DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Agenda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Agenda Connect Healthcare Rotherham Ltd (awaiting logo) Rotherham Integrated Care Partnership Public Agenda Title of Meeting: Rotherham Integrated Care Partnership Place Board Time of Meeting: 9am – 10am Date of Meeting: Wednesday 1st August 2018 Venue: Elm Room (G.04) Oak House Chair: Chris Edwards Contact for Meeting: Lydia George:[email protected] Tel: 01709 302116 Apologies: S Kemp Conflicts of Interest: Quoracy: One member from each of RCCG and RMBC, one provider representative. Item Enclosure Public & Patient Questions: The Chair will listen to the points made and will 1 attempt to respond at the time. However, there may be occasions when a Verbal response has to be issued in writing after the meeting. Should this occur the response will be published as an item for information at the next meeting. Business Items 2 Integrated Care Partnership Agreement Enc 2 Transformation Groups Updates Mental Health and Learning Disability: Transforming Care, Enc 3 3 Learning Disability Strategy & Autism Presentations Children & Young People: Transitions Urgent & Community Care: Integrated Rapid Response 4 Update on the Hospital Services Review Process Verbal 5 Update on Provider Alliance Verbal House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee Report – 6 Review of Integrated Care – for information Enc 6 Standard Items 7 Draft Minutes from Public ICP Place Board – 4th July 2018 Enc 7 8 Communication to Partners – All Verbal 9 Risks/items for escalation – All Verbal Future Agenda Items Communications & Engagement Strategy 10 Standard Agenda Items Delivery Dashboard/Performance Framework (quarterly) Transformation Groups Update Enc 10 Date of Next Meeting: 11 Wednesday 5th September 2018, 9am – 10am in Elm Rm, Oak House 2018 Dates Date Venue Time Wednesday 7 February Willow Room (2.03) Top Floor, Oak House 8-10am Wednesday 7 March Willow Room (2.03) Top Floor, Oak House 8-10am Wednesday 4 April Elm Room (G.04) Ground Floor, Oak House 8-10am Wednesday 2 May Elm Room (G.04) Ground Floor, Oak House 8-10am Wednesday 6 June Elm Room (G.04) Ground Floor, Oak House 9-10am Wednesday 4 July New York Stadium, New York Way, Rotherham S60 1AH 9-10am Wednesday 1 August Elm Room (G.04) Ground Floor, Oak House 9-10am Wednesday 5 September Elm Room (G.04) Ground Floor, Oak House 9-10am Wednesday 3 October Elm Room (G.04) Ground Floor, Oak House 9-10am Wednesday 7 November Birch Room (G.05) Ground Floor, Oak House 9-10am Wednesday 12 December Birch Room (G.05) Ground Floor, Oak House 9-10am *Confidential Place Board runs from 8am-9am for Members Only Enc 2 Rotherham Integrated Care Partnership Rotherham IH&SC Place Board – 01 08 2018 Rotherham Integrated Care Partnership Agreement Lead Executive Chris Edwards /Sharon Kemp Lead Officer Lydia George Purpose The ICP Place Board are asked to approve the final draft of the Rotherham Integrated Care Partnership (ICP) Agreement. Background Partners are fully committed to working together to make decisions on a best for Rotherham basis to achieve the transformations set out in the ICP Place Plan. This is underpinned by robust governance arrangements developed over the last 12-18 months through a series of multi- agency development sessions. The sessions have been attended by executive officers, non- executives and lay members from all ‘place’ partner organisations. A key action from the development sessions has been for Partners to support the development of a ‘Rotherham Agreement’ to strengthen the governance arrangements and capture the culture of how we work together. The Agreement, based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) approach aims to provide an overarching arrangement to oversee the development of integrated multi-agency solutions for health, care and support across Rotherham. The Agreement is not intended to be legally binding except for specific elements such as confidentiality or intellectual property. However, if areas such as payment mechanisms and risk sharing/outcomes performance are developed over time, ICP Partners will need to consider moving to a legally binding agreement in the future. The ICP Place Board received a first draft of the Agreement at their meeting in May and then again in July. The Agreement has been shared through partner organisations governance meetings for comment. The comments have been incorporated into this final version. Patient, Public and Stakeholder Involvement All ‘place’ partners have been involved in the development of the Agreement. Approval history • 2nd May 2018 - ICP Place Board (confidential) – received first draft • May / June – All Place Partners Governance structures (confidential) • 4th July – ICP Place Board (confidential) - received further version for final comments • 1 August – ICP Place Board (public) – final version incorporating partner comments Recommendations The ICP Place Board are asked to: • approve the final ICP Agreement • consider how the Agreement is communicated across partner organisations. THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ROTHERHAM INTEGRATED CARE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT DATE 2018 1. NHS ROTHERHAM CLINICAL COMMISSIONING GROUP 2. CONNECT HEALTHCARE ROTHERHAM CIC 3. ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL 4. ROTHERHAM DONCASTER AND SOUTH HUMBER NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 4. THE ROTHERHAM NHS FOUNDATION TRUST 5. VOLUNTARY ACTION ROTHERHAM LIMITED OVERARCHING INTEGRATED CARE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFORMATION AND BETTER INTEGRATION OF HEALTH, CARE, SUPPORT AND COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR THE POPULATION OF ROTHERHAM No Date Version Number Author 2-2 060118 0.14 RM 2-3 120318 2 EV 2-4 130418 3 EV 2-5 140718 4 EV 2-6 240718 5 EV 153469097_3 ROTHERHAM INTEGRATED CARE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT Contents 1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION ........................................................................6 2. STATUS AND PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT ....................................................... 