Agenda item

To hear evidence from:

Maria Kane (Acting Chief Executive), Andrew Wright (Head of Business Development) & Katia Louka (Membership and Marketing Manager)

Maria Kane (Acting Chief Executive), Andrew Wright (Head of Business Development) and Katia Louka (Membership & Marketing Manager) gave a short presentation (attached) and responded to questions from the Panel.  A summary of the points within this discussion is provided below:

Consultation process

The Panel were keen to hear how the MHT would engage the diverse communities that live across the three boroughs. 

·        The MHT reported that the consultation document would be distributed in two formats; the full consultation document and a summarised version.  In total, 30,000 copies would be distributed.  A newsprint version of the consultation document has been produced and will be circulated too all homes across the locality.  Copies have also been distributed to all local libraries and general practices.

·        The Panel suggested that there was a danger of the public becoming consultation weary and inundated with requests to become Members of different local Foundation Trusts.  The MHT indicated that the public could indeed become members of any number of Foundation Trusts.  The MHT was working with the NMUH and the Whittington to develop a joint membership arrangement with these trusts.

Agreed: That Haringey local Area Assemblies be included within BEH MHT consultation programme for Foundation Trust status.

Governance arrangements

The Panel thanked the MHT for the clarity of new governance proposals within the consultation document. The Panel were concerned as to how the community would be represented at the executive level within the Foundation Trust.

·        The MHT proposals for the Members Council include a larger number of Governors than for other Foundation Trusts, this being to reflect the number of boroughs which the trust covers.

·        The MHT indicated that it has a long tradition of user and carer involvement in all aspects of service planning and delivery.  It was expected that this tradition would be expanded under new governance arrangements for the trust.  The MHT also noted that it had a good relationship with its Patient & Public Involvement Forum. 

·        The Panel were concerned at the MHT proposals to change the name of the trust to North London NHS Foundation Trust.  The MHT reported that it proposed to omit reference to mental health in its name to minimise service associated stigma.  The MHT also felt that ‘North London’ was more appropriate to signify the area in which its clients were resident.  The MHT indicated that this particular issue was one of the key consultation questions and agreed to provide specific feedback from the consultation to Overview & Scrutiny.

·        Members questioned the MHT on why there was just one public constituency within proposals for the Membership.  The MHT indicated that a distinct patient constituency for a mental health trust may deter people from applying, thus preferred the general option of one public constituency which would not be stigmatising.  The Panel suggested that it might be more appropriate to retain both public and patient constituencies to give people a choice.  The Panel indicated that it would like to receive feedback on this specific aspect of the consultation.

·        Representatives from the PPI Forum suggested that there should be greater representation of voluntary sector groups on the Members Council that was currently planned for (3 Governors). 

Agreed: The MHT to provide specific feedback to Overview & Scrutiny in relation to (1) proposals for name change for the trust (2) proposals to have one public constituency (and no patient constituency) within the Membership.

Partnerships & Finance

·        The Panel were keen to hear from the MHT how it is preparing for the new contractual relationship that will exist between commissioners (PCTs) and themselves, these now being legally binding and of three year duration. 

·        The MHT indicated that it was broadly in favour of three year contracts as this allowed adequate time for the service development cycle to occur (start up, evaluate and respond).  In the future, the MHT would have to carefully consider whether short-term service commissions would be viable.

·        The MHT were of the opinion that the contractual balance between itself and the commissioning bodies was currently not balanced, where there were greater risks on the side of the MHT.  It was hoped that the new contractual relationship that would exist once the MHT became a FT, would balance out these risks. 

St Ann’s Hospital (SAH) Site

The Panel had a number of questions about the future of the SAH site and how Foundation Trust status would influence these plans.

·        The MHT reported that development of the SAH site remained an important priority as this was central to their service development priorities.  The redevelopment of the site was also necessary to tackle the large backlog of maintenance work that was required on site.

·        The MHT reported that the outline for the development of the SAH site has been with the Strategic Health Authority for some time and had been approved.  The next stage of the development process has been to develop a final business case for the site development.  The MHT reported that a joint appointment of Project Director had been approved (with the TPCPT) to oversee site development. 

·        The final business case had yet to be agreed however and there were a number of discussions taking place between interested stakeholders.  The MHT are in discussions with the TPCT in respect of the development of a possible polyclinic on site (in accordance with their Primary Care Strategy).  The MHT also noted that the review of NHS Estates is currently being undertaken by NHS London in which the SAH site is included.  In light of these discussions, the MHT reported that it was not in a position to confirm as yet, future plans for the site.

Patient issues

·        A member of the PPI Forum was in attendance.  It was recorded that the MHT was in the process of responding to a number of questions from the forum.

Agreed: The MHT to provide the Panel with a copy of its responses to the PPI Forum questions (attached).

Agreed: That BEH MHT is invited to attend Overview and Scrutiny Committee to feedback on the consultation process (booked 25/2/2008).