Agenda and minutes

Councillor	Minute Number	Nature of Interest
Cllr Tom Coles	147	Personal, in respect of the first question from members. Cllr Coles worked for an NHS Trust.
Cllr Darren Sanders	134	Personal. Cllr Sanders knew Mr Oliver and Mr Taylor in his capacity as Cabinet Member for Housing & Tackling Homelessness.
Cllr Matthew Winnington	146	Personal. Cllr Winnington worked for a VCSE organisation.
Cllr Derek North	138	Cllr North did not vote on this item in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

 

It was

 

Proposed by Councillor Steve Pitt

Seconded by Councillor George Madgwick

 

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 12 November 2024 be confirmed as a correct record.

 

The minutes were agreed by assent.

Apologies for absence due to illness had been received from Councillor Matthew Cordy.  Apologies due to pre-arranged leave had been received from Councillors Suzy Horton, Hugh Mason and Leonie Oliver, the meeting date having been moved after their leave had been arranged.

The Lord Mayor reminded Council that at an extraordinary Council meeting held on 15 October 2024 it had been agreed that former Portsmouth City Councillor and Council Leader, Leo Madden, be admitted to the roll of honorary aldermen.

 

The Lord Mayor presented Honorary Aldermen Madden with a framed certificate confirming his admission to the roll of honorary aldermen.  At the invitation of the Lord Mayor, Honorary Alderman Madden took the opportunity to make a short speech.

Deputations by members of the public may be made on any item where a decision is going to be taken. The request should be made in writing to the contact officer (james.harris@portsmouthcc.gov.uk) by 12 noon of the working day before the meeting (so Monday 16 December 2024 for this meeting) and must include the purpose of the deputation (for example, for or against the recommendations). Email requests are accepted.

The City Solicitor advised that three oral deputation requests had been made for this meeting. 

 

The first was from Laura Watford, in support of minute 143 Notice of Motion - School Breakfast Clubs in Portsmouth. 

 

The second was from Mike Taylor, in support of minute 146, Notice of Motion - The impact of National Insurance rises.

 

The third was from Alwin Oliver, Vice Chair of the Portsmouth & District Private Landlords Association, in objection to minute 144, Notice of Motion - Unregistered HMOs in Council Stock.

 

At the invitation of the City Solicitor, Ms Watford, Mr Taylor and Mr Oliver delivered their deputations to Council.

The Lord Mayor advised that no questions from the public had been received under the provisions of this standing order.

It was RESOLVED that the following appointments be AGREED:

 

Housing & Social Care Scrutiny Panel

 

Councillor Graham Heaney to become a full member of the panel, replacing Councillor Tom Coles.

 

Councillor Tom Coles to replace Councillor Graham Heaney as a Standing Deputy on the panel.

 

Councillor Graham Heaney be appointed as Chair of the panel.

The Lord Mayor advised that he had not been made aware of any urgent business for this meeting.

The current consultation on the Local Council Tax Support Scheme closes on 9 December 2024, the publication date of this agenda.  The report will therefore be to follow under separate cover.

Council considered the previously circulated report of the Director of Finance and Resources.

 

It was

 

Proposed by Councillor Steve Pitt

Seconded by Councillor Darren Sanders

 

That:

 

i)               The Council consider the response to the consultation with local council taxpayers on the proposal to adopt an Income Based Local Council Tax Support scheme attached at Appendix 3 and summarised within the report

 

ii)              The Council approve the introduction of a new Income Banded LCTS Scheme for working age applicants from 01 April 2025 as described in this report which will:

 

• Make the scheme easier to understand and access.

 

• Provide a greater level of support for households on the lowest incomes.

 

• Make the scheme work better with the Universal

  Credit system.

 

• Support families and applicants who receive a  

  disability benefit.

 

• Support families and applicants to work with

   allowances for childcare costs.

 

• Reduce the need for constant changes in awards.

 

• Provide additional financial support for those

  experiencing serious and unavoidable financial

  hardship.

 

After being put to the vote the Lord Mayor declared the proposal CARRIED.

Proposed by Councillor Lee Hunt

Seconded by Councillor Richard Adair

 

Portsmouth City Council opposes Post Office plans to close more than a hundred larger crown branches including Cosham and Portsmouth Town Centre. 

 

This City Council supports the Communication Workers Union and staff in the fight ahead as the Post Office confirms details of its transformation plan. 

 

The announcement just before Christmas is a terrible blow and worry for employees and their families. 

 

This Council resolves to write a letter to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Post Offices from the Leader of the Council detailing concerns of the Council at proposed closures of the Post Offices in Cosham and the city centre. 

 

This Council supports petitions and will work cross-party to save the post offices and further resolves to send both Portsmouth MPs the above letter with a covering letter asking them to support Portsmouth City Council in lobbying to keep Cosham and the city centre Crown Post Offices mentioned above open.