6 3. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN ON OR POST THE COMMENCEMENT DATE .................... 7 4. DURATION ....................................................................................................................7 SECTION A: PLACE PLAN OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES ................................................ 7 5. THE PLACE PLAN OBJECTIVES .................................................................................7 6. THE ICP PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................7 7. PROBLEM RESOLUTION AND ESCALATION ............................................................8 SECTION B: OPERATION OF AND ROLES IN THE ICP .........................................................9 8. RESERVED MATTERS ................................................................................................. 9 9. TRANSPARENCY .........................................................................................................9 10. OBLIGATIONS AND ROLES OF THE PARTIES ........................................................ 10 SECTION C: GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS .................................................................. 12 11. INTEGRATED CARE PARTNERSHIP GOVERNANCE .............................................. 12 12. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ........................................................................................13 SECTION D: FINANCIAL PLANNING .................................................................................... 14 13. PAYMENTS .................................................................................................................14 14. EXCLUSION AND TERMINATION .............................................................................. 14 15. INTRODUCING NEW PROVIDERS ............................................................................. 14 16. LIABILITY ....................................................................................................................15 17. VARIATION .................................................................................................................15 18. CONFIDENTIALITY AND FOIA ................................................................................... 15 19. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY...................................................................................... 16 20. GENERAL ...................................................................................................................16 SCHEDULE 1 ..........................................................................................................................18 Definitions and Interpretation................................................................................................. 18 SCHEDULE 2 ..........................................................................................................................21 Governance .............................................................................................................................21 SCHEDULE 3 ..........................................................................................................................29 Dispute Resolution Procedure ...................................................................................................29 153469097_3 ROTHERHAM INTEGRATED CARE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT Overarching Note – Rotherham Integrated Care Partnership Agreement for the transformation and better integration of Health, Care, Support and Community Services This Agreement is based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) approach to provide an overarching arrangement which governs the development of integrated multi-party
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NHS Reorganisation After the Pandemic
    EDITORIALS BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.m4468 on 18 November 2020. Downloaded from Health Foundation, London, UK [email protected] NHS reorganisation after the pandemic Cite this as: BMJ 2020;371:m4468 Major structural change should not be part of the plan for recovery http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4468 Published: 18 November 2020 Hugh Alderwick head of policy Before covid-19 hit, national NHS bodies had asked the day-to-day workings of the NHS—something the 1 the government to make changes to NHS legislation. 2012 act sought to loosen. These changes were designed to make it easier for NHS England has become the de facto headquarters NHS organisations in England to collaborate to plan for NHS strategy under Simon Stevens, its chief and deliver services—including through establishing executive. The previous health secretary, Jeremy joint committees between commissioners and 2 Hunt, has said he never felt he “lacked a power to providers. Since then, government and the NHS have 9 give direction” to the NHS under the 2012 act. But been focused on managing covid-19. Proposals for perhaps the incumbent feels less powerful. Reform new legislation were temporarily shelved. to bring NHS England under closer political control But not for long: legislation for the NHS in England may also help build a narrative, ahead of any covid-19 seems to be back on the agenda. Media stories public inquiry, that arm’s length bodies—not emerged in the summer that the prime minister was government—are to blame for England’s pandemic considering proposals for a major NHS performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Title: Assessing Proposals for a New NHS Structure in England After the Pandemic
