Safer Rotherham Partnership.
In a supplementary question Councillor Short made reference to a visit he had made to a car wash during a particular cold spell during the winter. The young men working had no protective clothing, their clothes were sodden and they were shivering and shaking. The owner, who was usually chatty, when asked why his workers were not suitably equipped indicated he did not understand and walked away. Councillor Short believed those who were licensed should comply with the relevant regulations and on this basis he wished to propose that a cross-party meeting look at this area to see if something could be done further. He was aware of an initiative by Luton Council and how the Government’s Audit Committee was due to receive a report on this shortly.
Councillor Hoddinott further explained that incidents should be shared with the Police and officers so they could be looked into. It was pointed out that if any member of the public or councillor had circumstances where they were particularly concerned they could telephone the national modern slavery hotline and make reports anonymously which would be picked up by the Police. The points about cross-party working were welcomed and Councillor Hoddinott was more than happy to put this in place to see what more could be done.
(2) Councillor Cowles asked, in light of the recent planning decision to allow Yorkshire Water to build a new reservoir in Boston Park as they requested, did the Leader accept that Labour could not now be trusted to preserve public assets and green spaces for the benefit of residents as they were intended?
The Leader confirmed he did not accept the comment made.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles confirmed he had managed to obtain a copy of the 1903 Covenant which confirmed the use of the land as open green space and should be used solely for the purposes of public recreation ground. Page 6 stipulated that the said lands should only be used for the purposes of a public recreation ground. It further set out that urban authorities should maintain public parks and pleasure grounds and not in 2018 change our mind as it suits. The Covenant further stipulated that any work to the 1903 water reservoir should be well fenced from the public recreation ground. It would seem that RMBC Planning Department was in breach of the 1903 Covenant by agreeing a land swap with Yorkshire Water. The family of the Earl had been contacted and they were not aware of what had taken place. It would seem that Legal Services had failed to seek permission from the Earl or other living descendants and were prepared to go ahead with the outcome expecting the family or others to bear the cost of a legal challenge, which could be expensive. Once this land had been lost it had gone for 80 years so Councillor Cowles, therefore, asked if the Leader knew if the site or the surrounding routes were visited by the Chair of the Planning Board before the decision was taken. Councillor Cowles himself had sent a letter into Planning for this to be read out at the meeting, but it was not done so. In light of all this, the Leader was asked if he wanted to reconsider his response and that he was in fact not fit to manage the green spaces.
The Leader was not certain why this particular question was directed at him as any Member knew the Planning Board had a regulatory function and decisions were made. The Leader could not confirm if the Board had actually visited the site. It would be wrong for him to be intervening in a particular Planning decision and if he claimed Labour Party members had a view about a particular planning application, there would be claims that decisions were pre-determined and pre-judged. If Councillor Cowles wished to ask these types of questions to the Chair of the Planning Board he may be in a better position to answer.
In terms of this particular site a planning application had been received, followed due process and a decision made. If there were legal issues that arose they would be addressed in due course. The Leader was aware and sympathetic that if Yorkshire Water did not undertake necessary works to the reservoir this threatened the water supply to 20,000 people and Rotherham District General Hospital.
(3) Councillor Cowles asked, following the collapse of ‘Carillion’ did the Cabinet Member have any concerns at the decision by your partner SYPTE in the selection of ‘Interserve’ as the prime contractor for the relocation and development of the bus station?
Councillor Lelliott explained SYPTE was aware, that although Interserve recently issued a profits warning they selected this contractor following a competitive process and they offered significantly better value for money than the nearest competitor. SYPTE have undertaken due diligence and did not have any concerns in this respect, however they have also taken out a bond to insure Rotherham should there be any issues of this nature when they would be covered.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles pointed out the Council should be concerned. He read some of the comments from the press about profit warnings so if there was a company failure and results in major delays to the project, Councillor Cowles was sure the public would not understand why this happened. These delays could take months or even years. The tram train was an example of another failure so would have thought due diligence would have been taken and asked had the Cabinet Member taken any due diligence.
Councillor Lelliott pointed out that it was for SYPTE to conduct its affairs and business how it saw fit. This was the same for the tram train. The Council could advise and guide, but was unable to dictate how SYPTE managed its projects. However, the Cabinet Member would be concerned if there was an impact on Rotherham, but was sure with the due diligence undertaken by SYPTE this would not happen.