It was

 

Proposed by Councillor Lee Hunt

Seconded by Councillor Richard Adair

 

That notice of motion (a) as set out on the agenda be adopted.

 

As an amendment it was

 

Proposed by Councillor Darren Sanders

Seconded by Councillor Peter Candlish

  

To make the following changes

 

(i)          In Para 1, line 2, replace 'Town' with 'City'.

 

(ii)        In Para 4, insert 'for Business and Trade, Jonathan Reynolds' after 'State'; 'Justin Madders, and the Post Office Chair, Nigel Railton' after 'Offices'; 'and Chief Executive' after 'the Council'; and 'and ask that they protect them from closure' after centre.

 

(iii)          Insert new final paragraph: 'Council also asks the administration to investigate how affected customers will be supported should these branches close, including helping shop owners in both locations research what having a Post Office counter may entail and how they would go about it.' 

 

Following debate, the proposer of the original motion, Councillor Lee Hunt agreed to subsume the amendment put by Councillor Darren Sanders into the motion.

 

Following a vote, the motion in including the subsumed amendment in the name of Councillor Darren Sanders was declared CARRIED.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that:

 

Portsmouth City Council opposes Post Office plans to close more than a hundred larger crown branches including Cosham and Portsmouth City Centre. 

 

This City Council supports the Communication Workers Union and staff in the fight ahead as the Post Office confirms details of its transformation plan. 

 

The announcement just before Christmas is a terrible blow and worry for employees and their families. 

 

This Council resolves to write a letter to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Jonathan Reynolds, the relevant Minister for Post Offices, Justin Madders, and the Post Office Chair, Nigel Railton, from the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive, detailing concerns of the Council at proposed closures of the Post Offices in Cosham and the city centre and ask that they protect them from closure.

 

This Council supports petitions and will work cross-party to save the post offices and further resolves to send both Portsmouth MPs the above letter with a covering letter asking them to support Portsmouth City Council in lobbying to keep Cosham and the city centre Crown Post Offices mentioned above open.

 

Council also asks the administration to investigate how affected customers will be supported should these branches close, including helping shop owners in both locations research what having a Post Office counter may entail and how they would go about it.

This motion will fall under Standing Order 32b(ii) and not be considered at this meeting should the motion titled 'Post Office Closures' at agenda item 10a be proposed, seconded and considered by the Council.

 

Proposed by Councillor Derek North

Seconded by Councillor George Madgwick

 

Portsmouth's post offices are at risk of closure after the Government announced 115 branches will be up for sale or closed.  Alongside the announcement of the potential closure of the main Slindon Street branch, it has also been announced the local lifeline for many in Cosham High Street is at risk too. 

 

Hundreds of local people are employed at the local branches. The branches serve as a vital lifeline for many people across the city.  The Cosham branch serves a huge community within the north of the city who don't have access to local banks and building societies. Cosham High Street has had a dramatic decline in local banking and public services in recent history and residents use the post office for more than just mail. 

 

Public services like passport applications, driving license renewals, foreign currency exchange, travel insurance, everyday banking services on behalf of many national banks, bill payments, vehicle tax, cheque deposits & parcel collections for third parties are all services used by local residents.  Many of the residents who use these services are also the most vulnerable people within our communities who will struggle without this local service. 

 

Furthermore, local small businesses use the branches for business banking as well as distribution for their products and services. 

 

Losing our local post offices across Portsmouth is something we can't accept. 

 

The Council Resolves to:

 

(i)      Ask group leaders to write to the Secretary of State of Business and Trade, along with any relevant junior ministers, to express our concerns of the closure of the branches. 

 

(ii)    Ask our Chief Executive to write to the Post Office Chairman, Nigel Railton, to express our cities concerns and request a meeting to discuss the future of our city branches. 

 

(iii)   For the administration to be prepared and start to gather information and data on how residents will be sign posted and supported with the vital services that may be lost if the branches do close in the future. 

As notice of motion (a) 'Post Office Closures' had been proposed, seconded and considered by the Council, the Lord Mayor advised that this notice of motion had thereby fallen under Standing Order 32b(ii) and would not be considered at this meeting.

This motion will fall under Standing Order 32b(ii) and not be considered at this meeting should either the motion titled 'Post Office Closures' at agenda item 10a or the motion titled ' Future of Portsmouth's Post Offices' at item 10b be proposed, seconded and considered by the Council.

 

Proposed by Councillor Spencer Gardner

Seconded by Councillor Simon Bosher

 

Council is disappointed to learn the Post Office has announced 115 branches are at risk of closure, including the branch in Cosham High Street.

