Agenda and minutes

Councillor Mason

Councillor Mason had given his apologies and Councillor Chard attended as his substitute.   

Councillor Murch declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 8 (Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) as a Mental Health Champion for the Council.

22 February 2016

The minutes of the last meeting had been circulated with the agenda.

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on the 22 February 2016 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.

None had been received.

No matters had been referred to the committee.

Gloucestershire Economic Growth O&S Committee (16 March) – update from Councillor Clucas

Police and Crime Panel (11 March)   - verbal update from Councillor McCloskey

Councillor Clucas had provided an update on the Economic Growth O&S Committee, which had been circulated with the agenda. 

Councillor Clucas had not attended the last meeting of the Health and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee and as such, there was no feedback.

Councillor McCloskey had been unable to attend the last meeting of the Police and Crime Panel, so instead, gave feedback based on the draft minutes.  A number of PEEL Inspection reports had been received in February, including the Effectiveness report and the force had been rated ‘good‘ in terms of efficiency and ‘outstanding’ with regards to financial management.  There were a number of trails ongoing at the present time; these included a 6 month trial of mounted police officers at specific locations for specific projects, electric cars which had been purchased with £168k of funding from Central Government and a Mental Health worker would be located in the Force Control Room.  The panel would consider the findings of these trials in due course.  The Panel had also been advised that Restorative Gloucestershire had been awarded the Restorative Service Quality mark in recognition of the professionalism and high standards of practice.  A number of pages on the PCC website had been dedicated to the upcoming elections and a familiarisation event for potential candidates had been held earlier in the day (11/04).  The Panel had been asked to respond to the Governments, PCC Complaints Consultation; which had been difficult given that the Panel had no experience of dealing with complaints against the PCC as there had not been any.  The Panel did however recommend that an Independent Investigator should always be appointed. 

In response to a member question, Councillor McCloskey confirmed that Restorative Justice, which was used a lot by the Force, was not included in clear-up figures which were reported nationally and could account for the seemingly low clear-up figures.  She agreed that it would be useful for the Panel to consider re-offending rates in relation to Restorative Justice and would take this to the Panel. 

A verbal update from the Cabinet on key issues for Cabinet Members which may be of interest to Overview and Scrutiny and may inform the O&S workplan

The Leader recalled having raised the issue of begging in the town centre at the last meeting of the committee, which had been raised again at the recent Council meeting and he was keen to know how O&S planned to scrutinise the issue.  In relation to Devolution, he confirmed that an additional meeting of Leadership Gloucestershire had been arranged for the 28 April, though personally, he struggled to understand how it would be possible to announce a decision on Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire at the same time.  He felt that there were two serious options; continue with the fairly modest package which was being proposed, or consider the full range of options in the next few months, rather than in May.

The Chairman confirmed that a task group would be convened to look at the issue of begging in the town centre, but that this would happen after the elections. 

Professor Clair Chilvers and Doctor Sally Pearson (presentation followed by a Q&A session)

The Chairman welcomed representatives from the Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; the Chair, Professor Clair Chilvers and Dr Sally Pearson, Vice-Chair.  He reminded members that statutory level scrutiny was undertaken at Gloucestershire County Council, but the Trust had kindly accepted an invitation from Cheltenham, to discuss issues which were important to the town. 

In the first instance, Professor Chilvers and Dr Pearson talked through a PowerPoint presentation (Appendix 1).  Councillor Ron Allen had coined the phrase “One hospital with a long corridor” which referred to Cheltenham General Hospital and Gloucestershire Royal Hospital and the 8 mile stretch of the A40 which separated them.  Dr Pearson suggested that, if designed today, it was unlikely that two sites would be created to serve the people of Gloucestershire.  There was a need to achieve the right balance between the two sites and a major consideration when deciding upon the best site, was clinical linkages.  Whilst this may result in some people having to travel further for some treatments, this would be outweighed by the level of service they would receive. 

In sharing future plans for the estates at Cheltenham and Gloucester, the committee were advised that both plans had been approved by the Board.  The Cheltenham site was relatively compact and therefore difficult to develop. Some of the buildings themselves were modern and fit for purpose, but some were of the Regency period and housed a number of Nightingale wards, one large room without sub-divisions.  The planned development of the Cheltenham site would cost £55m.  A similar scheme had been designed for Gloucester, though the tower would remain as it had been assessed as being usable for at least another 50 years, and this scheme would cost £22m.  At present the capital programme was £10m per annum, so neither scheme was deliverable within the current level of capital funding. 

The following responses were given to the member questions which had been submitted in advance of the meeting;

Broadband – the group had met with a representative from BT on the 07 April and were given a good understanding of BTs position, which members felt, contradicted what the group had previously been told by Fastershire.  As such, the group had asked that BT and Fastershire meet, to agree a clear and concise position statement, which would identify possible solutions for inclusion in the final report of the STG. 

Devolution – the Chairman of the task groups felt that it was sensible to postpone the next meeting of the task group until such a time as they had more information to consider.  Plans were in place to hold a member seminar at some point after the upcoming elections. 

Begging in the town centre – an STG would be convened after the upcoming elections. 

Dates for 2016/17 meetings had been agreed by Council and the work plan had been updated accordingly.

Some members felt that the committee should be given an update on the car parking strategy, regardless of how ‘high level’, in June, rather than having to wait until October; given the length of time that the committee had been waiting to consider this issue.    

27 June 2016

The next meeting was scheduled for the 27 June 2016.