The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any questions, representations and statements of case submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.
The following Questions have been received from Sally Ruane:
1. The Health Service Journal has reported that while over half of all integrated care systems published board papers in the last year, unfortunately the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland integrated care system did not. Can the leaders of the Leicestershire and Rutland integrated care system confirm whether or not they have published regular papers in 2021 and of so what these papers are and where they are being published? If not, please could they tell us why not.
2. How is the shadow integrated care system board making itself accountable to the public?
3. What input have councillors been invited to make to integrated care system governance?
4. Will the integrated care system constitution be made available for public scrutiny before it is finalised?
The following Questions have been received from Jean Burbridge:
1. Has the shadow Integrated Care System board made any decisions in private session?
2. Can Integrated Care System leaders confirm that (a) no private companies and (b) no social enterprises will sit on (a) the Integrated Care System board and (b) in the Integrated Care System partnership?
3. Will elected councillors sit on the Integrated Care System board? If so, how many? If not, why not?
Minutes:
The Monitoring Officer reported that several questions had been submitted by members of the public as set out on the agenda.
The following questions were asked:
From Sally Ruane:-
1. The Health Service Journal has reported that while over half of all integrated care systems published board papers in the last year, unfortunately the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland integrated care system did not. Can the leaders of the Leicestershire and Rutland integrated care system confirm whether or not they have published regular papers in 2021 and of so what these papers are and where they are being published? If not, please could they tell us why not.
2. How is the shadow integrated care system board making itself accountable to the public?
3. What input have councillors been invited to make to integrated care system governance?
4. Will the integrated care system constitution be made available for public scrutiny before it is finalised?
From Jean Burbridge
1. Has the shadow Integrated Care System board made any decisions in private session?
2. Can Integrated Care System leaders confirm that (a) no private companies and (b) no social enterprises will sit on (a) the Integrated Care System board and (b) in the Integrated Care System partnership?
3. Will elected councillors sit on the Integrated Care System board? If so, how many? If not, why not?
UHL representatives responded as follows:
· The Integrated Care Board (ICB) had yet to be fully established, papers would be available in the public domain when it was established in July.
· ICB papers were taken through the CCG Board which were in public domain.
· Statutory accountabilities included publication of annual reports and accounts. The goal was to go further than that and have an active communications process.
· There would be other forms of formal accountability such as through the Commission.
· Councillors were involved in aspects of the Integrated Care System (ICS) governance, particularly with the Health and Wellbeing Partnership. Views from Councillors on the governance of the ICS had been considered.
· The draft constitution for the ICB couldn’t be finalised until full details of legislation were available, the legislation was not expected until summer. Once the draft constitution was available it would be in the public domain.
· The ICB had yet to have any executive authority, records of ICB meetings were available in CCG Board papers.
· The ICB would not have private companies on the Board.
· Draft guidance excluded elected Councillors from holding the Partnership remit for Local Government. However, 3 voting places had been offered to Local Authorities on the ICB which would be held by Officers.
· Councillors would be able to sit on the Health and Wellbeing Partnership.
The Chair invited Questioners to ask any supplementary questions. Further concern was expressed around the transparency of the shadow ICB, relating to the regularity of CCG meetings. In addition, more clarity was sought over how Local Authority representation would be allocated.
UHL representatives replied:
· The view had been taken that the current shadow ICB had sufficient transparency, but feedback would be considered. The intent was to hold ICB meetings in public.
· The frequency of CCG meetings was presently in line with neighbouring areas.
· The ICS had two elements two it, the ICB which was a statutory body, this was required to have Local Government representation. The Integrated Care Partnership would locally be called the Health and Wellbeing Partnership at the request of partners. Details of this Partnership had yet to be finalised.