 

The Post Office is a public corporation of the Department for Business and Trade. The Government is the sole shareholder of Post Office Ltd, the company that owns and runs the post office network- it is publicly owned and accountable to the Government.

 

The Cosham branch is a busy and accessible post office, which is a vital community hub for local residents and businesses yet is under threat of closure. Closure threatens to leave many residents without easy access to essential postal and banking services, which are particularly important for older residents, those who struggle to use online services, small businesses and those without access to reliable public transport.

 

The Post Office's announcement that the Cosham branch is under threat of closure, with no consultation with local people, is extremely concerning.

 

Therefore:

 

(i)             This Council firmly opposes any closure of Cosham Post Office. Closure would inconvenience local people and put essential services out of the reach of many vulnerable residents;

 

(ii)            Council instructs the Chief Executive to write to the Chief Executive of Post Office Ltd setting out the Council's opposition to the Cosham branch being closed and asking for an assurance that it will not be shut; and

 

(iii)          Council also requests that the Chief Executive writes to Jonathan Reynolds, Secretary of State for Business and Trade, to request the Government immediately intervene and protect our local Post Office from closure.

As notice of motion (a) 'Post Office Closures' had been proposed, seconded and considered by the Council, the Lord Mayor advised that this notice of motion had thereby fallen under Standing Order 32b(ii) and would not be considered at this meeting.

Proposed by Councillor Tom Coles

Seconded by Councillor Mary Vallely

 

This council notes:

 

The Government has committed to introducing free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England, to tackle hunger, improve school attendance and alleviate pressure from household budgets.

 

The breakfast clubs form part of the government’s mission to break the unfair link between background and opportunity - and it has tripled investment in breakfast clubs to help achieve this, to over £33 million for 2025-26. [1]

 

Recent research by IPSOS Mori finds that over half of parents say they have problems finding formal childcare for their child that is flexible enough to fit their needs. [2]  An additional benefit of breakfast clubs is that they provide childcare ahead of school operating hours, providing parents with additional flexibility with their working hours and jobs.

 

On 27 November 2024, the government urged schools to sign up for a free breakfast club rollout, with applications now being open for 750 schools to join an ‘early adopter’ rollout. [3]

 

Families in Portsmouth will soon be able to access 30 minutes of additional free childcare ahead of the start of the school day with the roll-out of the breakfast club initiative, increasing flexibility for school drop-offs.

 

This council believes:

 

Breakfast clubs in every Portsmouth primary school will make a huge difference to children, families, and schools - removing barriers to opportunity by helping children learn.

 

Ensuring children start the day ready to learn, breakfast clubs boost punctuality, attendance and attainment.

 

Breakfast clubs are a valuable source of childcare for parents at the beginning of the day, boosting parents’ work choices and children’s life chances.  Parents will be able to drop off their children to school earlier, allowing for greater flexibility with their work schedule and other commitments.

 

Every child in Portsmouth should be able to succeed and thrive, no matter their background. Every child deserves the best chance in life.

 

This council resolves:

 

(i)             To ask the Cabinet Member for Children, Families & Education to write to all primary schools in Portsmouth to encourage take up of the government’s ‘early adopter’ breakfast club rollout.

 

(ii)            To ask Corporate Communications to put out promotional information about the breakfast clubs, how they can be accessed and the difference they will make to Portsmouth families.

 

(iii)          To ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Education to welcome the rollout of breakfast clubs in primary schools across Portsmouth and request that Portsmouth City Council is invited to shape the future of the government’s national breakfast club policy.

 

References

 

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/schools-urged-to-sign-up-for-free-breakfast-club-rollout

 

[2] https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/parent-poll-wave-14-2024-childcare-entitlement-expansion-and-childcare-use

 

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/schools-urged-to-sign-up-for-free-breakfast-club-rollout

It was

 

Proposed by Councillor Tom Coles

Seconded by Councillor Mary Vallely

 

That notice of motion (d) as set out on the agenda be adopted.

 

Following a vote, the motion was declared CARRIED.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that:

 

This council notes:

 

The Government has committed to introducing free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England, to tackle hunger, improve school attendance and alleviate pressure from household budgets.

 

The breakfast clubs form part of the government’s mission to break the unfair link between background and opportunity - and it has tripled investment in breakfast clubs to help achieve this, to over £33 million for 2025-26. [1]

 

Recent research by IPSOS Mori finds that over half of parents say they have problems finding formal childcare for their child that is flexible enough to fit their needs. [2]  An additional benefit of breakfast clubs is that they provide childcare ahead of school operating hours, providing parents with additional flexibility with their working hours and jobs.

 

On 27 November 2024, the government urged schools to sign up for a free breakfast club rollout, with applications now being open for 750 schools to join an ‘early adopter’ rollout. [3]

 

Families in Portsmouth will soon be able to access 30 minutes of additional free childcare ahead of the start of the school day with the roll-out of the breakfast club initiative, increasing flexibility for school drop-offs.

