Trying to Make Kent's Health Better
Kent County Council's Selection and Member Services Committee was today considering a series of amendments to the future role, membership and ways of working of Kent's Health and Wellbeing Board (HWB).
Now reading through the paper and its proposals, it wasn't terrible. But it could have been better.
The proposals for the board could have improved cross-party representation for example. Ensured a good geographic spread of representation. Given health staff members a vote on the Board. Increased patient representation. Improved representation from carers and young people with SEND needs. Targeted money at those areas with the worst outcomes. Improved scrutiny and co-ordination with Adult Social Care, because there are huge coross-ocvers between health and social care, and huge benefits to both systems of getting them aligned well.
So I did what I was there for. To make proposals to improve things.
I submitted 8 separate amendments to that effect, and watched every single Reform member present vote them down in sequence.
Amendments I moved:
Amendment to 18.5 (g) to include working alongside ASCPHC, and also noting that the HWB can also in the relevant areas be subject to scrutiny by that committee would significantly de-silo. We could also strengthen by adding a formal right of call-in and pre-decision scrutiny over the Neighbourhood Health Plan before final approval.
Lost.
Amend 18.7b to add two non-executive County Councillors, allocated on a proportional basis to opposition groups.
Lost.
Amend 18.16 to Four elected Members representing the Kent District/Borough/City Councils (nominated through the Kent Council Leaders, with at least one from East, West and North Kent).
Lost.
Amend 18.18 to delete “non-voting”: Three standing frontline operational representatives drawn from adult social care, acute services, and emergency services (ambulance).
Lost.
Amend Section 18 to add “two co-opted, voting member positions representing the public”
Lost.
Amend Section 18 to establish two co-opted, voting member positions.
* A dedicated representative from a Kent Unpaid Carers Organisation.
* A dedicated representative for Children and Young People’s Mental Health / Neurodiversity Advocacy.
Lost.
Amend Section 18.5(e) and (f): A clear requirement that capital investment in neighbourhood health hubs and preventative primary care be heavily weighted toward high-deprivation coastal communities (such as Thanet, Folkestone & Hythe, Dover, and Swale) to eradicate local "healthcare and dental deserts".
Lost.
Amend Section 18.5(n): Make an Annual State of Kent’s Health Report and Debate a mandatory, standing item at Full County Council every autumn, debated in open public session.
Lost.
Amend to 18.5 (g) to include working alongside ASCPHC, and also noting the the HWB can also in the relevant areas be subject to scrutiny by that committee would significantly de-silo. We could also strengthen by adding a formal right of call-in and pre-decision scrutiny over the Neighbourhood Health Plan before final approval.
However, I didn't feel alone. My Lib Dem colleague Richard Streatfeild also submitted amendments to reinforce our commitment to the health of army veterans as part of KCC being a signatory to the Armed Forces Covenant:
“To monitor, review, and promote health and care outcomes for military veterans, serving personnel, and their families across Kent, ensuring full alignment with the Armed Forces Covenant and seamless integration with NHS mental health services.”
"To oversee joint strategies ensuring local health and social care systems maintain community resilience and continuity of care during major incidents and emergency disruptions."
"To add one co-opted non-voting representative (or standing invitation) from the Kent Armed Forces Covenant Partnership / Veterans Health Services."
They lost too.
The purpose of discussing terms of reference like this is to make them better. These weren't Reform proposals. They didn't write them. I imagine some of the members present had barely read them.
It wouldn't have been a victory for me to see some of those amendments added to the terms. They would have improved Kent's Health. They would have given a wider voice in Kent's health. They would have respected our veterans. It would have been a win for Kent. Reform could have made that happen. And yet they simply voted down the suggestions of others time and again.