Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Member:-

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Items 9, 10 and 11 – Report from the Scrutiny Policy and Performance Lead Members’ Quarterly Briefings/’Annual Health Checks’ – Developing Scrutiny’s commentaries on NHS Trusts’ Declarations to the Healthcare Commission/Brent Birth Centre: Public Consultation Feedback

Councillor B E Gate stated that his spouse and daughter were employed at General Practices in Harrow and Pinner respectively;

Councillor Vina Mithani stated that she was employed by the Health Protection Agency; 

Councillor Mrs Rekha Shah stated that that she was employed by Brent Council and that she was Scrutiny Lead Member for Adult Health and Social Care;

Councillor Stanley Sheinwald stated that he was Chair of the Carers’ Partnership Group;

Councillor Yogesh Teli stated that he had been a patient at Northwick Park Hospital and that his uncle was a patient at Northwick Park Hospital.  The Councillor added that his wife worked for a Dental Practice in Brent.

To consider whether any of the items listed on the agenda should be considered with the press and public excluded on the grounds that it is thought likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that there would be disclosure of confidential information in breach of an obligation of confidence or of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

RESOLVED:  That (1) in accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the following items be admitted late to the agenda by virtue of the special circumstances and grounds for urgency detailed below:-

(2)  item 14 - Scrutiny Review of Cultural Services – Beacon Centre Case Study – be taken at item 9 and that item 9 - Report from the Scrutiny Policy and Performance Lead Members’ Quarterly Briefings ? be taken at item 14;

(3)  all items be considered with the press and public present.

[Note:  For clarity, business is recorded in the order set out on the agenda.]

That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 February 2008 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 February 2008, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents/organisations under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 8.

RESOLVED:  To note that no public questions were put at the meeting under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 8.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 9.

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions were received at the meeting under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 9.

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 10.

RESOLVED:  To note that no deputations were received at the meeting under the provisions of Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 10.

(if any).

Post Offices in Harrow - Motion considered by Council

The Chairman referred to the Motion on Post Offices in Harrow considered by Council on 21 February 2008 and circulated at the meeting asking the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to undertake an urgent review of the proposed closures, the effect they would have on the community and the provision and access to Post Offices in Harrow.

RESOLVED:  That the request be considered in conjunction with agenda item 9 - Report from the Scrutiny Policy and Performance Lead Members’ Quarterly Briefings - which, inter alia, addressed the issue of the Post Office closures.

(See also Minute 290).

Report of the Interim Divisional Director of Strategy and Improvement

The Scrutiny Manager introduced the report, which set out the items that had been considered by the Scrutiny Policy and Performance Lead Members at their quarterly briefings between January and April 2008.  The report detailed recommendations from the Lead Members for action/escalation.  She also referred to the reference from the full Council meeting in relation to Post Offices in Harrow (Minute 289 refers) and confirmed that the national consultation on the proposed closures of post offices would end on 2 April 2008.

The Committee agreed to respond appropriately to full Council in relation to the motion on Post Offices in Harrow.  Members felt that the letter at pages 36?37 of the agenda ought to be amended to highlight the inadequate level of consultation.

Members discussed the necessity for a Challenge Panel on the Byron Leisure Centre redevelopment, which had been proposed by the Scrutiny Policy and Performance Lead Members for Sustainable Development and Enterprise.  They explained how this matter had been raised and the representations they had received from a local resident.  Some Members felt that the Challenge Panel would add value to the redevelopment proposals and set out how the Panel would be handled.  Other Members felt that the Panel was not justified as it would leave many questions unanswered and raise expectations.  These Members were of the view that the redevelopment proposals were beyond the scope of a Challenge Panel and necessitated an in?depth review.

The Scrutiny Manager stated that officers had been of the view that the Challenge Panel would assist the Executive in its deliberations on the redevelopment proposals.  However, given the discussion that evening and given the political context, it would be appropriate to seek legal advice on the observance of the ‘purdah’ on the weeks leading up to the Greater London Authority (GLA) elections.  Subject to Members’ agreement, this matter could be reconsidered at the next meeting of the Committee scheduled to be held on 22 April 2008.

A Member agreed to provide her questions in relation to the Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) to the Scrutiny Manager with a view to seeking responses from the relevant Portfolio Holder on this matter.