(4) Councillor M. Elliott asked who determined that the appropriate time to close the multi-storey car park on Wellgate should be 7.00 p.m.?
Councillor Lelliott confirmed this was an historic decision, but was reviewed every year. Consideration had been given to extend the opening hours in Wellgate Multi Story Car Park in June 2017, but on the data received it would at a net cost to the Council. In and around the Wellgate centre there was a decline in usage after 6.00 p.m. and customers would be much more likely to use the alternative on and off street parking places which were widely available.
In a supplementary question Councillor Elliott understood the reasons, but had seen Members dashing from the Town Hall to get to the car park before it closed and secondly Rotherham United last Wednesday night was involved in a very important football which was attended by more than 11,000 supporters. People were driving around the town searching for suitable parking and to see the multi-storey closed and empty was extremely annoying. He asked if the opening hours could be reviewed.
Councillor Lelliott reiterated that the opening hours were reviewed annually and it would not be viewed favourably if it was kept open purely for Members. In terms of the football matches Councillor Lelliott would be more than happy to look and discuss opening the car park, but this had never been requested.
(5) Councillor Cowles often heard in the chamber that residents were listened to. He asked could the Cabinet Member then explain why when market traders were asked whether recently vacated space should be used for new business development or another seating area, traders requested new business development that it was decided to provide another seating area?
Councillor Lelliott formally thanked officers for the hard work that had been taking place in the market building. Councillor Lelliott confirmed she and officers met regularly with the Market Traders and have also worked with them to set up a new Traders Federation. Through both these meetings there had been traders that supported the removal of the empty stalls and provision of extra seating with very few traders against the idea.
In addition, the Council had made a £20,000 a year saving through this work which in turn had assisted the Council to reduce rents by 10% for a full year as some traders were struggling.
Traders also requested free parking on Drummond Street and an additional 36 spaces were provided. In addition, they asked for additional seating areas so this was provided which was further evidence that the Council was listening. If there was a particular trader who was unhappy with the decision Councillor Lelliott was happy to meet and work through the issues.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles was happy the Cabinet Member had brought up some of those figures. Speaking to people there were already 4 seating areas in the market so providing a fifth was hardly promoting the development of the market.
He further brought to the Cabinet Member’s attention a report on Look North that Rotherham was in the top ten list of worst town’s in England for retail so the Council’s track record was not looking that great. Footfall continued to decline so footfall figures were no longer published. This action on a further seating area was only the Council’s way of shrinking the market area as it was an easy way of filling the space.
Mansfield was £6.00 per stall with a further 20% off during winter months. St. John’s in Liverpool was free for 3 months. By comparison Rotherham’s 10% reduction for 12 months was the equivalent of £1.80 a stall and on a Tuesday market rents had been raised by a £1.00 plus £1.00 of build out per two feet. Could the Cabinet Member explain what kind of incentive this really was.
Councillor Lelliott explained Rotherham market was half the price of its Sheffield neighbour so compared competitively. In terms of the seating areas, having a downstairs seating area for those who had mobility difficulties was an excellent idea. In addition a stall would be opening shortly for consultation proposals with Clifton Park and the Market to get ideas moving forward. This would ensure that any points and issues could be raised by market traders.
(6) Councillor Carter asked what progress had been made with enacting the Town Centre Masterplan since the consultation last year?
Councillor Lelliott confirmed that considerable progress had been made on delivering the masterplan, for example:-
· The £10.5m University Campus at Doncaster Gate was well on the way and would be up and running by September.
· The Transport Interchange was now being refurbished and a newer facility would be much better for the people of Rotherham.
· The Council had selected a development partner to bring forward 3Town Centre Housing sites which will deliver 182 new houses.
· Work was due to start on a £10m revamp of Westgate Chambers.
· The George Wright Building was now open after redevelopment.
· Forge Island had invited 3 potential development partners to submit detailed development proposals.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter referred to the masterplan and the proposals to increase the provision in terms of increasing a night time social economy and asked for an update. He also asked about the plan for the many empty retail outlets and shops.
Councillor Lelliott confirmed the deadline for completed Stage 2 submissions for Forge Island was the 29th June and a development partner would be selected by September. Exact details would be provided in writing.
