Agenda item

The Board is requested to consider membership of the HWBB and how new Members are agreed going forward.

The Board received a report following the Health and Wellbeing Peer Review which had been undertaken in March 2014. The Review had suggested that the membership of the Board was heavily weighted towards the local authority and that consideration should be given to a better balance, particularly in respect of Health.

Wendi Ogle-Welbourn, the Director of Communities, introduced the report and requested that Members consider the number of people they thought appropriate to sit on the Board, as well as the makeup of the Board. It was suggested that consideration be given to the following:

·         That the Board be made up of one third local authority, one third health and one third other, to be commissioners only (as the Health and Wellbeing Programme Board’s membership included providers) if they could evidence their added value to the makeup of the Board;

·         That it may be appropriate for the Vice Chairman of the Board to be someone from the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG); and

·         A request received from the Police to have a place on the Board and for all future requests to be in writing, detailing how the agency/organisation could add value to the Board.

Members debated the report and comments and responses to questions included:

·         It was suggested that a formal written request be submitted to the CCG via the Chief Operating Officer and the Chairman, requesting a Council place on its Board. This could be undertaken jointly with Cambridge. Local authority membership would be advantageous and this process was becoming standard across the country;

·         Closer working between the Local Authority and the CCG would be beneficial in the long term;

·         Further clarification was sought as to what added value the Police would bring to the Board;

·         There was a consensus between providers that they felt ‘out of the loop’, and therefore the right balance needed to be struck with regards to their involvement;

·         It was suggested that the Chairmanship could be alternated between the local authority and Health to ensure greater health professional representation. In response to this point it was stated that it was important to have a consistent Chairman as well as a consistent Vice Chairman;

·         It was further suggested that membership could extend to a representative from the hospital;

·         A Chairman and Vice Chairman could be elected from nominations within the Board Members;

·         Providers sat on the Health and Wellbeing Programme Board (HWPB) and they could also attend any meeting of the HWB in order to make a case, as long as it was of a strategic nature;

·         The rationale behind the Police representation was due to their focus being very much around victims, including resourcing work around the drug and alcohol agenda and treatment of victims of domestic abuse. It was felt that they could bring to added value to the Board, forming part of a wider prevention and intervention strategy;

·         Parties who wished to sit on the Board should be evaluated on their own merits;

·         The focus of the Board was around Health and Wellbeing and commissioners. Therefore it was felt that providers would not be best placed to sit on the Board;

·         The Vice Chairman should be a CCG Board Member;

·         There needed to be a discussion around the local authorities involvement with the Local Commissioning Group (LCG), which would be discussing the local strategy and delivery of services around Peterborough;

·         Providers needed to be on board in order to ensure progression and delivery;

·         The HWB must not lose sight of its purpose and how it was influencing the delivery and provision of Health and Wellbeing for the population;

·         Concern was expressed about expanding the membership to a degree that it could impact upon the decision making of the Board and make the Board less focussed;

·         The Police argument was more operational in nature. They had many platforms and were represented on the Safer Peterborough Partnership (SPP), the Chairman of this Board being a co-opted Member on the HWB. It was therefore felt that any issues could be channelled through the Chair of the SPP back to the HWB for consideration. This proposal would be relayed back to the Police and it was proposed that they be permitted to present in future, should they feel that they had a case to pursue for a seat on the HWB; and

·         It was proposed that the thirds be made up of statutory members plus five others from each third and that nominated deputies be included within the membership list. The Chairman further requested that an initial membership list be drafted for circulation.

RESOLVED

The Board noted the report and agreed that:

1. The make-up of the Board should be in thirds, from the Local Authority, Health and Others, with statutory members and five others from each third and nominated deputies as appropriate;

2. That a CCG member should be the Vice Chairman of the Board;

3. That the Police would not be invited as a Member at the current time, instead for them to utilise the SPP as a platform for relaying issues to the Board. Future presentations to be accepted from the Police should they wish to put a written case forward for a seat on the Board.

It was further agreed that:

1.   A formal written request would be submitted to the CCG, jointly with Cambridge, via the Chief Operating Officer and the Chairman, requesting a Council place on its Board; and

2.   That an initial membership list, taking on board the agreed makeup, would be drafted for comment.