 

This council believes:

 

Breakfast clubs in every Portsmouth primary school will make a huge difference to children, families, and schools - removing barriers to opportunity by helping children learn.

 

Ensuring children start the day ready to learn, breakfast clubs boost punctuality, attendance and attainment.

 

Breakfast clubs are a valuable source of childcare for parents at the beginning of the day, boosting parents’ work choices and children’s life chances.  Parents will be able to drop off their children to school earlier, allowing for greater flexibility with their work schedule and other commitments.

 

Every child in Portsmouth should be able to succeed and thrive, no matter their background. Every child deserves the best chance in life.

 

This council resolves:

 

(i)             To ask the Cabinet Member for Children, Families & Education to write to all primary schools in Portsmouth to encourage take up of the government’s ‘early adopter’ breakfast club rollout.

 

(ii)           To ask Corporate Communications to put out promotional information about the breakfast clubs, how they can be accessed and the difference they will make to Portsmouth families.

 

(iii)         To ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Education to welcome the rollout of breakfast clubs in primary schools across Portsmouth and request that Portsmouth City Council is invited to shape the future of the government’s national breakfast club policy.

 

Proposed by Councillor Russell Simpson

Seconded by Councillor George Madgwick

 

HMOs are a blight on Portsmouth family homes. As part of the current local planning guidance, we have a 10% threshold within a 50m radius of HMO licenses allowance. The council's policy document states that we look for a "Mixed and Balanced community". 

 

However, what many aren't aware of is the large volume of houses, owned by the council, that have multiple unrelated people living within them.  There is no obligation on PCC as landlord/owner to apply for a HMO Licence and these properties are not included within the figures. 

 

Certain buildings, that meet a set regulated criteria, are exempt from HMO regulations, under the Housing Act 2004, that would usually be defined as a HMO. These buildings include, but are not limited to, managed or controlled buildings by private registered providers of social housing, a co-operative society & local authorities.

 

The above lacuna is never mentioned when considering new applications for HMOs and allows many undeclared properties to exist within communities in Portsmouth that already have a high yield of HMOs. When exempt HMOs are included there are a number of roads across the city that are approaching the 10% threshold or even exceeding it. This also includes excessive HMOs in a row where PCC policy states no more than two next to each other.

 

In order to support mixed and balanced communities as well as allowing for transparency of our planning system and local community demographics, Council requests that the Cabinet Member for Planning Policy & City Development considers a report at a future decision meeting to review the current exempt HMOs alongside the current licensed HMOs to identify any roads/areas where the combined total exceeds the 10% threshold. 

 

With this information, the cabinet member is requested to consider resolving that the planning department includes all exempt HMOs owned by the council and other exempt providers alongside licensed HMOs as a material consideration when private HMO applications are determined. 

 

For information purposes, the report to also detail any roads/areas where the combined total exceeds the 10% threshold or any roads/areas that are close to the 10% limit when inclusive of registered and exempt HMOs.

It was

 

Proposed by Councillor Russell Simpson

Seconded by Councillor George Madgwick

 

That notice of motion (e) as set out on the agenda be adopted.

 

Following debate, in accordance with Standing Order 48b, eight councillors stood to request a recorded vote.

  

The following members voted in favour:

 

Councillor Raymond Dent	Councillor Chris Dike
Councillor Brian Madgwick	Councillor George Madgwick
Councillor Derek North	Councillor Emily Strudwick
Councillor Russell Simpson	Councillor Lee Tindal

 

The following members voted against:

 

Councillor Richard Adair	Councillor Yinka Adeniran
Councillor Dave Ashmore	Councillor Chris Attwell
Councillor Kimberly Barrett	Councillor Simon Bosher
Councillor Hannah Brent	Councillor Stuart Brown
Councillor Peter Candlish	Councillor Tom Coles
Councillor Cal Corkery Councillor George Fielding	Councillor Nicholas Dorrington Councillor Spencer Gardner
Councillor Charlotte Gerada	Councillor Rajah Ghosh
Councillor Graham Heaney Councillor Lee Hunt Councillor Abdul Kadir Councillor Darren Sanders Councillor Judith Smyth Councillor Mary Vallely Councillor Matthew Winnington	Councillor Ian Holder Councillor Mark Jeffery Councillor Steve Pitt Councillor Asghar Shah Councillor Benedict Swann Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson

 

The following member abstained from voting:

 

Councillor Jason Fazackarley

 

The motion was therefore declared LOST.

This motion will fall under Standing Order 32b(ii) and not be considered at this meeting should either the motion titled 'Post Office Closures' at agenda item 10a, the motion titled ' Future of Portsmouth's Post Offices' at item 10b or the motion titled 'Post Office closures- proposed closure of Cosham Post Office' at item 10c be proposed, seconded and considered by the Council.

