Agenda item

To receive any requests for Deputations, Presentation of Petitions or Public Questions.

The following petitions have been received containing 1,500 signatures.  Under the Council’s Procedure Rules they are qualifying petition which must be debated at Council.

(i)  “We the undersigned petition the Council to reverse its endorsement of the Strategic Health Authority’s scheme to fluoridate the City’s water supply. We also ask that when it assumes responsibility for public health, the Council will not implement a fluoridation scheme.”

(ii)  “We the undersigned petition the council to save specialist education services for deaf children; a post has been cut that will have a devastating impact on deaf children when they return to school this September. Deaf children are already among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children in the UK today. Deafness is not a learning disability. Evidence shows that with the right support, deaf children can achieve as well as other children. Specialist support services offer a vital lifeline to deaf children and their families; by providing support to parents or carers, directly teaching deaf children, advising mainstream teachers and so much more. This is unfair and unacceptable. We the undersigned call on Southampton City to recruit to this post as a matter of urgency; protect services and ensure all deaf children in Southampton have a fair chance to achieve. Speak out for the 165 deaf children now supported by the equivalent of just one full time teacher.”

(1) Fluoridisation

The Council received a deputation from Ms Dumaresq concerning the introduction of Fluoride into the water supply.

The Council received the following petition from Mr Peckham. As the petition contained 1,500 signatures, under the Council’s Procedure Rules, the petition was a qualifying petition which must be debated at Council:

“We the undersigned petition the Council to reverse its endorsement of the Strategic Health Authority’s scheme to fluoridate the City’s water supply. We also ask that when it assumes responsibility for public health, the Council will not implement a fluoridation scheme.”

The Council agreed to suspend Council Procedure Rules 14.4 - 14.9 to enable flexibility in debate.

Councillor Moulton moved and Councillor Smith seconded:

“Council welcomes the petition and thanks all those who have signed it for doing so. Council acknowledges that this is an issue of concern to many.

Council notes that there is no scope for reversal of the Council’s endorsement of “the SHA’s scheme.  The consultation has been completed and there is no opportunity or requirement for continuing support or consultation.  At the time the Council were supportive.  The SHA made a decision and that decision has been upheld by the Court.  There is now a legal obligation on the Water Undertaker to implement a fluoridation scheme in Southampton unless there is a change in the law.

Council further notes that the new public health role for the Council is subject to passage of the Health and Social Care Bill.  If passed as currently drafted the Council will not be responsible for implementing the scheme.  The responsibility continues to rest with the Water Company.

The Council does not have a specific role in the process of implementing the legal obligation placed on the Water Company to fluoridate the water in Southampton. Until the Bill receives Royal Assent, it is unclear what requirements would be placed on a Council in the future if it were minded to propose the termination of a scheme.

Council further notes that the Heath and Social Care Bill is currently progressing through Parliament and is now in the House of Lords, and that those with strong views on fluoride might wish to make representations to Parliament on the Bill, as the wording will potentially impact on current and any future fluoridation schemes.

Finally Council resolves to urgently debate the issue of local fluoridation again should powers be granted to the Authority which give it any powers to influence the progression of a fluoridation scheme”.

Councillor Drake altered and moved and Councillor Turner seconded:

‘This Council now opposes the addition of fluoride to Southampton’s water supply and will use any future powers Southampton City Council may be given to prevent the implementation of a fluoridation scheme.’

UPON BEING PUT TO THE VOTE THE MOTION IN THE NAME OF COUNCILLOR MOULTON WAS DECLARED CARRIED

UPON BEING PUT TO THE VOTE THE MOTION IN THE NAME OF COUNCILLOR DRAKE WAS DECLARED CARRIED

RESOLVED that the motions as submitted be approved.

(2) Specialist education support for local deaf children

The Council received the following petition from Ms Pettit and Ms Campion concerning specialist education support for local deaf children. As the petition contained 1,500 signatures, under the Council’s Procedure Rules, the petition was a qualifying petition which must be debated at Council:

“We the undersigned petition the Council to save specialist education services for deaf children; a post has been cut that will have a devastating impact on deaf children when they return to school this September. Deaf children are already among the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children in the UK today. Deafness is not a learning disability. Evidence shows that with the right support, deaf children can achieve as well as other children. Specialist support services offer a vital lifeline to deaf children and their families; by providing support to parents or carers, directly teaching deaf children, advising mainstream teachers and so much more. This is unfair and unacceptable. We the undersigned call on Southampton City to recruit to this post as a matter of urgency; protect services and ensure all deaf children in Southampton have a fair chance to achieve. Speak out for the 165 deaf children now supported by the equivalent of just one full time teacher.”

Councillor Moulton moved and Councillor Smith seconded:

“Council thanks the petitioner for presenting this petition today and acknowledges that this issue is important for those concerned. In recognising that concern Council would like to reassure the petitioner that levels of individual support for children with a hearing impairment have not decreased since last year.  In the academic year 2010/11 children in Southampton had the equivalent of 1.1 Specialist Teacher Advisor (STA) support.  Currently, and for the academic year 2011/12, there is 1.2 STA support available.  The management of this service has changed but the level of STA support to individual children has not.  In addition, our hearing impairment units at Tanner’s Brook Infant and Junior and Redbridge Community School are supporting more children this year, than they did last year.

As is normal at the start of every academic year, the STAs are meeting to discuss and allocate caseloads and will be in touch with parents in the very near future to arrange visits and support.  We will also, over the next few months, be examining closely how we can provide different/additional support to children with a hearing impairment through using the wide range of skills available in the city’s workforce.

The city has developed quite unique Speech and Language support services through the employment of Speech and Language Assistants (SALSAs), who work alongside Speech Therapists to deliver recommended programmes on a weekly basis.  We also employ Emotional Wellbeing Development Officers (EWDOs) who can support the development of emotional literacy skills such as social skills, friendship skills and self esteem.  Research has shown that these are areas of particular difficulty for young people with hearing impairment and therefore we will be reviewing how we can provide support in this area.

In the meantime no changes will be made to the hearing impairment service provided to individual children unless and until an assessment shows that their needs have changed”.

UPON BEING PUT TO THE VOTE THE MOTION WAS DECLARED CARRIED

RESOLVED that the motion as submitted be approved.