Agenda item - The Future of the OPC - Discussion

292.1  The OPC began by handing out the following statement to all those present at the meeting:

‘FUTURE OF OPC - DECISION BY BHCC TO WITHDRAW ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT & REMOVE SUPPORT FOR ELECTIONS

- BACKGROUND & ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

• There had been a previous attempt to remove support from the OPC under the

previous administration however they had put the proposal in the budget papers.

• So, OPC officers were very surprised to be informed by the Leader of the Council on the 10th January that a decision had been taken at the previous night’s Leaders meeting to withdraw administrative support from the OPC as from the 1st April 2017. We objected and asked to be informed of this decision in writing.

• We received written notification from Councillor Warren Morgan on the 17^th January stating that BHCC would cease providing administrative support from the 1st April 2017 and would stop funding future OPC elections. The OPC would be given £5,000 in 2017/18 but all funding would cease after this and that this had been discussed and agreed with the Leaders Group.

• The OPC wrote to the other two political parties leaders i.e. Green and

Conservative seeking confirmation that this was their view. We received a response from Councillor Theobald confirming that this was the view of the Conservative Councillors and that he had never agreed with an OPC in the first place. However, Councillor Mac Cafferty, Leader of the Greens stated that he did not support this decision.

• OPC officers then sought a meeting with relevant officers to discuss and make our case against this decision. We met with the Head of Democratic Services and Head of Life & Electoral Services and a senior Scrutiny Officer and expressed our view that the Council was completely in breach of its own consultation procedures. This was because no consultation had taken place with the OPC nor any older people in the City about the removal of support nor of the electoral rights that they currently had to vote for their representatives.

• We were invited to meet with the Leader of the Green Party which officers did and provided a brief on the background to the OPC and our objections to the proposal.

• Subsequently a paper went to the Policy Resources & Growth Committee on the 9th February entitled “Proposal to Discontinue BHCC Support for the Older People’s Council (OPC)”. Due to OPC representations they were now proposing

to withdraw support from the 1st April 2018 rather than 2017. However, despite our representations, the Labour & Conservative Councillors on the Committee agreed to discontinue support from April 2018. This decision has now disenfranchised over 37,000 older people in the City without any consultation with them. It was also taken despite the Constitution of the OPC outlining its purpose being to inform the policy and decision making of the BHCC including service development, delivery and resource allocation, with regard to matters that

impact on the quality of life and the opportunities available for older people living in the Brighton & Hove area.

Proposal - That OPC officers seek a meeting with the Chief Executive of BHCC to ensure that he understands our continual objection to the decision and its impact on older people. We will also need to discuss the range of implications relating to this decision.

Options for the future for consideration and decision at a later date:-

Carry on campaigning against this decision and discuss a range of options for representation with the Council concerning the current Zones structure and whether the Electoral Reform Society could provide ideas to reduce the costs of the electoral process.

Seek further grant funding to continue as an organisation based in the voluntary sector and decide how to establish representation that can be supported by older people without the current electoral structure.

292.2 The debate began with concern expressed that the link councillor for the OPC was not able to attend today’s meeting. The OPC were not aware for the proposal to withdraw its funding until they met with Cllr Morgan, as it was not in the budget papers. A letter from Cllr Morgan was on the OPC website.  It was clarified that an election was only triggered in one area in 2015, and the council had funded and operated the election process. The OPC contested the amount of their costs being £5,000. But a risk had been identified of up to £40,000 if there were OPC elections over the city in 2019. There had been no consultation over the funding proposals for the OPC and strong representation had been made to the council. The OPC had attended the Policy, Resources and Growth (PRG) Committee on the 9^th February to ask questions. Disappointment was expressed that the administration voted for the report and no mention was made of the work of the OPC such as the Fairness Commission, bus timetables, health issues and Age Friendly Cities.

292.3  Issues raised by members of the public attending the meeting included:

·       the OPC needed to publicise its work more widely to seek greater support

·       this was a significant attack on equal opportunities

·       the OPC could become more connected to communities if it did not receive money from the council

·       need to encourage more people to come along to the meetings

·       a pensioner candidate could be put up in the next election to raise issues relating to older people

·       the OPC could feel an elitist group so could it be more representative?

·       would it remain as vital if it became a campaigning body, rather than a lobbying organisation which is its current role?

·       a need to fight the cuts and continue to fight for weaker groups of people 

·       the OPC needed to encourage more volunteers to help them mobilise older people in the city.

292.4  Jess Sumner from Age UK advised the OPC to use the numbers of people who voted in their elections to show how it is representing a population. It was also vital to focus on outcomes. The OPC needed to decide if it was going the process the OPC itself was going through or on the future. Many other voluntary sector groups were facing a more uncertain future, with only 6 months funding rather than 18 months.  Nowadays the council was not the dominant feature of local democracy. It was important to be involved in health decisions, rather than council decisions. OPC members agreed that it would be useful to seek a further meeting with Jess. Concern was expressed about losing the link with council officers if the council ceased to provide administrative support to the OPC. It was also felt that this would not help the council engage with the community. The OPC also agreed to use publicity outlets such as the Argus, Grey Matters and the OPC website to campaign about the OPC and encourage political parties to attend both LAT and OPC meetings. They needed to run a constant campaign and appoint a press officer. The OPC had tried to reach out to a wider group including Facebook, but would use social media and a blog to communicate with the community.  

292.5 It was agreed to seek a meeting with Geoff Raw, then report back to at the next meeting. It was recognised that the issue could not go back to PRG in the next 6 months. The OPC would consider how it could most effectively engage with ASC and Public Health about the implications for the OPC. The OPC would prepare a position statement on what it wished to see from the council which would then be put on their website and emailed out to their contact list.