 

Proposed by Councillor Asghar Shah

Seconded by Councillor Mary Vallely

 

The Post Office recently announced a proposal to give up directly running the existing network of crown post offices and this includes the branch in Cosham which is now threatened with closure.

 

There is widespread concern about the potential loss of the range of services provided by this post office and the impact this could have on an important local shopping centre.

 

Council notes the first petition to save this post office being organised by the MP for Portsmouth North, Amanda Martin.

 

Council supports the campaign to save the post office and requests that the administration consider providing help in identifying potential new operators either as partners or independent operators.

 

Council requests that group leaders write to the Chair of the Post Office to express our concern about the closure and its impact.

As notice of motion (a) 'Post Office Closures' had been proposed, seconded and considered by the Council, the Lord Mayor advised that this notice of motion had thereby fallen under Standing Order 32b(ii) and would not be considered at this meeting.

Proposed by Councillor Steve Pitt

Seconded by Councillor Darren Sanders

 

The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has stated that the changes to the Employer's NI threshold and increase in Employer's NI contributions, will impact the voluntary and community sector (VCSE) to the tune of £1.4bn next financial year.

 

They wrote to the Chancellor asking for assistance and her response was to say that making the changes was a 'difficult decision' but not offering anything new to assist the VCSE.

 

The Chancellor claims that government assessments are that around half of charities will not be worse off due to the increase in the Employer's Allowance to £10,500.

 

A separate assessment by The Guardian, indicates that this will only help all employers who have up to 4 full time employees.

 

This is not acceptable. The Chancellor clearly knows the impact this will have and is choosing to ignore it.

 

Across the country, local authorities work very closely in partnership with the VCSE to deliver vital services to local people.

 

As suppliers to local authorities, all businesses with more that 4 FTE employees will inevitably need to pass on these increased costs and that will mean increased costs to local authorities.

 

Is addition, assessments show that the additional money allocated in the October budget for social care will be eaten up by the impact of these costs. Worse, the Nuffield Trust have estimated the increased cost to councils from suppliers, caused by the NI changes, will be around £900m, far outstripping the £600m of new money allocated by the Chancellor.

 

We have a government which expects local authorities to be cheered by increased funding when their own actions have taken away that funding by increasing supplier costs.

 

Worse, it is the VCSE which, in partnership with local authorities, provides many of the vital services our residents rely on and many of those will inevitably be pushed towards insolvency by the increased costs, damaging the sector, perhaps irreparably. One locally based charity has already written to the Council forecasting a £400,000 increase in their costs, following the budget.

 

This spreads much wider than just the direct impact on PCC. Locally, many of our visitor attractions, venues and community centres are run by charities, which are also reporting huge pressure on already stretched resources.

 

Small business owners and particularly the hospitality industry, already under pressure and struggling to make ends meet, are facing tough decisions in April over their future viability.

 

The government came into office pledging to focus on growth, yet this raid on both small businesses and the charity sector, is doing the opposite.

 

The Chancellor has stated that repairing public services is a priority for the government, yet her actions will actually take £1.4bn from the voluntary sector alone, which is so intrinsic to ensuring those services are there for those who need them.

 

This Council calls upon the Chancellor to do more to support small businesses, care providers and the VCSE and look elsewhere to close the black hole and asks the Leader to write to her to this effect.

 

It was

 

Proposed by Councillor Steve Pitt

Seconded by Councillor Darren Sanders

 

That notice of motion (g) as set out on the agenda be adopted.

 

Following debate and a subsequent vote, the motion was declared CARRIED.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED that:

 

The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has stated that the changes to the Employer's NI threshold and increase in Employer's NI contributions, will impact the voluntary and community sector (VCSE) to the tune of £1.4bn next financial year.

 

They wrote to the Chancellor asking for assistance and her response was to say that making the changes was a 'difficult decision' but not offering anything new to assist the VCSE.

 

The Chancellor claims that government assessments are that around half of charities will not be worse off due to the increase in the Employer's Allowance to £10,500.

 

A separate assessment by The Guardian, indicates that this will only help all employers who have up to 4 full time employees.

 

This is not acceptable. The Chancellor clearly knows the impact this will have and is choosing to ignore it.

 

Across the country, local authorities work very closely in partnership with the VCSE to deliver vital services to local people.

 

As suppliers to local authorities, all businesses with more that 4 FTE employees will inevitably need to pass on these increased costs and that will mean increased costs to local authorities.

 

Is addition, assessments show that the additional money allocated in the October budget for social care will be eaten up by the impact of these costs. Worse, the Nuffield Trust have estimated the increased cost to councils from suppliers, caused by the NI changes, will be around £900m, far outstripping the £600m of new money allocated by the Chancellor.

