[Nick Beale]

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.

[Earl Piggott-Smith]

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.

[Matthew Garrard]

I'm less concerned about a conflict of interest here, but why have a separate protocol/role description? If a LINk Member has been co-opted should the role not be to undertake scrutiny the same as an elected Member?
Generally the points in the role description are good, I'm just not sure that they are relevant to being a co-optee? Does Staffordshire have a similar role description for other co-optees eg Education?

[gareth davies]

GarnerS Wrote:Does anyone have an example of such a protocol or role description that they are willing to share or any constructive comments on the text below?

General

• To act as a Member level point of contact between the Local Involvement Network (LINk) and the health overview and scrutiny committee (HOSC), helping to develop the working relationship - bringing information from the LINk to the HOSC and taking information from the HOSC back to the LINk.
• To contribute to a shared understanding of the roles, responsibilities and structure of the LINk and health (and social care) overview and scrutiny in the area.
• To promote working together to prioritise and address local issues, making use of the different and complementary roles and responsibilities.
  

Specific

• To be involved in the HOSC's work programme planning, delivery and review as follows:
  • To share perspectives about issues for local people to help identify priorities for the work programme.
  • To share information about the LINk work programme in order to identify opportunities for:
    
• Informal sharing of information
• Complementary review activity
• Joint working
• Joint briefing and/or training
• Helping to ensure that health and social care bodies are fulfilling their duty to engage and that they hear a diversity of views from local people
• Co-ordination of input to consultation on, and regulation and assessment of, services
• Following up on the implementation of recommendations/outcome of consultation to find out what difference has been made
• joint communication with local people including to seek views and to demonstrate the opportunities provided to influence health and social care services.
  • To help establish where the LINk and HOSC will work separately.
  • To be involved, or identify the right LINk person to be involved, in review activity if requested.
  • When involved in review activity, to put forward views/comments/suggestions on a given topic on the basis of experience as a LINk Member (using evidence gathered in this role to support the views/comments suggestions expressed).
    
• Reporting on progress and constraints with the delivery of the LINk work programme, including presenting to the Committee the LINk annual report.
• Where the LINk has decided to make a referral to the HOSC, to present the referral to the Committee.
• To sharing good practice/organisational learning.
• To help identify the support needed for an effective working relationship between the LINk and the HOSC.
  

Thanks.

Sarah,

A bit late I know, but one thought came to me while re-reading this post.

Does a question need to be asked about the status of the person who comes from the LINk to the scrutiny committee? You mention 'sharing perspectives about priorities for local people'; I can see the relevance of this, but if the LINk hasn't done any work on the topic is there any value in allowing the representative from the LINk to offer their opinion on this (or any analogous) subject?

Also, do you need to restrict the freedom of the LINk by insisting that this one person should be the one to present referrals from the LINk to a scrutiny committee?

[Robert Mack]

Can't see any benefit of drafting a job description or protocol. They should be treated like other co-optees and given an induction. Far better then lobbing paper at them and gives them the opportunity to ask questions etc. It is also good for establishing relationships. We have found it helpful to have a deputy rep to share to load with the LINk rep.

LINk reps have the potential to greatly assist health scrutiny work due to their knowledge, experience and networks. I think to not co-opt them due to the conflict of interest issue would be throwing the baby out with the bath water (pardon the cliche). PPI forums had the right to refer issues to OSC but very rarely if ever did and I would expect this to be the case with the LINk. Having them as co-optees and establishing close working relationships will minimise the possibility of this happening. In addition, having them co-opted increases their profile and influence and will therefore improves their chances of being successful which has to be good for us all.