[Alison Smith]

Louise my first reaction is that the NHS should have consulted with your County's Health Scrutiny Committee on whether this is a substantial variation - by the sounds of it it would be and therefore they should be scrutinising it, and hopefully involving District colleagues in the process. This process would allow greater accountability as the CEO of the hospital Trust has to attend a scrutiny committee and give account.

I would be inclined to pursue it this way than through a CCfA which seems a bit tenous as it is across more than one ward. Presumably this isn't a route open to you?

[Matthew Garrard]

Hi Louise, in Nottinghamshire we would have expected the NHS Trust to approach the County Council about such a proposal as a potential substantial variation of service...

"but the Head of Legal would rather err on the side of caution and suggest just having reps from the hospital trust come to a normal scrutiny meeting to discuss it" Is this not how you would process a CCfA anyway?

"The reasons we're not sure if this is a CCfA is that 1) it isn't ward-specific and 2) it isn't really a "local government matter", particularly as we're a district and not even the county."

How do you describe a CCfA? Is it not just a way for Members to put an item on an agenda which would appear to be what they are trying to do. If Members want to look at this then I would look to find them a way (assuming KCC hasn't already done so in detail)

1) Your question states reasons why Members could be concerned about the impact on their ward, that could very easily be constructed into a specific ward issue. 2) Public Health and teenage pregnancy issues are very much local government matters.

You could argue either way, the important thing is would you treat it any differently and if so, why?

[Nick Beale]

I agree with the other posts that the NHS should have consulted on this. The fact that they didn't is surely a "local government matter" as is scrutiny of the NHS in general.

But why worry about the Act at all? This is, on the face of it, an important matter likely to give rise to local concern. I think I'd just contact the Chairman, say "Councillor X has told me about this, it looks significant and I think we should put it on the agenda. Meanwhile I'm asking the Trust for more information."

P.S. We have a bit in the constitution that lets members raise items on the agendas of relevant OSCs, so it's less restrictive than the Act.

[Mohammed Ahad]

louisesmith Wrote:One of our councillors has asked whether the following situation can be raised as a CCfA (a joint CCfA by a number of councillors), and the Head of Legal Services and I can't decide so can anyone help?

The local hospital trust wants to move most maternity services from our local hospital to a new one that is about 40 minutes away on fairly poor B roads. Basically, only the most straightforward births will remain at the local hospital because it will be midwife led - if any complications arise requiring an emergency caesarean, for example, the mother will need to be transferred to the new hospital. Several councillors want to raise this as a CCfA for two key reasons - the first is that this borough (and in particular the wards the councillors represent) has higher levels of deprivation than the borough the new hospital will be in, and there is evidence to show that people from deprived areas are more likely to suffer complications in childbirth. Secondly, one of the wards here has one of the highest levels of teenage pregnancy in Europe, and again, they're more likely to need to go to the main hospital to give birth.

The reasons we're not sure if this is a CCfA is that 1) it isn't ward-specific and 2) it isn't really a "local government matter", particularly as we're a district and not even the county.

I'm inclined to say "yes it's a CCfA" but the Head of Legal would rather err on the side of caution and suggest just having reps from the hospital trust come to a normal scrutiny meeting to discuss it (which they would - they're very good here). However, councillors feel like if it just comes to a normal scrutiny meeting, it won't carry as much weight, especially as those councillors could only come and speak as visiting members so couldn't even take part in the full discussion.

Thoughts?

Louise

All previous comments appear helpful and focussed. You haven't indicated whether Members feel they can demonstrate all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted. I believe the Act intended CCfA as an in extremis tool when all else has failed.

It may be that apparently inadequate consultation by a partner organisation could be conceived as fulfilling that requirement to trigger CCfA.

[Howard Boots]

Louise,

Just to be really boring I agree with the other posts - this sounds like a substantial variation, but whether it is a CCfA or not and it probably strictly is not as it is not a local government issue, although it might affect that ward more than most and failure to consult would probably not be a valid reason either.

You should ask your self what would you have done beore the 2007 and I am sure that you would have invited the hospital to call or alert the Councty Council and have some representation of their health scrutiny committee when this matter is discussed.

CCfA should (?) be about enhancing scrutiny powers and if can't be used in one situation or another that should not prevent you working in a different way to provide effective scrutiny.

Howard

[Cllr Susan Watson]

Thank you everyone for your responses, they've given me some decent avenues to persue!

The County HOSC was consulted on this several years ago and gave general approval to it, so consultation has taken place there.

The reason we deal with a CCfA a bit differently to just having a member put an item on a scrutiny agenda is that for a CCfA, the councillor raising the call for action would have the opportunity to participate in the discussion, whereas if they just put it on a normal agenda, they could only attend as a visting Member, where their right to contribute would be limited to a few minutes speaking time (of those looking to raise the CCfA, one is not on the relevant committee and the other is a cabinet member).

I think I'll be taking all these comments to the councillors involved, and the Head of Legal, to see if we can find a way forward, whether it's CCfA or not!

As a side note, does anyone have a direct contact for CCfA at CLG? Their general enquiries contact details have never actually led to me getting a response...