Showing posts with label Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee. Show all posts

Friday, 6 March 2026

Half of councillor members of Scrutiny Committee absent for consideration of the Urgent Treatment Centre hours reduction.

 

   

After three attempts and a 570 signature petition, Brent Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny at last considered, albeit in a limited way because the proposal has been implemented, the reduction in hours at Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre. Hours were reduced by 3 hours daily from February 1st, 2026.

 

The London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust was represented by Pippa Nightingale. As on the other occasions, no papers were tabled from the Trust. Councillors and public were denied any evidence on which to base their questions.

 

Furthermore, attendance at the meeting was low, the place for Brent Healthwatch remained empty, and to cap it all the livestream was not working for the presentation by Amandine Alexandre and Ms Nightingale's initial response. The public were denied their right via the livestream or watching the recording, to see and hear democracy in action and hold it to account.

 

Fortunately, I had my mobile phone with me, and the wobbly recording above must suffice.

 

There may well be case for the reduction in hours, but our grievance was twofold: 1. The consultation was inadequate, rushed, reached too few people, the result not full reported and implemented without notice and 2. Scrutiny Committee had not done its job of fully examining the proposal and had to be forced by public pressure to put it on the Committee's Agenda. The latter appeared to have been done reluctantly by Committee Chair Cllr Ketan Sheth who before and after Ms Nightingale's appearance emphasised what a busy person she was, regretted the short notice she had been given (this has been going on for weeks) and seemed to be suggest we were all privileged to be in her presence and that by calling for accountability we were an inconvenience. 

 

Neither Chair, Cllr Ketan Sheth nor the Vice Chair of the Committee, Cllr Ihetsham Afzal, asked any questions of the Trust representative. Cllr Abdi Aden, Cllr Bhagwani Chohan, Cllr Arshad Mahmood, Cllr Tazi Smith, and Cllr Diane Collymore were all absent. 

 

So, no livestream and half of councillors absent - accountability?

 

Those councillors who did attend did their best and notably Co-optees Rachelle Goldberg (Jewish Faith Schools) and Archdeacon Catherine Pickford (Church of England Faith Schools) asked extremely pertinent questions that sometimes made Pippa Nightingale appear complacent and not in touch with the lived experience of local patients.

 

There were several areas where Ms Nightingale's account was at odds with the facts. She claimed the petition had not been received until after the reduction in hours was implemented. In fact it was tabled at Scrutiny Committee on January 19th LINK and was implemented on February 1st (but not announced until February 2nd).

 

She claimed that the 'Have Your Say' process undertaken by the Trust was an 'engagement’ exercise and not a not a formal consultation that befitted a minor local change rather than anything significant.

 

On the engagement/consultation Pippa Nightingale claimed the majority of patients said that the change in hours would make 'minimum impact'.   This is the Trust's own FoI response LINK.

 


  

So only if you add the ‘Unsures ‘to ‘No Impact’ and ‘Minor Impact’ can you make that claim. Faced with the fact that the engagement/consultation had only 42 responses, compared with the 570 petition signatories, Ms Nightingale said lots of people on Patient Panels had responded. Unfortunately, though my FoI asked for information’...to include reports, statistics and comments made by organisations or individuals (latter names redacted)' no reports from Patient Panels were included in the Trust's FOI response.

 

The in-person events only attracted 2 people.

 

Another 'insignificant change' came up at the end of the meeting - another change that was implemented despite local opposition from patients. This was the closure of the Hydrotherapy Pool at Northwick Park Hospital. Implemented last August, Pippa Nightingale said closure had been a success with patients treated by NHS staff at several council sports centres and some referrals to 'Stanmore' (National Orthopaedic Hospital). Surely another issue calling for evidence and a proper report to Scrutiny Committee rather than just verbal assurances? 

 

The post-election administration, whatever the political balance, must strengthen the scrutiny process so that it properly reflects the council's duty to stand up for local concerns. 


NOTE: Throughout Pippa Nightingale referred to the Urgent Care Centre, rather than the Urgent Treatment Centre. I understand that Urgent Care Centre is old terminology and referred to a less comprehensive offer than what are now called Urgent Treatment Centres. I am left not sure what the provision is at Central Middlesex Hospital.

 

Published and promoted by James Paton on behalf of Brent Green Party, c/o 23 Saltcroft Close, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 9JJ.

Friday, 8 October 2021

Full Scrutiny recommendations to Brent Council Cabinet after Granville New Homes costly debacle

The full recommendations to the Cabinet from Brent Scrutiny Committee after their meeting last night have now been published as a Supplementary report on the agenda of Monday's 10am Cabinet meeting. LINK

Supplementary Paper – Cabinet: 11 October 2021

Agenda Item 9 (Proposals for ownership & refurbishment of Granville New Homes Blocks)

Scrutiny of implications for BHM (Brent Housing Management) and HRA (Housing Revenue Account) of proposals for ownership and refurbishment of Granville New Homes blocks undertaken by Community & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee on Thursday 7 October 21

Scrutiny Committee recommendations to Cabinet:


· That the officers give assurance that the council has undertaken due diligence reviews of its subsidiary bodies, including governance, fitness for purpose, financial soundness and reputational risk. 


· That the officers ensure the Ridge report is made available to the scrutiny committee and audit committee. 


· That the officers review arrangements for entering into contracts of this kind, in particular to ensure adequate arrangements are made to ensure appropriate design/build quality – and that the council has appropriate recourse where latent defects are later identified. 


· That the officers ensure all potential contractors are made aware of the standards expected by the council – and to ensure these are met before buildings are formally accepted by the council. 


· That the council provide written assurance that it has taken or will take independent legal and financial advice (including tax) regarding the proposals and next steps. 


· That all contracts procured by the council and its subsidiaries include a review of past delivery of any potential contractors. 


· That the council ensures where issues are evident in a particular project, all remaining projects by the same contractor are reviewed as a matter of urgency. 


· That the officers review the steps that make-up the procurement, commissioning and contract monitoring system to identify any gaps especially in relation to risk and review aspects. Where these are identified that immediate action is taken. 


· That the council put in place arrangements to ensure learning about this case – and any others raising issues of similar significance – is shared across the council as well as with existing and potential future partners/contractors. 


· That the officers establish and publish a comprehensive plan for ongoing engagement with residents.