Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 July 2016.

The Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting held on 26 July 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillors and officers were invited to declare any interests they had in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.

The following interests were declared:-

Personal Interests

There were no call-ins to consider.

To consider a report of the Director of Public Health.

This short report has been produced in response to a request made at the Scrutiny Committee in June 2016. It summarises some of the sport and physical activity provision across Stockport for people with a disability. Officers from the Council and Life Leisure will be able to answer questions in relation to the provision across Stockport at the meeting.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to note the provision of sport and physical activity and provide comments.

Officer contact Russ Boaler, 0161 474 3941, boaler@stockport.gov.uk   

The Deputy Director of Public Health submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) responding to a request made at the Health Scrutiny on 28 June 2016 for information about sport and physical activity provision across Stockport for people with a disability. Russ Boaler, the Council’s Consultant for Physical Education, Sport & Physical Activity and the Neil Bardsley, Sport & Health Development Manager at Life Leisure, also attended the meeting to answer questions from Councillors.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         What general facilities were able to cater for those with additional needs and disabilities? The fitness suites at the Seashell Trust and Avondale Recreation Centre were adapted to cater for a wider cliental, and the former facility was also used for by elite para-athletes, some of whom were participating in the Rio Para-Olympic Games.

·         Were there lessons from encouraging the use of facilities at Avondale that could be shared? Life Leisure had worked with the Federation for Disabled Sport to target those with disabilities to emphasise the need for, and benefit of, physical activity, but there was not a ‘one size fits all’ message for those with disabilities.

·         What publicity do these services receive? Were GPs aware of these facilities? Councillors expressed concerns that there was insufficient awareness of these facilities amongst the general population and disabled groups.

·         Partners undertook lots of work in schools and engaged lots of young people, but the challenge was to translate activity in school into a community setting, because rates of participation declined outside of school. A family’s circumstances often determined whether or not children could participate in these activities. Partners also worked with existing groups and through existing mechanisms to promote messages and services. It was also commented that Life Leisure worked hard at promoting their services and were a common presence at community events with their stalls etc. The Stockport Health and Care Finder App aimed to signpost to a range of provision, including this type of activity, and this was continuously updated and available to both professionals and the public.

·         Was it an aspiration for all facilities across borough to gain the accreditation Avondale had for its disabled facilities? It was, but there were often physical constraints that prevented more being done due to size of specialist equipment.

·         Did Stockport benchmark itself against other areas? There was not general benchmarking information available and this was not something that was routinely monitored except for specific projects. Sport England had recently launched an initiative to monitor this activity, although this was too recent to draw any conclusions. Anecdotally, Stockport was performing well.

·         It was important to encourage participation in the same activity and sport by disabled and abled bodies people, and children in particular. The SeaShell Trust had done significant work to encourage this, and many local sports clubs also had mixed provision.

·         Ensuring those with disabilities had access to a range of opportunities was important to improve health but also quality of life.

Councillors commended partners for the work being done and encouraged greater awareness raising of the opportunities available for those with disabilities to be active and participate in sport.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted and Russ Boaler and Neil Bardsley be thanked for their attendance and presentation.

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for People.

The report will update the Scrutiny Committee on the procurement for the Multi-speciality Community Provider.

Officer contact: Andrew Webb, 0161 474 3808, Andrew.webb@stockport.gov.uk

The Corporate Director for People submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing the Scrutiny Committee with an update on the development of the Multi-speciality Community Provider (MCP) for health and social care and providing an opportunity for the Scrutiny Committee to comment on the possible models of the organisational form of that provider.

James Sumner, Deputy Chief Executive of Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, and Keith Spencer, Provider Director, also attended the meeting to answer questions from councillors.

The report set out the approach partners were taking to determining the best organisational form to support innovative, integrated, wrap-around provision to meet the needs of older adults with complex needs, and to do so within the context of increasing demand outstripping resources. Progress had already been made in improving service delivery through innovation and further improvements would come to fruition without any need for changes to the organisational form. Partners were committed to the development of an MCP as they believed this was the best way to address cost and demographic pressures, and realign resources.

The options set out in the report had been developed based on an assessment of the services in view of the Stockport Together programme. All services, regardless of the final organisational configuration, would remain subject to external oversight and inspection through NHS Improvement, the CQC and others. Each partner organisation would also be seeking legal advice to inform the discussions on what the preferred option would be.

The Executive Councillor (Health) (Councillor Tom McGee) stated that these proposals were the result of lot of work from all partners, and within a challenging financial context. The Council, as a democratic organisation, created an added level of complexity in the process but it was important to engage councillors and other stakeholders in these discussions and final decision given the scale of the proposals. He stated that no decisions had been taken, and that all the options would be considered, although he would not favour options that could lead to a loss of public ownership of the services in question.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·           Clarification was sought about the risk of the provider eventually leaving public ownership, and assurances were sought about the there being appropriate governance arrangements to provide oversight and control over service delivery and financing. In response, it was stated that partners working on the MCP had no mandate to change the public nature of the services in question. Each model would have its own governance arrangements and implications, and these would be a part of the considerations in developing the proposal further.

