Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any Substitute Members, in accordance with paragraph 7.3 of the Harrow Partnership Governance Handbook.

AGREED:  To (1) note the attendance at this meeting of the following substitute members:-

(2)  note the apologies received.

(if any).

AGREED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 4 – Local Area Agreement Reward Grant Allocation

Councillor Margaret Davine declared a personal interest in that she was the chair of the Harrow Domestic Violence Forum.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane declared a personal interest in that his sister was employed as a teacher by Hatch End High School.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Dr Gillian Schiller declared a personal interest in that she was involved in bidding on a first aid training project for schools, worth approximately £100,000.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the Board Meeting held on 15 June 2010, be deferred until the next ordinary meeting of the Board.

AGREED: That the minutes of the board meeting held on 15 June 2010, be deferred until the next ordinary meeting of the board.

Report of the Assistant Chief Executive, Harrow Council.

The Chairman introduced the item and explained that central government had reduced the Local Area Reward Grant provided to local authorities.  As a result it had been agreed at the last Board meeting that the management groups and Harrow Chief Executives would conduct further investigation into the implications of the reduction.  Revised proposals would then be prepared for consideration by the Board.

The Chairman explained that in addition to details of revised proposals the report also consisted of both best and worst case scenarios which was dependant on the specific amount of money provided by central government.  All management groups had conducted an equalities impact assessment for each of the revised proposals.

In response to a query raised by a Member, the Chairman explained that the Board had agreed at the last meeting, that the reduction in grant would be spread across all management groups and Harrow Chief Executives in proportion to their original allocation approved by the Board.

The Board then discussed the proposals of each management group in turn.

Adult Health and Well Being Management Group

The Board agreed to the revised proposal.

Children’s Trust Management Group

A reserve Member of the Board explained that the management group had assessed the needs of children and prioritised their proposals accordingly.  The measures had additionally been consulted on widely particularly with Providers who had contributed to the Local Area Agreement.  It was also considered that infant health and development of partnership working were areas of priority.

In response to questions raised, the reserve Member of the Board commented that:

·                     Attention to detail would be provided in relation to the service specifications of the Electronic Referral System.  It would also ensure that no work was being duplicated within the Council.

·                     The development of the Electronic Referral System was based on achieving successful outcomes and there was a comprehensive evidence base to support the proposal.

·                     If the existing IT infrastructure was able to support the proposal, then it would be utilised.

The Board agreed to the revised proposals.

Sustainable Development and Enterprise Management Group

A Member of the Board explained that as a result in the reduction of grants, it was decided to withdraw several projects.  There had been discussions with the Chair of Trustees of the Harrow Association of Voluntary Services regarding this.

In response to questions raised, the Member of the Board responded that:

·                     The management group had spoken to various organisations and in the space of time which was available, conducted as much consultation as was possible.

·                     Although concerns that most of the projects cut impacted on the voluntary sector had been expressed, due to the time period, it was difficult to consult with further representatives from the voluntary sector.  Consultation did take place with those affected.

A Member expressed concerns on what he perceived was a lack of evidence to support the Management Group’s proposal.  The Member, Councillor Barry Macleod-Cullinane, wished to be recorded as voting against the proposal as he felt that there was not sufficiently clear  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Presentation by the Chief Executive, NHS Harrow.

The Chief Executive, Harrow Primary Care Trust (PCT), introduced the item and explained that there had been a significant swing in the PCT’s financial position since 2007/08 when they had achieved surplus funds.  The statutory financial duties for 2009/10 had only been achieved with a £6.5 million loan.

The PCT did expect for their financial situation to improve.  A Savings Plan had been designed to address these issues.  The Board was informed that the reason for the PCT’s current financial situation was due to an increase in their expenditure.  This had been mainly caused by significant increase in the amount spent on patients receiving acute services.

The outturn position for 2010/11 was dependant on achieving savings of £18.3 million and obtaining £7.9 million from other PCTs.  The outturn position for 2011/12 would be achieved through savings of £25 million.

The key principles of the Savings Plan focussed on achieving greater efficiency, reducing unnecessary acute care and ensuring that the PCT paid what it was responsible for rather than reducing services.  There were risks associated with the Savings Plan but there was confidence that at least one-third of the proposals contained would be achieved.

Robustness of the Savings Plan would be ensured in a number of ways.  This included utilising external expertise to establish a Turnaround Programme and carrying out an impact assessment on each project to ensure that there were no unintended consequences.

