The County Council of Gloucestershire Council held an extraordinary meeting on Wednesday 16 September 2026. The primary item scheduled for discussion was a motion concerning the future of Gloucestershire's reablement service.

Motion to Protect Gloucestershire's Reablement Service

The meeting was scheduled to consider Motion 1002, titled Protect Gloucestershire's Reablement Service, Listen to Staff and Give Residents a Say, proposed by Councillor Alastair Chambers and seconded by Councillor Stuart Graham.

The motion noted that Gloucestershire's reablement service provides essential support to residents following illness, injury, or hospitalisation, aiding them in regaining independence and remaining safely in their homes. It highlighted that reablement can reduce the need for hospital stays, residential care, and longer-term support. The motion also acknowledged concerns raised by frontline reablement workers regarding proposals to transfer the service and its workforce outside the direct control of Gloucestershire County Council. It recognised the professionalism and dedication of the reablement workforce and stated that any significant change to the service should undergo proper democratic scrutiny, transparency, and meaningful consultation with staff and residents.

The council was scheduled to consider the belief that the future of reablement should prioritise the best interests of residents over short-term financial considerations, and that residents deserve high-quality, consistent, and person-centred care. The motion also emphasised the importance of the existing reablement workforce's experience and knowledge, and the necessity for staff, residents, service users, families, and carers to have a meaningful voice in decisions affecting the service. Furthermore, it stated that any proposal to transfer the service outside council control must demonstrate clear evidence of an equal or better service for residents.

The proposed resolution included several points for the Council to adopt. These included a commitment to fully scrutinise proposals for changes to the reablement service, considering their impact on care quality, safeguarding, staff retention, morale, value for money, and resident outcomes. It also called for the Cabinet and senior officers to listen to and formally consider the concerns of reablement staff and their representatives. The motion proposed requiring a full, accessible, and meaningful public consultation before any changes are implemented, involving all relevant stakeholders. The Council was also asked to publish consultation results and explain how feedback influenced the final decision, and to provide elected Members with all necessary reports and information for proper scrutiny. The resolution also aimed to note the outcome of the Adult Social Care Scrutiny consideration and the views of reablement staff. Crucially, it proposed pausing any transfer until appropriate scrutiny, consultation, and full democratic debate had taken place. Finally, the motion sought to reaffirm the Council's commitment to protecting high-quality reablement and to call upon the Cabinet to retain the service in-house until these measures were delivered and an informed decision could be made.

The accompanying notes to the motion indicated that the changes to the GCC Reablement service had taken place on 1 September 2026, with the new service being live and reablement workers having transferred to new providers under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protected Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). It was noted that the Reablement service had been commissioned from Gloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation Trust for over ten years, with additional capacity from the independent adult social care sector. Therefore, the Council stated it did not have the registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) or the necessary infrastructure to operate the service itself. The notes also mentioned that the extraordinary meeting of the Adult Social Care and Communities Scrutiny Committee had been cancelled, meaning the scrutiny of current service changes had not taken place. However, a briefing paper suggested six and twelve-month updates to allow for proper scrutiny of the impact of the new service. It was also stated that it was not possible to conduct a public consultation on a service once the Cabinet decision had been made and implemented.

The report pack also noted that climate change implications were none, and there were no direct resource implications on the basis that a public consultation was not possible given the decision had been taken and implemented. Human rights implications were also stated as none.

The meeting agenda also included standard procedural items such as apologies for absence and declarations of interest.