In terms of the town centre the Council did not actually own many of the empty retail outlets. The Town Centre Business Growth Board were looking at having vinyls being erected in the meantime, but every effort was being made to develop the masterplan further.
(7) Councillor Napper explained, as reported on Channel 4 Dispatches 26.03.2018, groups called C.A.G.E. and M.E.N.D. want anti-terrorism laws abolished and the Prevent Campaign stopped. He asked had any of the Rotherham Labour Group shared a stage with the Leaders of these groups as they had only good things to say about Jihadi John?
The Leader confirmed that neither he nor the Council actually kept a record of when a Labour Councillor had spoken alongside any groups. Anecdotally he was aware that some of these groups had actually been involved in some broad based anti-racism campaigns and some Labour Councillors have also been involved on the odd occasions in those meetings. These events also included speakers from other political parties and a whole range of views and it would be a long shot to say that they shared views about terrorism. If there were any suggestion that any Labour Councillors shared these more extreme views this was extremely laughable.
In a supplementary question Councillor Napper referred to the Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn sharing a stage with these people. However, in terms of community cohesion these type of groups tended to do the opposite and were not always conducive to communities.
The Leader confirmed the Labour Party was persistently anti-racist and it would continue on a cross party to pursue this agenda. However, it did not necessarily always agree with all the views of people that took part in those campaigns.
(8) Councillor Cowles repeatedly heard that austerity was the cause of all the Council’s ills, yet despite this, during the past 3 years 15/16, 16/17, 17/18 numbers of FTE’s employed had fallen yet the overall salary bill had risen significantly and he asked could this be confirmed.
The Leader explained about the nature of employment law and the way Local Government employment worked. The detail in the press about the annual salary bill confirmed there was a slight increase over the 3 year period and if the cost of employment, agency and temporary works was included there was a small cash decline in staff. The reason this happened was due to the reduced reliance on agency staff and at the same time the retained staff, which had reduced by 400 people over the 3 year period, were entitled to annual pay awards and additional increments. There were increases in the employers’ rate of superannuation and national insurance contributions. If the steps taken had not been implemented the wage bill would have been much more expensive and not affordable.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles referred to the annual wage increase and the fact that employees were asked to take 3 days leave without pay. In comparison terms this was the equivalent to about 1% and accounted for the pay rise. The Council had lost 400 members of staff, but if you compared this with the salary increase it still went up by £680,000 and the following year rose by another £200,000. He, therefore, asked what was the average salary across the authority, the average salary outside Rotherham generally and how many staff were employed at a salary of £65,000 and above.
The Leader confirmed he did not have numbers to hand. He pointed out average salaries were included in the annual pay statement which was recorded and published on the Council’s website. The Council had a tighter budget which mean, sadly, the staffing complement had to decrease and difficult decisions taken in order to reduce the funding gap. He confirmed he would ask officers to assemble the factual information and send this forward in writing.
(9) Councillor B. Cutts would receive a written reply to his question.
(10) Councillor Carter asked would the Council add to its Minimum Standards Charter, that all new contracts would have to offer the Joseph Rowntree Living Wage, in line with Council employees?
Councillor Alam confirmed that whilst the Council would encourage all commissioned Council service providers to pay the Proper Living Wage, it was estimated that the rough cost of compelling them to do so would be around £10 million per year. This was not an affordable option at the moment.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked could the Council not be more aspirational and for the employees of contractors to receive the same living standards. Many Councils had already commissioned or were looking to introduce the Living Wage in contracts and asked would the Cabinet Member look at this and include this in the future.
Councillor Alam would like to ask the commissioning providers to pay the Living Wage, but with this being £10 million worth of contracts this was quite challenging and to implement this it would be more expensive. The Council could only encourage providers it could not be enforced.
(11) Councillor Napper referred to the Government proposing guidance for scrutiny committees, in that, committees should have full access to financial matters and should not be restricted due to commercial sensitivity regarding contracts. He asked when would this happen?
Councillor Read confirmed the changes had already been made and Members to have access to all reports and exempt information making the process more open and transparent.
(12) Councillor Cusworth asked what was the Council doing to help reduce chronic homelessness within Rotherham?
Councillor Roche confirmed homelessness and sleeping rough was a national problem and had been caused by both the current Tory and Coalition Governments, the trend of which was a national disgrace.
