Members of the public are invited to put questions to the Chair and Cabinet Members on any matters within the powers and duties of the Cabinet, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice. (Questions must be submitted no later than 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the meeting on the card provided. These are available at the meeting. You can also submit via the Council’s website at www.stockport.gov.uk/publicquestions)
Minutes:
Members of the public were invited to submit questions to the Cabinet on any matter its power and duties, subject to the exclusions set out in the Code of Practice.
Five questions were submitted.
(1) The first question suggested that the consideration given to the Stockport Together business case consultation feedback by the Adult Social Care & Health Scrutiny Committee had been inadequate and in light of the importance of the issues involved asked why these would not be subject to a debate at the Council Meeting.
The Leader of the Council responded by stating that there had been engagement from councillors in the development of the Stockport Programme for at least 3 years, as well as an extensive public consultation on the latest iteration of the business cases that was also something the Scrutiny Committee had been involved with. He stated that it was not fair therefore to suggest there had been inadequate engagement. The Leader further stated that he did not believe a debate at the Council Meeting was necessary as there was broad support across all political groups for the Stockport Together Programme, and the Council Meeting was not the best way to engage councillors in a complex issue such as this. The Leader acknowledged that there were members of the public who did not support the proposed changes to models of care but stated that there were many who did. He made clear that the business cases being considered by the Cabinet that evening were only about models of care, not about fundamental changes to the NHS.
(2) The second question suggested that the local hospital was understaffed and staff overworked, in line with national trends, and recruitment for nurses and care staff was below the needs of providers, exacerbated by unhappiness at the changes that would result from the Stockport Together new models of care. In light of this, and the delays from the government in issuing regulation on Accountable Care Organisations and the two judicial reviews on such organisation, would it not be a significant legal risk for the Council to adopt the Stockport Together business cases?
In response, the Leader of the Council stated that issues related to workload of staff at local hospitals were a matter for them to address, but made clear his belief that the staff did a wonderful job, despite the pressures facing them that needed national action to address. He further stated that the Stockport Together models of care would reduce workload for many staff in the system by creating extra community capacity, but these needed to be seen separately from purely hospital based services outside of the Stockport Together programme. The Leader further emphasised the broad support from staff in the NHS for the new models of care, while acknowledged that there were outstanding concerns, including from trade unions, about ensuring appropriate resourcing and staffing hours, but these were operational matters that did not undermine the soundness of the business case.
Specifically in relation to the suggestion of risk in an Accountable Care Organisations, the Leader stressed that this was not an option being actively pursued by the Council and its partners, as the new models of care were being provided through an Alliance agreement. He further stressed that what was being proposed would not alter the principles underpinning the NHS, but would help address the serious financial shortfall facing the health economy in Stockport. Although there were risks inherent in embarking on innovative reform of services, the real financial risk facing the Council and NHS locally was not addressing the significant financial and demographical pressures.
The Leader acknowledged the concerns the public may have about the programme, but stressed the flexibility of the approach being taken and the monitoring that would take place to ensure the models could be adapted as the evidence of their operation dictated.
A supplementary question was asked about whether the view was shared that Accountable Care Organisations (ACO) were a means to privatise the NHS and that moving to the ACO model was part of the Stockport Together programme.
In response the Leader of the Council stated that he did not believe it to be the case that ACOs were a means to privatise the NHS as he had seen no evidence to support that, but he stressed that the Cabinet would strenuously oppose any attempts to private these public services. He acknowledged that there had initially been consideration of organisational forms for the delivery of the new models of care that included ACOs but that was paused in favour of ensuring the delivery of the new models was achieved. He confirmed that should this matter be considered again in the future any change to an ACO would require a formal legal process and formal NHS consultation.
(3) The third question expressed disappointment at the announcement by Marks & Spencer that it intended to close its Stockport Town Centre store and asked what actions the Cabinet was taking to the address the issue.
In response, the Cabinet Member for Economy & Regeneration stated that she shared the questioner’s disappointment and confirmed that the Council was having meetings with the senior management of Marks & Spencer to discuss the matter. The Cabinet Member stressed that this announcement emphasised the importance of the Council’s efforts in the Town Centre to increase its attractiveness through expanding and improving the leisure, food and drink and cultural offer.
(4) The fourth question referenced the decision of the Greater Manchester Mayor to levy a precept of £9 per Council Taxpayer and suggested he was the one Metro Mayor to do so. The Leader of the Council was asked what the Mayor was planning to do this, why the Mayor’s budget was so vague and how it would be monitored and scrutinised.
In response the Leader of the Council clarified that the precept would be £9 for a Band D property, not per Council Tax payer, and that other Metro Mayors had sought to implement a precept but had not been able to progress their proposal through the decision making process. The Leader emphasised that the Greater Manchester Devolution Deal was much more ambitious and broader in scope than those elsewhere in the country and that the money raised from the precept would be used to support those ambitious plans, particularly around transport improvements, spatial planning and development corporations. The Leader acknowledged the relatively simple budget plan and the need for proper monitoring, and that this would be done through the monthly Combined Authority meetings. Members of the improved Greater Manchester scrutiny committees should also be ensuring they were scrutinising the use of this money, and locally councillors could hold the Leader to account through the Council Meeting and Corporate, Resource Management & Governance Scrutiny Committee. The Leader also acknowledged that the precept would be an additional pressure for some, but that this needed to be balanced against the need to delivery important and ambitious improvements in Greater Manchester.
The firth question was submitted by a member of the public who was not in attendance. The Chair confirmed that in accordance with the Code of Practice a written response would be provided.