Agenda item

This report asks Members to consider how they wish to progress the work they have already done to examine the financial recovery plan of the North Yorkshire and York PCT and to consider the Committee’s future work plan for the remained of the municipal year.

Note: Annex A to this report has been circulated to Committee Members only but is available to view on the Council’s website, at http://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=444&MId=2015&Ver=4

Hard copies may be obtained from Democratic Services, if required (contact details at the foot of this agenda).

Members considered a report about how they wished to progress with the work they had already done  to examine the financial recovery plan of the North Yorkshire and York PCT. They also considered the Committee’s future work plan for the remainder of the municipal year.

It had been hoped that the non-Executive director of the PCT who has been allocated to this Committee, Michael Sweet, would have been able to attend this evening. Unfortunately he had sent his apologies.

The Chair reported that Councillor Fraser and himself had met with the new Chief Executive and Chair of the PCT. Most of the executive directors of the PCT had now been appointed barring the Director of Public Health. This was going to be a joint appointment with North Yorkshire County Council and the Deputy Director a joint appointment with the City of York. Councillor Moore expressed concern about who was responsible for Public Health if an appointment had not been made and it was suggested that the Chief Executive would take responsibility until the post had been filled.

It was noted that the new Trust’s offices were located as follows:

·           Administrative Headquarters – The Hamlet, Harrogate

·           Operational Headquarters – Sovereign House, York

Concerns were raised about the financial recovery of the PCT and Jim Easton said he hoped to have a concrete view of the PCT’s aims by the end of January or early February 2007.

Councillor Fraser made several comments concerning the report:

·           The Committee still had not seen the final working document  regarding the clinical thresholds guidance and how it addressed the relationship between RACAS and Practice Based Commissioning (PBC) mentioned in Paragraph 6 of the report. Jim Easton said he thought the working draft of this document had now been implemented.

·           Interest was expressed in paragraph 13 of the report and it was felt that the Scrutiny Committee could benefit from being in contact with the Local Strategic Partnership. He said that addressing health and inequalities issues within the local communities was very important.

When considering holding an open forum meeting at the end of January the following points were raised:

·           It would be better to hold off holding this Forum and discuss some other Scrutiny Review topics.

·           The time could be better spent building relationships with the new Trusts and Ambulance Service.

·           There would be greater attendance at the proposed Forum if it was held on an evening or a weekend.

·           Many fears would be allayed if the PCT said where they were at and where they were aiming to go.

·           The Forum would need to be very well publicised.

·           It would help the PCT to be put in touch with the local communities and this could be done via a public forum.

·           An outline of the PCT’s plans for Public Participation would give the Committee a good idea of who they would have the most influence on.

·           Concerns were expressed about the timing of the Forum as many  PCT senior employees would just be starting in their posts.

·           Time is an issue and the Committee needs to be better informed  about the PCT’s plans before the public forum is held.

·           There would be no point in having an unfocused meeting where the public would not be clear what was being discussed.

·           There is a need to have a public consultation to hear what the public expectations are surrounding the PCT.

·           A Public Consultation must be an informed one.

·           It is very important that this meeting is as informative as possible and that the right people from the PCT and other trusts attend to answer questions.

·           The Committee has a responsibility to scrutinise in an informed way and needs to know about outcomes of work as well as what work is being done.

·           It was sensible to work with the Patient’s Forums when looking at arranging this event.

·           A Steering Group could be set up to help the Scrutiny Officer set this Forum up with the PCT.

·           The meeting should be held in the window between the last week in January 2007 and the end of the third week in February 2007.

RESOLVED:             (i)         That the public event be held by mid February to investigate views of the public and health related voluntary sector organisations on changes to health provision in York. Councillors Cuthbertson and Fraser to negotiate an appropriate date with the PCT for this Forum to be held.

(ii)               That the Committee have discussions with the Local Strategic Partnership to look at cross cutting health issues that impact on communities and invite them to a future meeting of this Committee.

REASON:                  To meet the requirement for a democratic involvement in the delivery of health services.