Issue - meetings

The Committee considered the report submitted by the Head of Business Improvement, Central Services and Partnerships.

Members considered the importance of public engagement and that the fact that the public seemed unaware of local authority involvement in health and thus the lack of feedback and engagement that occurred. Elected Members and local authorities needed to become more proactive to overcome this hurdle.

The Committee agreed that communication needed to be improved and that groups such as Locality Action Partnerships, Parish Councils and Residents Associations needed to be used more effectively to get information across to the public. An article could also be included in the Reporter Magazine on a regular basis.

Concerns were also raised regarding the low turnout at Accountability Sessions run by the County Council which again highlighted the need for a more proactive approach from elected Members and local authorities with more specificity regarding questions and outcomes desired.

It was agreed that an extra meeting be organised to consider the report on the Francis Enquiry in further detail.

Resolved:    That an additional meeting be arranged.

In terms of its conclusions on Stafford Borough Council’s role, the Francis Report made a number of observations including:-

Ø   There appeared to be no prior cause for concern from Stafford Borough Council’s perspective until Julie Bailey’s initial letter.

Ø   Stafford Borough Council accepted there are limits in terms of what a small Overview and Scrutiny Committee with limited resources can do.

Ø   Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee accepted that they did not get “underneath what representatives of the Trust were telling us”.

Ø   The Overview and Scrutiny Committee did not have the expertise to challenge Trust representatives.

Ø   There was no challenge of the Foundation Trust application – the process was described as “meaningless”.

Ø   Stafford Borough Council did not hear of any public concerns about the Hospital prior to Julie Bailey’s letter and there is no evidence of challenge before this letter.

Ø   Insufficient priority seems to have been given by the Overview Scrutiny Committee to information from the public and there seemed to have been a lack of understanding of what scrutiny of an acute hospital entailed.

Ø   More could have been done in terms of the role played by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee including seeking out information about the Trust or information from other sources such as the public.

Ø   The Overview and Scrutiny Committee never considered asking the County Council to exercise its powers to submit a report.

Ø   Minutes were uninformative as to discussions at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee which did not help matters.

It was felt what happened at Stafford County Council can occur anywhere.  There is potential for this to happen within North Staffordshire especially regarding mental health.  There is a need to prioritise workstreams.

Recommended:- To challenge Staffordshire County Council when matters arise relating to health issues.