Agenda item

To consider the proposal to form a new, mandatory, joint committee with health scrutiny powers to consider matters affecting patient flows across the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care System geography.

(Councillor Richard Somner declared a personal interest in Agenda item 9 by virtue of the fact that he was employed by the Royal Berkshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Nassar Hunt declared a personal interest in Agenda item 9 by virtue of the fact that he had recently taken a job at the Ministry of Justice. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Lee Dillon declared a personal interest in Agenda item 9 by virtue of the fact that his employer was listed as a member of the Health and Wellbeing Board. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Council considered a report (Agenda Item 9) concerning the proposal to form a new, mandatory joint committee with health scrutiny powers to consider matters affecting patient flows across the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care System geography.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Howard Woollaston and seconded by Councillor Alan Law:

“That the Council:

(a)       support the proposal for a joint health overview and scrutiny committee to consider health issues at the NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care System (BOB ICS) level;

(b)       delegate scrutiny of health issues at the BOB ICS level to the joint health overview and scrutiny committee; and

(c)       approve the terms of reference for the joint health overview and scrutiny committee as set out in Appendix B of this report”.

Councillor Woollaston stated that the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care System covered an area with a population of 1.8m people. A joint health overview and scrutiny committee (JHOSC) was required to consider proposed changes affecting the patient-flow geography at the BOB level. This would require each of the affected local authorities to delegate health scrutiny powers on services provided at the ICS level to the JHOSC and to agree the terms of reference.

The proposal was for a committee of 19 Members (7 Members for Oxfordshire, 6 Members for Buckinghamshire and 6 Members for Berkshire West (2 Members from each of the three Unitary Authorities)). Co-opted, non-voting members could also be temporarily appointed to bring specialist knowledge onto the committee or inform specific work streams or agenda items.

Councillor Alan Macro welcomed the opportunity to scrutinise this new health body but he did have a concern in respect of the Terms of Reference in that the scrutiny committee would be completely reactive. It seemed to be making comments on proposals consulted on and Councillor Macro would have liked to know if the committee believed there was some kind of deficiency in the services being provided at a system wide level following which they could raise that with BOB.

Councillor Lee Dillon referred to the number of seats which indicated that West Berkshire would have two seats to make up the six in total. He noted that in the appointment of and allocation of seats report later on the agenda it recommended that both of those should go to the Conservative Group. He asked how it could be ensured that Opposition views on cross unitary or cross authority groups were heard. The Monitoring Officer responded that it was the requirement that the majority of seats on any committee had to be allocated to the administration. Therefore where there were only two seats then they would by default go to the administration. Councillor Dillon noted that in the later report it stated that (1) not all seats on any committee were to be allocated to the same political group and then (2) the majority of seats on any committee must be allocated to the majority group. This meant that there were two conflicting statements and therefore which one took precedent. Councillor Graham Bridgman asked whether this was a committee of Council to which those rules would apply or was it an external committee to which Members were appointed. The terms of reference for that committee would have had input from five different local authorities. The Monitoring Officer stated that her view was that this was referring to the totality, so when it referred to not all the seats, she felt that it was quite clear that the majority of seats on the body should not actually belong to a particular group. It would be similar to the Fire Authority, where there was a cross border and different political makeup, but the allocation of seats to the Fire authority were made in accordance with the political balance of the relevant authority and therefore the same applied here in a similar way to the Joint Public Protection Committee.

Councillor Bridgman stated that in response to what Councillor Macro had said, his recollection was that the Health and Social Care Act actually said that the NHS and like bodies had a duty to engage with a committee like this if the committee like this existed, therefore, in other words, it was necessary to form the committee in order that the NHS then had a duty to engage. Whether or not there would be an opportunity for it to be proactive he felt that it was very early days and it would be necessary to see how it developed.

Councillor Steve Masters agreed with the point made by Councillor Dillon. There was talk of a spirit of co-operation and rather than being parochial and keeping it in house it should be one member from one party and one from another.

Councillor Alan Law reiterated the point made previously in that a special focus was needed and it was necessary to have Council representation on these external bodies whether that be from one party or two was immaterial. The committee would have an increasingly important influence on the lives of our residents and therefore it did make sense to have an input into that from a scrutiny point of view. He did have some empathy with the comments made by Councillor Macro in relation to the terms of reference. He felt that it was down to the people on the committee to decide whether they would be proactive and demand scrutiny on certain subjects. He had confidence that that would evolve over time. The committee would also report through into OSMC which was proportionally represented by all parties within the Council.

The Motion was put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.