Rotherham under a Labour admission had an excellent track record of tackling homelessness and undertook a wide range of activities to prevent homelessness often involving partnership working. A dedicated Homelessness Team sat alongside Property Allocation officers and the recently established Financial Inclusion Team. This ensured the Council met its statutory duties and carried out as much preventative action as possible. This included money management and benefit advice, referrals to employment solutions and tenancy affordability assessments.
Officers were also providing support to help tenants sustain their tenancies in the public and private sector and support resettlement programmes with the prison and probation services. The number of homeless preventions for the last year was 451.
Rough sleepers were supported by a variety of agencies including the Council with a dedicated worker recently appointed through a sub-regional grant funded programme. Rotherham participated in the National Rough sleeper count in November, 2017 and recorded 2 people rough sleeping.
There were loads of other examples in the way the Council was working to help solve this problem. The Cabinet Member was happy to provide a full list if this was requested.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cusworth referred to a programme Housing First being rolled out in other authorities and asked if Rotherham was involved.
Councillor Roche confirmed this was handled via the Housing Team, but he would ensure a written reply would be provided by the Cabinet Member for Housing.
(13) Councillor Carter asked how many families in Rotherham were affected by the collapse of Home Start South Yorkshire, and what was the Council doing to support these families in a difficult time?
The Cabinet Member for Housing was unable to attend the meeting today so a reply would be provided in writing.
(14) Councillor Carter asked the Cabinet Member for Housing how many homes within the Town Centre Masterplan will be funded by the HRA as privately occupied homes to then be sold on the open market?
The Cabinet Member for Housing was unable to attend the meeting today so a reply would be provided in writing.
(15) Councillor Fenwick-Green asked since its introduction 2 years ago, could the Cabinet Member tell her what improvement the Eastwood deal had made to Eastwood village?
Councillor Hoddinott thanked Rotherham East Councillors for the work they were doing with the Eastwood Deal and the work taking place to review it. A great deal of work had taken place in the first 2 years on how to address the immediate concerns and looking at some of the longer term issues. A number of different approaches had been tried and partners had moved to working closely together with joint team meetings and co-location. A medium focus had been on the built environment with particular attention on enforcement.
In 2017/18 there were 340 fixed penalty notices issued which was an increase from just 7 in 2016/17. There had also been 210 enforcement notices issued for more complex cases around anti-social behaviour and seven prosecutions as a result. The year before there had been 208 enforcement notices with three prosecutions.
Selective licensing had made a big impact improving the private rented sector and officers, just in the last few years, had been in over 500 properties in Eastwood to inspect. A number of cases had been raised with 53 warnings in the last year about waste in gardens and noise nuisance.
Overall, with the continuous enforcement as a whole there had been a 28% decrease on the same period in the previous year. In the longer term the regeneration in the area and changes to the housing stock would continue. It was recognised there was more to do as fly tipping and rubbish in gardens continued to be a problem. Neighbourhood working would continue to be encouraged and initiatives by Ward Councillors would go a long way to addressing some of the engagement and community working going forward.
(16) Councillor Cusworth explained in Swinton, Ward Members were tackling the issue of school parking by setting up Travel Plan Working Parties in Primary Schools and arranging, for example, themed walks to school, park and stride car parks and working towards ModeSHIFT Stars Active Travel accreditation and asked if the Council supported this approach?
Councillor Hoddinott confirmed she did and anything that could be done of tackle congestion was welcome. In Swinton she welcomed the initiatives and was happy to look to see how this could be supported across the borough.
(17) Councillor Carter referred to residents in Rotherham expressing frustration with the early closure of burial services mid-afternoon and asked was it fair that Sheffield residents got a better deal than Rotherham’s residents who paid extortionate fees for a worse service from the contract with Dignity?
Councillor Hoddinott agreed it was not fair and had expressed her frustration about the shortcomings in the contract. She had raised the issue around the cost with Dignity and was pleased that they had confirmed they would be freezing their prices until October, 2018. She would, however, make representations and look into the issue of early closure. Sheffield did close later, but Barnsley and Doncaster actually closed earlier when comparing times with neighbours. She confirmed she would continue to push for changes.
In a supplementary question Councillor Carter asked if he could be informed and be given the representations to Dignity about what steps had been taken as a Council.
