Modern.gov Breadcrumb

  • Agenda item

Modern.gov Content

Agenda item

Public Forum

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

 

Any member of the public or Councillor may participate in Public Forum.  The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda.  Public Forum items should be emailed to democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:-

 

Questions - Written questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the meeting.  For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by 5 pm on 11th October 2016.

 

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the working day prior to the meeting.  For this meeting this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12.00 noon on 14th October 2016.

 

Minutes:

The following public forum items were received:

Questions

 

PQ01- Helen Thornton –Equalities Impact Assessment

PQ02- Steve Timmis – Weston Sustainability

PQ03 - Daphne Havercroft – Data Proposals

PQ04 - Mavis Zutshi - Capability & Capacity

PQ05- Mike Campbell – Regional Consultation

PQ06 -Emma Foote – Staffing Levels

PQ07 - Viran Patel – Health Service Consultation

PQ08 – Shaun Murphy (permitted by chair on the day)

 

Statements

 

PS01 -Kate Bower -Protect Our NHS

PS02 -Ben Glatt –BNSSG STP Public Stakeholder Group

PS03 -Barbara Harris –Local Healthcare Concerns

PS04 -Bristol City Councillors Gill Kirk, Ruth Pickersgill, Celia Phipps and Brenda Massey –Social Care Funding

PS05 -Pamela Trevithick –Mental Health

PS06 -Sid Ryan –Save the NHS

PS07 - Mike Campbell (Additional statement not included in the Public Forum pack)

 

Petition

 

PP01 -Charlotte Paterson –Protect Our NHS

 

Nancy Rollason, Bristol City Council Legal officer advised that petitions presented to a Committee must relate to the role and responsibilities of that Committee and information in the petition must be factually accurate.  The wording in the petition presented asked the Committee to ‘reject the STP’.  The three Local Authorities would not have the power to reject the STP so the wording presented in the petition would not be considered factually accurate.   A petition with the same wording had been submitted on the BCC e-petition web page but had not been accepted until the wording had been altered to be factually correct.

 

The Legal Officer advised that the Committee could accept the petition as presented but asked Members to note that the legal advice provided. 

 

For each question received one supplementary question would be permitted.  The following supplementary questions were received:

Reference and name  

Question

Response

PQ04

Mavis Zutsi

 

What will be the capacity and capability of social care within STP? Local authorities were responsible for delivery and should only sign it off when there is certainty and less risk that it can be delivered?

 

Information to be provided as part of the presentation

PQ05

Mike Campbell

What impact will the plan have on residents and patients, and will Cllrs oppose it until there has been a consultation across the region?

The Chair reassured that Councillors will be scrutinising going forward – the meeting in common was the first appraisal.

 

PQ08

Shaun Murphy

The aim of the STPs nationally is to redesign NHS services to annually cap the spending to £23 billion less than NHS needs to deliver pressurised services currently offered.

 

Will llrs reject this STP and call on the government to increase spending on the National Health Service?

 

The Chair re-affirmed that the purpose of the meeting in common was not to accept or reject the STP, as this is not within the remit of the respective local authority committees. The meeting had been arranged to receive the first iteration and to pave the way for further scrutiny and consultation. 

PS07

Mike Campbell

Queried how committees can properly scrutinise such a large document?  Asked for timelines on when will this be scrutinised properly and not merely noted. Do not accept the comments and asked where the financial details were for the plans.

 

The Chair acknowledged the repeated concerns over the density of the document but reassured the public that the councillors had read the documents.  Health partners had prepared presentations for the meeting.