Following agreement that the implementation of the second recommendation under the corporate effectiveness Scrutiny Lead Members report on cultural change ought to be delayed until after May 2008 when the SAP system would be fully operational, it was

RESOLVED:  That (1) the report from the Scrutiny Policy and Performance Lead Members be received and that the recommendations therein be agreed subject to the following:-

·                     deferral of the decision on the Challenge Panel for the Byron Leisure Centre redevelopment to the next meeting of the Committee and following receipt of legal advice;

·                     the implementation of the second recommendation under the corporate effectiveness Lead Members report on cultural change be delayed until after May 2008.

·                     the letter responding to the consultation in relation to the Post Office Network Change Programme be amended, in consultation with Councillor Barry Macleod?Cullinane,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 290.

Report of the Interim Divisional Director of Strategy and Improvement

The Chairman welcomed representatives of the Trusts that served Harrow to the meeting.

A Scrutiny Officer introduced the Interim Divisional Director of Strategy and Improvement’s report, which set out the background to the Healthcare Commission’s Annual Health Check for NHS Trusts with suggestions for scrutiny’s role in providing commentaries to the Trusts.  She referred to the core standards set out in the report and stated that commentary from scrutiny had to be based on evidence and submitted to the NHS Trusts by 30 April 2008 for inclusion in their submissions to the Healthcare Commission.  Scrutiny was not obliged to comment on all the standards or indeed all the Trusts if it did not have sufficient evidence.  Members noted that the Annual Health Check process offered Overview and Scrutiny Committees across the country an opportunity to provide their views on the performance of the NHS Trusts that served their borough.

Timothy Billings from the Healthcare Commission addressed the meeting and stated that the role of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was to use the work the Committee had done in the past 12 months to provide commentaries to the NHS Trusts that would allow the Healthcare Commission to make judgements on the Trusts that served Harrow.  He referred to an aide memoir that he would circulate which identified five key points that the Committee would need to adhere to when providing views on performance of the Trusts.  He explained how the Healthcare Commission used the information.  It helped the Commission to decide where further action was required.

Sarah Crowther, Chief Executive of Harrow PCT, Fiona Wise, Chief Executive of North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, Claire Murdoch, Chief Executive of Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, and Andrew Woodhead, Chief Executive of the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, addressed the meeting and introduced their draft declarations of compliance against core standards for the 2007/08 Annual Health Check.

Harrow PCT

Sarah Crowther referred to the action plans developed by Harrow PCT to improve performance where non?compliance against core standards was likely.  She identified areas where compliance would be improved.  In response to Members’ questions, Sarah Crowther replied that issues of hygiene across service areas would remain a high priority.  Non?compliance was an issue for the PCT in terms of the message it gave.  Whilst there were no financial penalties for non compliance, public perception was of paramount importance.  Particular focus would be on ensuring compliance in relation to community services.  Performance Management of standards, including in relation to services provided by independent contractors was a key matter for the PCT.  She added that the PCT Board would consider the final compliance statement on 6 May 2008.

North-West London Hospitals NHS Trust

Fiona Wise referred to the spot checks made by the Healthcare Commission and identified standards that were non?compliant.  She informed the Committee that the Trust was expecting to achieve compliance on the core standard relating to healthcare acquired infections by next year  ...  view the full minutes text for item 291.

Report of the Chief Executive of the North West London Hospitals NHS Trust and the Chief Executive of Brent Teaching Primary Care Trust

The Chief Executive of the North West London Hospitals NHS Trust introduced the report, which provided an overview of the responses received during the Brent Birth Centre public consultation, which had ended on 8 February 2008.  The report outlined the next steps in terms of the communication and implementation of the consultation outcome.  She confirmed that Option 4 (the transfer of the Midwifery Led Unit Service to Northwick Park Hospital and maintaining Antenatal Care at the Central Middlesex Hospital site) was the preferred option.

In response to Members’ questions on use of resources at Brent Birthing Centre, the Chief Executive undertook to provide historical information previously circulated to the Committee but stressed the need for the Trust to move forward.  She added that the consultation process had fundamentally changed.  It had been thorough and rigorous and, furthermore, the Trust would be seeking the endorsement of Brent Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee that the final report and consultation process were fair and thorough.

The Chairman agreed that there was a need to cultivate the partnership between the Council and the Trust and stressed the need to support the Chief Executive in her work in this regard.

RESOLVED:  That (1) the report and the comments above be noted;

(2)  the undertaking given by the Chief Executive to provide Members with the historical information in relation to use of resources be welcomed.