 

We have a government which expects local authorities to be cheered by increased funding when their own actions have taken away that funding by increasing supplier costs.

 

Worse, it is the VCSE which, in partnership with local authorities, provides many of the vital services our residents rely on and many of those will inevitably be pushed towards insolvency by the increased costs, damaging the sector, perhaps irreparably. One locally based charity has already written to the Council forecasting a £400,000 increase in their costs, following the budget.

 

This spreads much wider than just the direct impact on PCC. Locally, many of our visitor attractions, venues and community centres are run by charities, which are also reporting huge pressure on already stretched resources.

 

Small business owners and particularly the hospitality industry, already under pressure and struggling to make ends meet, are facing tough decisions in April over their future viability.

 

The government came into office pledging to focus on growth, yet this raid on both small businesses and the charity sector, is doing the opposite.

 

The Chancellor has stated that repairing public services is a priority for the government, yet her actions will actually take £1.4bn from the voluntary sector alone, which is so intrinsic to ensuring those services are there for those who need them.

 

This Council calls upon the Chancellor to do more to support small businesses, care providers and the VCSE and look elsewhere to close the black hole and asks the Leader to write to her to this effect.

Four questions from members had been received under Standing Order No 17.

 

The first question was from Councillor Spencer Gardner to the Cabinet Member for Community Wellbeing, Health & Care, Cllr Matthew Winnington.

 

'Following the Labour Government's failure to exempt primary care providers from the National Insurance increase laid out in the autumn budget, services that support some of the most vulnerable residents have warned this will lead to cuts and closures. What is the anticipated impact on pharmacies, GPs, care homes and hospices in the city?'

 

In reply, Cllr Winnington detailed that on 30 October 2024, Community Care had reported that the social care sector was warning that the £600m announced for social care in the budget was at risk of being ‘swallowed' by wage and employer tax rises.

 

On 14 November 2024 the Local Government Chronicle had highlighted a correction in OBR analysis that showed it would cost more than the £600 million grant announced for social care in the Budget. Cllr David Fothergill, Chairman of the LGA’s Community Wellbeing Board, said that with “a vast majority of councils now struggling to balance the books”, higher costs from NIC increases, as well as in the national living wage, “must be fully funded”.

 

On 22 November 2024, the Nuffield Trust had published analysis that:

 

• The planned 1.2 percentage point increase to Employer National Insurance Contributions (ENICs) and the reduction of the earnings threshold for employer contributions from £9,100 to £5000 in 2025/26 would add in the region of £940 million more to the employer national insurance bill for independent (non-public sector) social care organisations, compared to the current regime. 
• The 6.7% increase to the National Living Wage (NMW, the minimum wage for those aged 21 and over) would add an estimated £1.85bn to the total wage bill in 2024/25 compared to the current financial year, assuming as in previous years that all wages above the minimum also rose at a roughly similar rate to maintain differentials in earnings.
• Taken together, these add an estimated £2.8bn of cost pressures to social care providers, the majority of which were small or medium-sized organisations with limited ability to absorb additional costs.

 

On 25 November 2024 the Care Provider Alliance conducted a survey of 1,180 care and support providers and referenced the Nuffield Trust analysis.

 

Based on their survey, the CPA published findings:

 

• 73% would have to refuse new care packages from local authorities or the NHS 
• 57% would hand back existing contracts to local authorities or the NHS 
• 77% would have to draw on reserves 
• 64% would have to make staff redundant
• 92% of providers who also served people who paid for their own care would be forced to increase rates for self-funders. Many self-funders would be unable to bear extra costs and may reduce care or rely more on family carers.
• 22% were planning to close their businesses entirely.

 

The CPA then sent a letter to Local Authorities and others in the social care sector.

 

It was not possible to predict accurately the impact of these changes on the care providers within Portsmouth.  Informal discussions with care providers had highlighted that they were concerned about the rises and that this would have an impact on their businesses.

 

The social care sector had been under financial strain for some years and successive spring and autumn surveys conducted by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, (ADASS) had highlighted the strain in the sector, with 81% of councils expected to overspend their adult social care budgets this year, up from 72% in 2023/24, with an estimated total overspend of £564 million. This had been backed up by many reports and surveys from the Local Government Association, Care England, Homecare Alliance and County Council's Network among many others.  

 

There had been appeals to government to make allowances for the strain that this combination of NICS and NMW would place on the social care provider sector, but no response had yet been received. 

 

In respect of primary care, GPs had raised concerns that following the announcement of the rate of employer NICs increasing to 15%, as well as the NLW rising to £12.21 an hour, practices would have to pay thousands more from April next year.

