Minutes:
(1) A Member asked Mr Gibbens about the County Council’s proposed Healthwatch scheme and whether the Committee would get a chance to scrutinise the plans for this. The Chairman said he thought that Healthwatch could play an important role in supporting the work of the Committee. However, it was not on the agenda for this particular meeting.
(2) Mr Gibbens explained that it had been intended the Kent LINk would be operational by 1 April 2008, as provided for in the legislation governing LINks. However, this had not proved possible. The County Council had only learned in December 2007 how much money it was going to receive to fund the LINk (£492,000 in the coming year, rising by £1,000 over the next two years). Because of the high value of the contract for the LINk host organisation, the council was obliged to go through the EU tendering process, which took 39 days. Expressions of interest had been received in late January and early February; and tenders were due back by 8 April. He emphasised that Kent was no further behind, or forward, than any other large local authority involved in this process. Those authorities that had pressed ahead were Unitary Authorities, which were not covered by the EU process due to the smaller size of their LINk budgets. An update meeting had been held with voluntary groups on 30 January 2008 at Lenham; as a result, 58 volunteers had expressed an interesting in joining a LINk working group. Transitional arrangements would be effective from 1 April. It was expected that the awarding of the contract for the LINk host organisation would come to Cabinet in June 2008. Meanwhile, various sub-groups of the 58-strong working group were being created, around particular issues. The host organisation and the LINk would be made aware of all the legacy issues left behind by the PPIFs when they were abolished after 31 March 2008.
(3) The Chairman, on behalf of the Committee, formally thanked the PPIFs for their work and their huge contribution to the NHS in Kent. Mr Gibbens, on behalf of the County Council, echoed the Chairman’s thanks and said he hoped former PPIF members would continue to be involved in health issues in the county.
(4) A Member asked how the transitional arrangements would work, particularly in regard to social care matters, where there was a clear potential conflict of interest if the County Council was to temporarily fulfill the role of the LINk. He also asked what would happen to the funding allocated to the LINk during the transitional period. Mr Gibbens replied that expert help would be sought during the transitional period. This was anticipated to last for three months, but the County Council would not be taking a commensurate amount (one quarter) of the annual funding allocation for the LINk (£492,000). It would only be seeking to cover its costs. This would mean that the host organisation would effectively receive a cash bonus for funding the LINk when it was set up in June. Mr Gibbens accepted that there was a potential conflict of interest in respect of social care matters during the transitional period. Consequently, care was being taken, at both Member and officer levels, to ensure that those involved with setting up the LINk were not directly involved in discharging the council’s social care functions.
(5) Another Member asked what consideration had been given to publicity and promotion of the LINk to the general public, and asked what signposting role the LINk would play. Mr Gibbens replied that efforts had been made, including through voluntary groups, to make as many people as possible aware of the LINk. As regards signposting, he said that the LINk would certainly be involved in playing this role.
(6) A Member said she was very concerned about PPIF legacy issues and continuity between the PPIFs and the LINk. At the same time, there had to be a broadening of the scope of public and patient involvement beyond the PPIFs’ base, so as better to reflect the diversity of the community in Kent. She asked why it was taking so long to get the LINK set up. Mr Gibbens reiterated that the County Council had been unable to begin the tendering process for the host organisation until the DoH had notified the level of funding available – and this had not happened until December 2007. Other County Councils had found themselves in the same situation. Mr Gibbens agreed that the LINk must have as broad a base of involvement as possible. He had been disappointed that there had not been any representation from the gypsy and traveller community at the meeting in Lenham – although they had been invited. The County Council would do all it could to ensure broad involvement. The tender document for the host organisation stipulated that it was expected to ensure this happened