Meeting documents

To consider a report by the Transformation Programme Lead for the Adult and Community Services Forward Together Programme (attached).

The Committee considered an update following its decision to set up a Task and Finish Group to assess the evidence in respect of a referral to the Secretary of State for Health in relation to the Clinical Service Review (CSR) proposals.

The report was introduced by the Monitoring Officer who advised that the Task and Finish Group had met on 1 May 2018 when it had been reported that the grounds of the Judicial Review (JR) brought against the Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group's (CCG's) decision overlapped with the terms of reference of the Task and Finish Group and could override any outcomes of the Group.

He explained that, if the Judge determined that the CCG's decision making was flawed, the Court would direct the CCG to correct any errors.  This would eliminate the need for a referral to the Secretary of State for Health as the CCG would be required to submit new proposals that would be scrutinised by the Committee.  If the Court decided that there was no case to answer and that there was no fault in the proposals, then a decision to refer the matter to the Secretary of State may also be rejected in light of the Court's decision. The Task and Finish Ground had accepted this position and, in order to avoid duplication of the work of the Court, agreed to defer its next meeting until the outcome of the JR was known.

Members questioned this rationale in light of the reason for investigation of a referral to the Secretary of State for Health being due to the view that the CSR proposals were not "in the interests of the health service in the area".  Members also noted that the JR only concerned whether the process had been carried out correctly rather than any faults in the CSR proposals being directly addressed. It was further suggested that the grounds for the hearing may have been more limited than the 7 grounds put forward by the appellant, and therefore any overlapping with the work of the Task and Finish Group should be looked at again.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Council had been supplied with the grounds for the JR by the CCG and that no further information was available.  He emphasised that rather than focus on the JR grounds, this was more about outcomes and the options available to the Judge. If the grounds for the JR were accepted then what came out of the process as a replacement proposal could be markedly different and there would be an opportunity for the Committee to scrutinise the new proposals and refer any concerns to the Secretary of State at that stage.  The hearing would take place over the course of 2 days in mid July and the Judge may give a judgement on the day or come back at a later date to provide a more considered judgement, depending on the Judge and the complexity of the case.

As Chairman of the Task and Finish Group, Councillor Ray Bryan explained that the Task and Finish Group had been adjourned until 1 August when the outcome of the JR would be known and that the Group had not stopped its work.

Councillor David Jones stated that the JR would not focus on whether the CSR was the right decision, but whether the correct process had been followed and that continuation of the work of the Task and Finish Group would allow more time to collect evidence from people.  He therefore proposed that the work of the Task and Finish Group continue pending the outcome of the JR and this was seconded by Councillor Paul Kimber.

Resolved

That the work of the Task and Finish Group continues pending the outcome of the Judicial Review.