 

Since the Chancellor’s announcement during the Budget at the end of October, the Treasury had confirmed that funding had been set aside to protect the spending power of the public sector, including the NHS, from the direct impacts of these changes. But GPs had been excluded from this, as the funding to offset the increased NICs costs did not include support for the private sector, including ‘private sector firms contracted out’, with GPs generally operating as independent businesses for this purpose according to the Treasury. Community Pharmacies who also operated as independent businesses would be in the same situation.

 

The BMA had demanded the Government reimburse practices for increased NICs and asked GP partners to write to their MP demanding a U-turn from the Government. The DHSC confirmed that further detail on NICs for GPs would be confirmed in due course, and that it was working with the Treasury to ensure appropriate compensation for the public sector.

During a webinar run by NHS England last week, several GPs told the commissioner that the changes would cost them up to £100,000 extra, with some practices having to reduce the number of GP sessions provided, or even handing back their contracts.

 

The Institute of General Practice Management had previously estimated that the NIC changes alone would mean the average GP surgery’s tax bill would increase by around £20,000 a year and they also said that a further increase to the National Living Wage will ‘equate to thousands more for most practices’. According to estimates from the Association of Independent Specialist Medical Accountants, while a practice currently paid no employer contributions for a staff member on £9,100, the Budget changes added an extra £615 for said staff member, and with the NIC increase, a practice staff member on £30,000 a year would cost the practice an extra £866.

 

Pulse Today, the Primary Care Journal for the sector said the recent budget announcements could cost GP practices across England a total of £260m, from new data gathered by Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire LMCs. A survey on the expected impact of the changes in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire (BBO) found that the average annual recurring loss per practice would be £47,000, with almost 68% of practices expected to make redundancies or staff layoffs ‘in order to remain viable’.

GPs told NHS England that the changes could cost up to £100,000 per practice, with some having to let go of staff as a result of the Budget. According to BBO LMCs, one in six practices were considering handing back their contract and closing ‘due to no longer being financially sustainable’. ‘Scaling up our data nationally across England, these costs equated to a loss of over £260m from the national GP budget.’

 

The 2024 autumn budget had the potential to cost community pharmacies £200m per year in unplanned expenses, pharmacy bodies had said. In a letter to Health Secretary Wes Streeting, the National Pharmacy Association (NPA), the Company Chemists’ Association (CCA), Community Pharmacy England (CPE) and the Independent Pharmacies Association (IPA) warned that increases to employers’ national insurance contributions and the national living wage could push many contractors to insolvency.

 

The joint letter called for the government to shield community pharmacies from these costs, saying that it had “committed to offsetting this cost for the NHS but had made no such commitment for community pharmacies”.

 

A statement issued by CPE on 29 November 2024 said that it had calculated that the national insurance increase would cost pharmacies an estimated £50m, while increases in the national living wage could cost between £115m and £152m per year. “Unlike other businesses, pharmacies cannot put up prices for their patients, meaning that they may be forced to cut back on their opening hours, or shut altogether,” it added. “This would reduce out-of-hours access, and lead to more patients having to visit A&E or urgent treatment centres at a time when the NHS has already been labelled ‘broken’,” the statement said.

The letter from pharmacy bodies followed a ballot of NPA members on whether to take collective action in response to the underfunding of the sector. Ballot results showed that 99% of community pharmacy owners voted in favour of limiting their services if improved funding is not forthcoming, and 98% said they would be willing to restrict their opening hours to the minimum required by their contract.

 

Claire Anderson, president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said: “As the government develops its ten-year plan, it must prioritise sustainable funding for pharmacies, building on the success of initiatives like Pharmacy First in England, the common ailments [service] scheme in Wales and the Pharmacy First service in Scotland, even as pharmacists take on an increasing role as independent prescribers. With increasing prescription volumes and rising demand on pharmacy teams, urgent action is needed to address warnings of closures and ensure patients continue to benefit from a resilient and accessible community pharmacy network.”

 

Toby Porter, CEO of Hospice UK, which represented the UK's 200 hospices, responds to the Budget announced on Wednesday 30 October 2024 saying 'Yesterday, we were pleased to hear the Health and Social Care Secretary acknowledge that the current funding formula for hospices is not fit for purpose. However, we are disappointed the Chancellor hasn't immediately addressed the crisis in the hospice sector in today's Budget. This couldn't be more urgent - the number of people dying each year in the UK is going up significantly, and right now, hospices are making service reductions and redundancies. Without an exemption to the rise in Employer National Insurance Contributions, hospices will face even further financial burden'.

 

In response to a supplementary question, Cllr Winnington confirmed that he had been shocked by the impact that rising costs had realised on service delivery in some areas.

 

The second question was from Councillor Gerald Vernon-Jackson CBE to the Cabinet Member for Transport, Cllr Peter Candlish.