The majority of savings in the breakdown plan related to providing acute care at a lower cost.  Other savings related to avoiding acute care, lower drugs costs and continuing care.

The presentation was concluded by referral to recent proposals announced by Central Government to abolish PCTs and provide GPs with the power to commission services.  The PCT had identified themselves as being in a transitional stage and were keen to engage GPs at an early stage regarding their commissioning responsibilities.

During the discussion on this item, Members of the Board raised a number of issues, which were responded to as follows:

·                     The PCT would work very closely with GPs in the transitional period.  It was not perceived that it was the intention of the government to transform GPs into managers but rather for them to provide clinical expertise and leadership in ensuring that services were responsive to patient’s needs.

·                     Some of the Savings Plan proposals had already been secured.  Some of the proposals were work in progress and there was a reasonable confidence that they would be achieved.  Some proposals had high risks associated with it and required more work.

·                     Every proposal in the savings plan had been risk assessed.  They had also been published providing transparency in relation to the proposals.

·                     The PCT were conscious of the guidance from Central Government to reduce management costs.

·                     There were a variety of reasons why there had been a 17.4 % slippage in the savings target for this year.  These included a lack of activity at community clinics.

·                     Some key partners were involved in impact assessments and some  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Report of the Chief Executive, NHS Harrow.

The Board received a report which outlined the results of a review of voluntary sector commissioning undertaken by NHS Harrow.  A representative from NHS Harrow introduced the report and informed the board that there had been discussions with the Harrow Association of Voluntary Services and Links on the review.  Decisions made as part of the review had been made by a panel to promote better decision making.

It was acknowledged that there might have been things that the PCT could have done differently.  However they felt that the process was transparent as had been confirmed by voluntary services body in Barnet who had also conducted a review and concluded that the process was fair.

The PCT had subsequently offered to meet with organisations affected to discuss alternative services.  This was an ongoing offer offered to all voluntary sector organisations.

During the discussion on this item, Members of the Board raised a number of issues which the representative responded to as follows:

·                     The review panel had not earmarked any reductions to be made in the papers relating to its meeting on 27 April 2010.

·                     The PCT had an established Human Resources Process Framework.  Any person whose job had been identified as at risk would have to go through the agreed processes in the framework.  It was also anticipated that the secretary of state would provide further guidance on this issue in the next relevant white paper.

Some Members of the Board expressed concern at the lack of consultation on the proposals and commented that this had happened previously.  In response another Member commented that the PCT always aimed to work with partners.

AGREED: That the report be noted.

Report of the Corporate Director, Place Shaping, Harrow Council.

The Corporate Director Place Shaping, Harrow Council reported that on the 23 June 2010, the Ministry of Justice had issued a consultation document which included a proposal to close Harrow Magistrates’ Court.  The document also set out the Ministry’s strategic direction.

The Council opposed the proposed closure and a draft response had been prepared on that basis.  It was suggested that the draft response would be more robust if lead members of the board signed the letter.  It was also expected that initiatives would be commenced in relation to presenting a petition, seeking the support of the local newspapers and seeking meetings with the MPs in Harrow.  Additionally a cross party Motion was agreed at the last Full Council meeting of the authority.

During the discussion on this item, Members of the Board made a number of comments as follows:

·                     This had been the second attempt to close the magistrates’ court.  It would cause issues regarding attendance by the police as it was difficult to get to.  It may also deter criminals from attending court.  A number of the arguments, statistics and documents used to protest against the previous proposal could be utilised again.

·                     Demonstrating the extra resources that would be required to travel to an alternative court in Brent should be used to demonstrate the higher cost to the community.

·                     The Police could provide statistics on issues relating to the proposed closure of Harrow Magistrates’ Court.

AGREED:

(1)  That the closure of Harrow Magistrates’ Court was detrimental to serving justice locally in Harrow;

(2)  Board Members would be united in raising objections to Government proposals and work together in lobbying for a decision to keep Harrow Magistrates’ Court open;

(3)  to note that the Chief Executive, Harrow Council, would be writing on behalf of the partnership to Harrow’s MPs for a high level meeting and objecting to the proposals for closure;

(4)  support the establishment an interagency officer group and to provide support to this group.

The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 14 December 2010.

The Chairman informed the Board that the next scheduled meeting was due to be held in December 2010.  However a meeting could take place earlier, especially as details of the Comprehensive Spending Review was due to be published in the autumn.

AGREED:  That an extra meeting of the Board be scheduled to take place in September or October 2010.