·           Stockport Together and the current proposals were the result of hard work by all organisations over a number of years, and that had been recognised by the interest from NHS England and others, as well as through the success in accessing funding to support the programme. It was commented that partners in Stockport had shown good leadership in putting the wider public interest ahead of individual organisational interests in developing the programme. The various regulators involved with individual partners had also indicated they were supportive of the programme.

·           Further information was requested about patient input, and ensuring the correct balance between the views of professionals and those of patients. In response it was stated that the current consultation with stakeholders related to organisational form, whereas there had been greater drive to involve patients and service users in the development of the models of care. Depending on which model emerged as the preferred model, this may trigger a further formal consultation stage as a NHS service change. Whatever the future organisational form, there would continue to be mechanisms for public and patient engagement in service improvement. It was further commented that many members of the public were more likely to engage with consultation about care and services than organisational issues.

·           Was there wider public consultation, and consultation with other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider a report of the Borough Treasurer.

The Medium Term Financial Plan Update provides two reports. The first report proposes a realignment and consolidation of the Council’s reserves and the development of a Reserves Policy which will align the reserves to the Council’s corporate and strategic priorities over the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). The report also outlines the principles of a summer review of the Council’s MTFP considering the current key assumptions underpinning the financial forecasts and whether these are still appropriate.

The second report outlines the principles that will frame how the Executive engages with residents and businesses to inform how it proposes to address the severe financial challenges being imposed on Stockport by central Government. 

The Scrutiny Committee is recommended to comment on and note the reports.

Officer contact: Michael Cullen on 0161 474 4631 or email: michael.cullen@stockport.gov.uk

The Borough Treasurer submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Scrutiny Committee to consider two reports: firstly the proposed Reserves Policy to consolidate the Council’s financial reserves and ensure they were aligned with corporate and strategic priorities; and secondly the principles set out by the Executive that would frame how the Council would engage with stakeholders on how it would address the severe financial challenges facing the Council.

The Borough Treasurer highlighted that the Review of Reserves concluded that the quantum of reserves was appropriate for the Council’s need, but found that the number of reserve ‘pots’ was too numerous, so it was recommended that these be consolidation to ensure they were better suited to priorities and could be deployed more effectively.

The Executive Councillor (Health) (Councillor Tom McGee) highlighted that within five years the Council would cease to receive a Revenue Support Grant and so the Council needed make sure that services could be maintained and targeted to those of greatest. The Executive would be taking a two year view of the budget that would allow it to make fewer reductions.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·           Were there sufficient reserves to support the transition to new ways of working, particularly within health and social care services? It was acknowledged that this area in particular was a challenge, and needed to be seen with the context of the funding from the Council’s partners. The policy and levels of reserves would be subject to regular review to assess the risk to the Council and changes recommended if necessary.

·           Would entering into the proposed four year funding arrangement with DCLG be more financial advantageous than the annual settlement, and was Council in a position to meet the DCLG application timescale? In response it was stated the requirements of DCLG for the submission of an Efficiency Plan were relatively ‘light touch’ and so the Council had already made significant efforts to develop such plans through the Medium Term Financial Plan. The Council, like many other local authorities, had been advocating longer settlements for some time as they provided increased stability and security, particularly in view of the demands of the Council’s transformation agenda. Although it was unlikely the Council would be financially better off through the settlement, there was a risk that those local authorities who did not participate may find themselves worse off.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

To consider a report of the Democratic Services Manager.

The report sets out the draft scope for the Scrutiny Committee’s proposed Review of Community Pharmacies, developed following consultation with the Lead Councillor and the Deputy Director of Public Health.

The Scrutiny Committee is recommended to:-

(i)       Approve the draft scope of the Review as set out at appendix 1 (subject to the approval of the Scrutiny Work Programme by the Council Meeting on 15 September 2016)

(ii)      Nominate a minimum of 3 members, in addition to Cllr John Wright (Lead Councillor.

Officer contact: Jonathan Vali, 0161 474 3201, jonathan.vali@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Scrutiny Committee to consider a draft scope for its proposed Scrutiny Review of the role of Community Pharmacies. The Scrutiny Committee was also invited to nominate members to sit on the Review Panel.

It was commented that previous Reviews undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee had benefited from the engagement with service users, and further consideration should be given to how this could be facilitated in this Review.

RESOLVED – That, subject to the approval of the Scrutiny Work Programme by the Council Meeting on 15 September 2016, the draft scope for the proposed Scrutiny Review of the role of community pharmacies, as set out in appendix 1 of the report be approved and the following councillors be nominated to form the Review Panel:-

·         Councillor John Wright (Lead Councillor)

·         Councillor Laura Booth

·         Councillor Susan Ingham

·         Councillor Adrian Nottingham

·         Councillor John Pantall

To consider a report of the Democratic Services Manager.                                                          

The report sets out planned agenda items for the Scrutiny Committee’s next meeting and Forward Plan items that fall within the remit of the Scrutiny Committee.

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to consider the information in the report and put forward any agenda items for future meetings of the Committee.

Officer contact: Jonathan Vali,   0161 474 3201, jonathan.vali@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the planned agenda items for the Scrutiny Committee’s next meeting and any relevant Forward Plan items.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted and the Democratic Services Manager be requested to make arrangements for the following items to be considered at a future meeting:-

·         Public Health Profile for Stockport

·         Physiotherapy Services and delays in treatment.