Councillor Hoddinott confirmed she would be happy to provide correspondence.
(18) Councillor Cowles explained whenever any enforcement for littering or other types of anti-social behaviour had been suggested for implementation in Eastwood he had been made aware that Councillor Hoddinott had thus far blocked the use of such enforcement and he asked could the Cabinet Member confirm whether or not this was the case?
Councillor Hoddinott confirmed this was not the case.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cowles believed the situation with the Eastwood Deal had got worse not better despite the monthly cost of cleaning up the area. He received the photos and the emails each week and believed the Cabinet Member had requested they not be sent to her. He reminded her doing nothing was not a viable option. Every time he walked around with Mr. Kirk he had gardens brimming with rubbish and asked why. If selective licensing was such a success why were the gardens accumulating rubbish. The Council now knew who owned these properties so why were there any yards with rubbish in as these should be dealt with as soon as it appeared. He asked why had greater enforcement not been employed to stop some of the concerns happening down there.
Councillor Hoddinott outlined the progress and she had spoken to residents who believed it was better. There was more to do and she urged residents to talk to their Ward Councillors. She received the numerous emails and photos which were reported and acted upon. In terms of enforcement appropriate action was taken where necessary with moves towards prosecutions, which often meant some of the rubbish in gardens, was not cleared as quickly as this often provided as evidence.
(19) Councillor Napper asked when would R.M.B.C. look at reducing the speed limit on sections of Moor Lane North and South, Braithwell Road, Hollings Lane, Magna Lane and Far Magna Lane?
Councillor Hoddinott explained officers were looking at the representations on reducing speed limits on these sections. The Cabinet Member was more than happy to share the detailed work on this and a meeting was to be scheduled shortly to look at reasons for the speed limits and the accidents in the areas, which were not always speed related.
Around the Thrybergh area following representations the school would be having a 20 mph zone introduced in the next few weeks. She was happy to look at other areas with Councillor Napper.
In a supplementary question Councillor Napper explained in the last 5 years there had been 22 accidents on Moor Lane North, on Hollings Lane 3 deaths in the last 2 years, 14 vehicles overturned on Magna Lane and 2 accidents on Far Magna Lane at the crossroads near the Joker pub pedestrian crossings, but this was a 40 mph stretch. Down near Ravenfield School it was recommended that lights come up 20 mph, but this was not recognised by drivers.
The roads were classified as “B” and “C” and pointed out that in rural areas where roads linked the larger villages and HGV generators to strategic and main distribution networks and heavy pedestrian activity these types of roads should have 30 mph. Many of the roads described had speed limits of 40 mph. Officers had indicated that they had to wait until someone died before they could take action and he asked why should there be a delay and someone hurt when they could not take responsibility. He believed this was wrong and it was time that action was now taken. He welcomed attendance at Ravenfield Parish Council meetings.
Councillor Hoddinott found it unacceptable that action could not be taken until someone died in an accident. She shared Councillor Napper’s concerns and was happy to sit down to see what action could be taken or what opportunities there were to take this forward. Some of the accidents were related to the camber of the road on Hollings Lane and the surface on Magna Lane. Some Members had used their devolved budget to look at speed measures that could be used in some areas and this was something the relevant Ward Members may wish to consider.
(20) Councillor Napper referred to Rotherham being in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons with the Chief Constable and 200 officers on T.V. regarding Eastwood arresting 12 people, impounding 3 cars and dismantling 2 cannabis farms and asked when was the Council going to get a grip of this place.
Councillor Hoddinott explained that action was taken where needed. She had spoken to the Police who confirmed this was in relation to Operation Duxford. The 200 officers were across Rotherham and not just in Eastwood. It was an important operation with the Police acting on community information in that area.
As supplementary information Councillor Napper pointed out that when the Chief Constable reported on television that he had 200 officers in the area this was considered a serious problem. However, many of these problems were continuing and it was hoped the Police would look into them further.
(21) Councillor B. Cutts question would be responded to in writing.
(22) Councillor Cusworth explained the Government was currently running a consultation on 'Transforming the Response to Domestic Abuse' and asked how had Rotherham Council engaged with this?
