Contact your Parish Council
Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Town Hall, High Street, Maidstone. View directions
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Committee to consider whether all items on the agenda should be web-cast Minutes: Councillor Marchant proposed that part of the meeting be held in exempt session – requiring suspension of the web-cast – on the basis of (a) discussion on the views of an individual service user, already published in the agenda; and (b) the contents of a letter he had received from a GP which he wished to discuss.
Resolved: That, except for a short period before the close of the morning session if a member had items subject to patient privilege to raise all items be web-cast.
|
|||||||||||||
Apologies. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Atwood and Paterson.
|
|||||||||||||
Notification of Visiting Members Minutes: There were none.
|
|||||||||||||
Disclosure by Members and Officers: a) Disclosures of interest b) Disclosures of lobbying c) Disclosures of whipping
Minutes: a) Disclosures of interest
Councillor Cunningham declared a personal interest in agenda item 8 , Department of Health, consultation on health reforms, on the basis: (i) that his wife worked part-time at both Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone Hospitals; and (ii) that he attended a KCC Health Overview and Scrutiny meeting the previous day, at which some of the same issues had been considered.
Councillor Mortimer declared a personal interest in the same item on the basis that he worked in the rehabilitation sector.
Councillor Mrs Crowhurst declared a personal interest in the same item on the basis that the new Hospital at Pembury was in her ward.
Councillor Dr Basu (see ‘appointment of co-optee’, minute 7 below) declared a personal interest as a retired consultant pathologist and former employee of the NHS.
b) Disclosures of lobbying
There were none.
c) Disclosures of whipping
There were none.
|
|||||||||||||
To consider whether any items should be taken in private because of the possible disclosure of exempt information Minutes: Resolved: That all items be taken in public, except for a short period before the close of the morning session if a member had items subject to patient privilege to raise.
|
|||||||||||||
Appointment of Co-optee. To consider the co-option of Councillor Dr Basu, a retired consultant oncologist, as a non- voting member of the Committee for agenda item 8: Department of Health consultation on health reforms.
Minutes: Resolved: That Councillor Dr Basu be appointed as a non-voting member of the Joint Committee for the consideration of agenda item 8 ‘Department of Health consultation on health reforms’.
|
|||||||||||||
Amendment to Order of Business Minutes: The Chairman proposed that agenda Item 6 ‘Minutes of the Meeting held on 17 June 2010’ be taken after agenda Item 8 ‘Department of Health consultation on health reforms’.
Resolved: That agenda Item 6 ‘Minutes of the Meeting held on 17 June 2010’ be taken after agenda Item 8 ‘Department of Health consultation on health reforms’.
|
|||||||||||||
Department of Health consultation on health reforms PDF 78 KB To consider whether, and if so how, to respond to the Department of Health White Papers issued under the overarching title ‘Liberating the NHS’.
Interviews with:
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chairman explained that the Committee had been convened in order to consider the key issues set out in a number of consultation papers issued by the Department of Health under the overarching theme of ‘Liberating the NHS’. The principal focus of the meeting was to determine the extent of the impact of the proposals on local authorities and their residents and respond to the consultation papers accordingly.
The following witnesses from NHS commissioning bodies were introduced and welcomed to the Joint Committee:
· Dr James Thallon, Medical Director, NHS West Kent; · Dr Bob Bowes, Chair of the South West Kent PBC Group; and · Paul Bentley, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust
The above witnesses stated that whilst the proposals in their opinion were radical, there were many welcome opportunities which would add value to health care commissioning, and remove unnecessary bureaucracy from the NHS. However, in the absence of precise detail at this stage, they voiced concerns over some key issues:
Dr Thallon believed the proposed creation of a new independent consumer champion, HealthWatch England, under which Local Involvement Networks (LINks) would become the local HealthWatch, was a positive step. However, he was concerned that unless there was local involvement in the resolution of complaints, there would be a risk that poor practices would go undetected.
In response to members’ questions, the Committee heard:
The Chairman thanked the witnesses for their evidence.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:32 a.m. and resumed at 11:37 a.m.
The Chairman welcomed the following to the meeting, to speak as patient representatives:
|
|||||||||||||
Minutes of the Meeting held on 17 June 2010 PDF 82 KB Minutes: Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 17 June 2010 be agreed as a true record and duly signed by the Chairman.
|
|||||||||||||
Action taken since previous meeting Minutes: Minute 8 – Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust: Quality Report 2009/10
Les Smith, Overview and Scrutiny Officer, Maidstone Borough Council, confirmed that a letter had been sent to the above Trust, in accordance with the Joint Committee’s decision, covering the specific issues raised.
Minute 9 – Department of Health consultation on ‘registering with a GP practice of your choice’
Les Smith, Overview and Scrutiny Officer, Maidstone Borough Council, confirmed that a letter had been sent to the Department of Health, in accordance with the Joint Committee’s decision.
Minute 10 – Joint Working Protocol
Councillor Mrs Stockell drew attention to the decision taken not to allow substitute members to attend meetings of the Joint Committee “…due to the specialised nature of the Committee…”. With support from Councillor Cunningham, it was proposed that this decision be reviewed.
The Joint Committee was advised that, under the provisions of the Access to Information Act, it was not possible to review that position at this meeting; this advice was given on the basis that: (a) no prior notice had been given and therefore no opportunity existed for other members to attend and submit their views; and (b) no paper had been prepared, setting out the issues relating to each side of the argument.
Minute 11 – Future work programme
The Chairman confirmed that the meeting referred to under this minute had taken place and had been well-received.
Resolved: That:
a) A reminder be sent to the Trust, seeking a response to the Joint Committee’s letter. b) A paper be submitted to the next meeting on the appointment of substitute members
|
|||||||||||||
Duration of the Meeting Minutes: 10.30 a.m. to 3.25 p.m.
|