Voluntary groups could lose their voice in the council chamber when a committee that looks at health policy becomes part of a new committee with a wider remit, according to a councillor.
The change is part of the Labour administration’s “governance” reforms as a cabinet takes over decision-making from a series of policy committees next month.
The new arrangements include a People Scrutiny Committee and a Place Scrutiny Committee with a remit to review the cabinet’s decisions.
The People Scrutiny Committee will subsume the current Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee which includes a number of co-opted members.
The co-opted members represent various statutory and voluntary groups such as Healthwatch, the Youth Council, the Older People’s Council and the broader community and voluntary sector.
Green councillor Raphael Hill has submitted a letter to the final meeting of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) next Wednesday (10 April).
In the letter, Councillor Hill asked members to consider the implications of folding it into the proposed People Scrutiny Committee.
Councillor Hill said that part of the HOSC’s purpose was “encouraging the council as a whole to take into account the implications of their policies and activities on health and health inequalities”.
The letter said: “The People Scrutiny Committee will be responsible for scrutinising all of the decisions that are made by the cabinet which affect people, as opposed to the Place Scrutiny Committee which does the same except for where decisions affect places.
“Both committees have large remits and so the People Scrutiny Committee will have less time to scrutinise decisions which affect health provision in our city.
“It is also unclear whether non-voting co-optees will have the same rights to sit on the People Scrutiny Committee when it is carrying out its legally required Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee functions.”
Councillor Hill wants HOSC members to consider the matter at what is expected to be their last meeting before the new arrangements begin in May, citing Labour’s recent call for a report to explore how Brighton and Hove could become a “Marmot place” by addressing social barriers to health equity and named after public health expert Michael Marmot.
Councillor Hill said: “The amalgamation of HOSC into the People Scrutiny Committee goes against the laudable ‘Marmot city’ principles that Labour claims to support.
“Reducing health inequalities requires effective health scrutiny, with the support of groups like Healthwatch who currently sit as non-voting co-optees.
“Unlike other committees, we are not focused on the council’s service provision but on all changes affecting the health of the entire city.
“I wanted to bring this letter to committee partly because some Labour councillors do not seem to have even realised this change will be happening.
“Nobody in Labour has yet been willing to justify getting rid of HOSC, especially given that many upper-tier authorities operating under cabinet systems still have it as a separate entity.
“The People Scrutiny Committee will have a huge remit and the HOSC functions appear like they have just been tacked on for legal reasons.”
At the meeting of the full council on Thursday 28 March, Labour won unanimous backing for a motion to advance health equity in Brighton and Hove.
The motion included a request for a report to the council’s Health and Wellbeing Board exploring the policies that led to Coventry being designated a “Marmot city” and Cheshire and Merseyside a “Marmot region”.
The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 4pm on Wednesday (10 April). The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
What is the point of this committee anyway? It only has 2 items on the entire agenda. Its beyond a joke. So much happening with CAMHS, Autism, ADHD, waiting list…
To most people this committee gives the impression of existing solely to use valuable council time championing the rights of a very, very small proportion of residents. It seems rather indulgent on the part of the councillor in question.
Greedy boomers trying to clasp on to power decades after they should have left the scene.
Eh, we’ll see with this one. I’m not convinced. There is always overlap when it comes to health, so it makes sense to put aspects of it together.
Take homelessness for example, being street homeless for a week pretty much guarantees you to have a mental health condition by the end of it, so there needs to be a housing + health synergetic approach.