Councillor Hoddinott confirmed the Government was conducting quite a large scale consultation how Local Authorities responded to domestic abuse. This consultation would close at the end of May, 2018. Work had been taking place with partners about what it was they wanted to see with some important questions being asked about the definition of domestic abuse and how domestic abuse work was being funded. They had been protected so far in Rotherham, but if this was a priority it needed to be funded properly.
Councillor Hoddinott thanked Councillor Cusworth for leading on the engagement with Members and for chairing a session around the Government consultation. All this was being brought together and would feed into the representations around those areas. Councillors having read the response gave some good feedback and how to recognise the non-physical domestic abuse and the mental and financial abuse just as much.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cusworth referred to Amber Rudd, the then Home Secretary, concluded her forward to the consultation by saying “We are optimistic by working together we can better prevent, protect and support all victims of domestic abuse” so how can we as a Local Authority prevent, protect and support victims of domestic abuse during such times of Tory austerity.
Councillor Hoddinott explained it was difficult as these services have been affected by the austerity and the Council would do all it could to protect as far as possible.
Councillor Hoddinott paid tribute to the Housing Team success in gaining various national grants to assist local services. It was a shame, however, the Council had to rely on this ad hoc funding for such a core service and it was key that this should form part of the consultation when this was a priority and should be funded appropriately.
(23) Councillor B. Cutts would receive an answer to his question in writing.
(24) Councillor Cusworth explained the need for mental health care was in the news daily and asked could the Cabinet Member please tell her what RMBC were doing to support and care for people in Rotherham who may have mental health care needs?
Councillor Roche explained the health and wellbeing was important to everybody in Rotherham, enabling people to live fulfilling lives and to be actively engaged in their community. Mental health was crucial.
Last Monday he launched the Five Ways to Wellbeing as part of Mental Health Awareness Week (14th - 20th May) and he confirmed a survey had shown that the people of Rotherham recognised the importance of looking after their mental health and wellbeing. The launch covered that everyone had mental health, just like physical health it was important that steps were taken to look after it. The following steps, known as the ‘Five Ways to Wellbeing’ were easy and could be incorporated into our daily lives almost straight away. The simple things such as:-
1. Be Active.
2. Connect.
3. Give.
4. Keep Learning.
5. Take Notice.
The support and services that were provided range from individual personalised support, group work, support within the home and support with social inclusion and were all based on a prevention, enablement and recovery model. The main focus of support was to maximize independence and to support people to become part of their local communities.
Services provided within Rotherham were universal, targeted and specialist. For people with longer term needs the Council worked with Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust (RDaSH) with Social Workers and approved mental health professional staff working together to provide appropriate support.
The staff were currently “integrated” into multi-disciplinary teams which provide services to people with mental ill health.
Yesterday the Local Government Association had visited who praised Rotherham for its integrated services and rated as one of the best in the country.
RDaSH provided elements of rehabilitation, crisis, acute and home treatment, assertive outreach, early intervention in psychosis and day services. The Trust also provided psychological therapies and primary care mental health services.
The team supported a 24 hour crisis intervention service alongside providing mental health act assessments when required in a timely manner.
RMBC and RDaSH worked closely with the Voluntary Sector who also provided a wide range of support, services and community options, including Voluntary Action Rotherham MIND and Rotherham United. Part of this included the newly developed mental health social prescribing which had been seen to be a national leader. In addition to these areas there were a number of initiatives in schools including a dedicated website to help people improve their mental health.
Work was also undertaken as part of social inclusion to improve mental health like the projects at Wellgate Court. In the near future the Cabinet Member hoped to present a new project on loneliness which was a key determinant of mental health and if more could be done to reduce loneliness this would aid to improve the mental health of people.
In a supplementary question Councillor Cusworth referred how in the U.K. between 2003 and 2013 over 18,000 people took their own life and asked what work was being done with regards to suicide prevent in the Borough.
Councillor Roche outlined the work being undertaken in this area and praised the lead officer, Ruth Fletcher-Brown. This included work in the south of the Borough with Councillor Ellis, professionals, local staff and members of local parishes in order to make people more aware. This included the local public houses allowing designed beer mats to be circulated “Don’t let silence kill you”. Anything that could be done to get people to talk about their problems and issues would help and the Cabinet Member urged Ward Members to introducing this campaign in their areas. There was an active strategic officer group which includes agencies such as the Samaritans and the Police to see what could be done about suicide in the Borough. This could be improved further as this was not just a local but a national problem.