Nick Beale Wrote:An alarming feature of scrutiny - originally touted as a less bureaucratic system - is how many protocols we seem to end up needing (perhaps there should be a section in the CfPS Library). In the present case however, I wonder whether to co-opt someone from a LINk is the right thing to do in the first place, and what others think about that.
My own concern is that co-opting a LINk representative involves a conflict of interest, given the express requirement that these bodies are independent of the local authority. LINks are expected to refer social care matters to the relevant scrutiny committee which must acknowledge receipt of the referral and keep the LINk informed of what it is doing about it. LINks will also have to send their annual reports to the OSC. Given all that interaction, it's not immediately clear why the Network should also be represented on the Scrutiny Committee.
You can, I think, maintain a regular channel of communication/updating/reporting on LINk activities without co-opting someone on to the committee. that's what we're trying to do anyway.
Hi, I have similar concerns this about the potential conflict on interest when dealing with an issue which has been referred to the health scrutiny panel by the LINK.,where are also members of the panel. The LINK have drafted a protocol which sets out its working relationship with the Council, with specific reference to health scrutiny panel.
The members of the panel agreed not to co-opt a representative of the LINK to the panel as they want to retain flexibility by inviting people with a knowledge or experience on a topic by topic basis. The aim is start to move away that membership of the panel is main way of achieving changes in policy and look at other ways of involving representatives of external organisations such as the link.
There was a concern among members of the Panel that other groups who could equally argue that they should also be represented on the panel in addition to the LINK.
I think the key is to have a minimum set of rules to deal with problems that may arise, this could be a protocol , but this should ideally be based on shared understanding that each has a responsibility to support efforts that contribute to delivering health improvements for local people, while retaining the right for each to challenge policy decisons where appropiate.