 

'Across the city the energy, water and telecoms companies seem to be digging up many roads. No doubt this is because there has been under investment in the repair of utilities for many years by the privatised companies. If it costs these companies more to close our roads maybe they will get the work done quicker. What work is being done to introduce "lane rental" on our main roads so there is a real cost to these companies to doing roadworks slowly?'

 

In reply, Cllr Candlish explained that the Council was currently dealing with a significant increased presence of utility works on the city's roads, more often than not, classified as emergencies. These were in addition to scheduled work.

 

It may be correct to assume that this is due to under investment, however, the reality was that the underground infrastructure was aging and at the point of multiple failures. As examples, the issues with Southern Water's sewage pipes on Eastern Road earlier in 2024 and SGN's gas mains requiring replacement on Eastney Road.  Both had major impacts on local residents and the wider city traffic flows.

 

The council was presently restricted in its powers to control essential works, although the existing Portsmouth permit scheme was utilised to do this as effectively as possible, including pro-actively suggesting when works could be done to minimise disruption or where there were opportunities for multiple streams of work to be undertaken together.

 

The council was also rapidly moving forward with investigations and the feasibility of introducing a lane rental scheme in Portsmouth where utility companies would be charged a daily fee if they were working on key routes.  It was hoped that by utilising and benchmarking neighbouring authorities' successful schemes, a workable and realistic solution could be produced to the unique Portsmouth network.  

 

Due to the governing legislative factors, the council would be limited to applying lane rental to 5% to 7% of the city's highways.  Therefore, it would be crucial to prioritise those roads with the greatest need and identify how the scheme could help to reduce disruption on these critical routes.   It was important that all limitations were recognised, including financial impacts, along with benefits and disadvantages that introducing such a scheme would bring so as to ensure that this was investigated and reported on thoroughly. 

 

Many road works took place on tertiary roads which were unlikely to meet the requirements of a lane rental scheme.  However, the council continued to work with Colas and utility companies to find improved ways of working together and on reducing and communicating the impact on the road user and local residents.

 

In response to supplementary questions Cllr Candlish confirmed that the aspiration was for lane rental to be up and running during 2025 and that key routes would be focussed on.  As the Council was not an early adopter for such a scheme, it was predicted that the roll out would be smoother and quicker than it had been for those who had rolled out the scheme earlier.

 

The third question was from Councillor Cal Corkery to the Chair of the Twinning Advisory Group, Cllr Chris Attwell.

 

'Could the Chair of the Twinning Advisory Group please update us as to any progress which has been made following the resolution of Full Council requesting a twinning arrangement with a Palestinian municipality be explored?'

 

In reply, Cllr Attwell confirmed that officers had carried out the research as requested at the Council meeting in December 2023 and as a result a suggestion was brought forward for consideration to the Twinning Advisory Group (TAG) on 26^th September 2024.

 

Officers had reviewed a number of potential places Portsmouth could link with, trying where practical, to ensure the principals of new arrangements met the principals for new links as outlined in the council's International Strategy.  As a result, a suggestion had been made to consider the Palestinian city of Jericho.

 

The TAG Members agreed that Jericho would be a sensible city for Portsmouth to twin with to display solidarity and provide political balance for the city's link with Haifa. However, due to the current unstable situation in the country it was felt that it would be sensible to keep a watching brief on the situation in Palestine and for this to be reconsidered by the TAG in the future.

 

He also confirmed that following a presentation at the most recent November 2024 TAG meeting, officers had been in contact with the Britain Palestine Friendship & Twinning Network to understand more about this organisation and the nature of the work it undertakes.

 

Additionally, a twinning activity update report would be considered at his next decision meeting.

 

In reply to a supplementary question, Cllr Attwell confirmed that he would be open to the suggestion that local people be involved in the process, but he asked that the suggestion wait until after he had considered the twinning activity report.

 

The fourth question was from Councillor Benedict Swann to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Steve Pitt.

 

'Please could the Leader give an update on efforts to allow local producers to display and sell their products at the International Ferry Port Terminal?'

 

In reply, Cllr Pitt explained that the shop and café at the terminal were operated by a separate company than the port under a landlord and tenant arrangement. The council had encouraged the owner to stock with local products and he was pleased to advise that collaborations were taking place with a number of local suppliers. The council could put anyone interested in touch with the owner.

 

The operator of the café and shop had been working with local suppliers to stock up at the port terminal. Products included:

 

·       Souvenir tinned tea from Chandlers Ford.

·       Souvenir tinned biscuits and sweets from Poole.

·       Chilli sauce, locally made in Portsmouth.

·       Ice cream made in Lymington.

·       Sandwiches, hand made in Andover.

 

There had also been discussions with Portsmouth Football Club, which were progressing positively in respect of merchandising opportunities.