(See also Minute 283).

Report of the Chief Executive of the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

The Chief Executive of the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust introduced the report, which set out the status of the proposed development of the hospital and its NHS Foundation Trust application.  The Chief Executive, in highlighting the key aspects of the report, thanked the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for its support in this regard.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

Report of the Interim Divisional Director of Strategy and Improvement

The Scrutiny Officers introduced the report of the Interim Divisional Director of Strategy and Improvement, which set out the scopes for the reviews of the Town Centre redevelopment and the Council’s support to the voluntary sector for agreement by the Committee. Members’ attention was drawn to the revised scope for the Voluntary and Community Sector, as circulated with the second supplemental agenda.

Town Centre Development

The Scrutiny Officer informed Members that the project was divided into three streams, each of which would produce an interim report.  Site visits would cut across the three streams, details of which would be fed into the review.  A final report would be submitted to the Committee in January 2009 for submission to Cabinet thereafter.

In response to questions from the Vice-Chairman, the Chairman of the Review Group and the Scrutiny Officer confirmed that the effect of the redevelopment on the users and the residents of the borough were implicit in the vision.  They agreed with the suggestion from a co-opted Member that the views of young people were of importance and agreed to get the schools involved in this regard.

Support to the Voluntary Sector

The Scrutiny Officer referred to the revised scope and identified the main changes made by the review group at its meeting held in the last week.  She stated that an interim report would be produced in July 2008, which would establish the current position and best practice. The final report would be produced in autumn 2008.

RESOLVED:  That (1) the scope for the review of the Town Centre redevelopment, as set out on pages 92?94 of the agenda, be agreed;

(2)  the scope for the review of delivering a strengthened voluntary and community sector, as set on pages 1?4 of the second supplemental agenda, be agreed. 

Report of the Corporate Director of Strategy and Business Support

The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee welcomed Tracey Lees, Chief Executive for Home South, and Jeannie Cohen?Brand of Harrow College to the meeting.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Review Group introduced the report titled ‘Review of Cultural Services – Beacon Centre Case Study’, which set out the findings and recommendations of the Group that had investigated the operation of the Beacon Centre in Rayners Lane.  She explained the reasons behind the review and stressed that the remit of the Review Group was specific to the operation of sport and cultural services at the Beacon Centre.  The wider relationships with the Rayners Lane Estate including housing and regeneration issues were not part of its remit.

The Chairman of the Review Group added that the study showed that there were tensions over access to the Beacon Centre, which had culminated with a number of recommendations, the main one being that a Summit ought to be convened to set out a new strategic vision for the Beacon Centre as the first step forward.  She explained that scrutiny had tried to perform its role as ‘an honest broker’ in a difficult situation with a view to charting a way forward for the management and operation of the Beacon Centre.  She thanked all those who had participated in the Review, including the Scrutiny Officer for his support.  A Member of the Review Group commented on the need to provide value for money and a service to the community at the Beacon Centre.

Members’ attention was drawn to an erratum to the report circulated at the meeting, which set out corrections to the report of the Review Group in relation to the work carried out by Harrow College at the Beacon Centre.  In addition, a supporting statement was also circulated at the meeting on behalf of Harrow College.

The Chief Executive for Home South, having been invited to address the meeting, stated that Home South was of the view that the report of the Scrutiny Review Group was unbalanced and did not highlight the range of activities provided.  The Chief Executive added that whilst Home South was aware that scrutiny was examining the provision of sport and cultural activities at the Beacon Centre, it felt that the matter was being looked at in isolation, as the Rayners Lane Estate, of which Beacon Centre was a part of, was changing for the better.  She made the following points:-

·                     Rayners Lane Estate had the highest levels of need in the borough and that Home South, its landlord, had concentrated on the provision of the needs of the community, which were delivered in partnership with the Council, Harrow College and other stakeholders.  Cultural and art activities together with holiday play schemes were catered for at the Beacon Centre.  Home South acknowledged that there were gaps in provision and would welcome the Council’s and other stakeholders participation in making improvements;

·                     Home South provided revenue funding for the Beacon Centre and that £330k provided by the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 295.

Which the Chairman has decided is urgent and cannot otherwise be dealt with.

In accordance with the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 14 (Part 4B of the Constitution) it was

RESOLVED:  At (1) 10.00 pm to continue until 10.30 pm;

(2)  at 10.30 pm to continue until the close of business.