    1 Title: Assessing proposals for a new NHS structure in England after the pandemic 2 Authors: 3 Hugh Alderwick, head of policy1 4 Phoebe Dunn, research fellow1 5 Tim Gardner, senior fellow1 6 Nicholas Mays, professor of health policy2 7 Jennifer Dixon, chief executive1 8 1 Health Foundation, London, UK 9 2 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK 10 Correspondence to: 11 Hugh Alderwick; Health Foundation, 8 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8AP; 12 [email protected]; 020 7664 2083 13 Word count: 2153 14 References: 52 15 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 Key messages: 17 - NHS leaders in England are calling for changes to health care system structures and legislation 18 - The changes are designed to support collaboration between organizations and services—and 19 could mean some NHS agencies being abolished and new area-based authorities created 20 - Encouraging collaboration to improve population health makes sense, but the potential benefits of 21 the new system proposed may be overstated and the risks of reorganization underplayed 22 - NHS leaders and government have a long list of policy priorities as the country recovers from the 23 pandemic. A major structural reorganization of the health care system should not be one of them 24 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 Contributors and sources: All authors are researchers in health policy and public health in the UK 26 and have experience analysing health care system reforms in England and elsewhere. All authors 27 contributed to the intellectual content. HA and PD wrote the first draft of the article. PD, JD, TG and 28 NM commented and made revisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Will a New NHS Structure in England Help
    ANALYSIS BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.n248 on 3 February 2021. Downloaded from 1 Health Foundation, London, UK Will a new NHS structure in England help recovery from the pandemic? 2 London School of Hygiene and The health policy challenges facing the NHS and government are enormous, but Hugh Alderwick Tropical Medicine, London, UK and colleagues argue that a major reorganisation is not the solution Correspondence to: H Alderwick [email protected] Hugh Alderwick, 1 Phoebe Dunn, 1 Tim Gardner, 1 Nicholas Mays, 2 Jennifer Dixon1 Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n248 The NHS has just faced the most difficult year in its Proposals included removing requirements to Published: 03 February 2021 history. The arrival of covid-19 vaccines provides competitively tender some NHS services, and hope that the UK may bring the pandemic under establishing local partnership committees with control in 2021, but the NHS will feel the effects of powers to make decisions on local priorities and covid-19 for many years. Serious short term spending. The proposals were designed to avoid a challenges also remain: hospitals are under extreme major reorganisation but risked replacing one set of strain,1 the backlog of unmet healthcare needs is workarounds with another.9 The plans were shelved substantial,2 and the NHS faces the mammoth task when covid-19 hit, but now legislation is back on the of vaccinating the population against covid-19.3 agenda10 and NHS England has published expanded proposals for changes to the NHS after the pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • Choice and Competition
    Choice and Competition Delivering Real Choice A report from the NHS Future Forum Members • Sir Stephen Bubb – Chair, Choice and Competition Chief Executive, Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations • Lord Victor Adebowale Chief Executive, Turning Point • Paul Farmer Chief Executive, Mind • Peter Hay Strategic Director, Adults and Communities, Birmingham City Council; and Vice President, Association of Directors of Adult Social Services • Thomas Hughes‐Hallett Chief Executive, Marie Curie Cancer Care • Joanna Killian Chief Executive, Essex County Council • Bill McCarthy Chief Executive, Yorkshire and Humber Strategic Health Authority Anthony McKeever Chief Executive, Bexley Care Trust • Mr Dermot O’Riordan Medical Director and Consultant Surgeon, West Suffolk Hospital NHS Trust • Dr Niti Pall Practising GP, Smethwick; Chair and Clinical Lead, West Midlands Third Wave pathfinder consortia • Professor Jimmy Steele Head of School and Professor of Oral Health Services Research, Newcastle University • Professor Terence Stephenson President, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health 2 Delivering Real Choice Introduction to the report by the Chair At its inception in July 1948 the first activity the NHS offered the people of England was an injunction to “First choose your GP”. So the NHS began with the offer of choice. In the intervening 63 years, technology and science have delivered healthcare that is extraordinarily sophisticated. Life expectancy is around 20 years longer than it was in 1948, and many people live successfully for decades with chronic and long‐term conditions that would have quickly been fatal in the early years of the NHS. Our health has improved and our expectations have evolved in ways that would have been inconceivable then.
    [Show full text]
  • The NHS Internal Market
    The NHS Internal Market Edited by Eleanor MacKillop, Sally Sheard, Philip Begley and Michael Lambert Department of Public Health and Policy University of Liverpool Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool. All rights reserved. This material is made available for personal research and study only. We give permission for this file to be downloaded for such personal use. For reproduction and further distribution of all or part of this file, permission must be sought with the copyright holder. Published by: Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool, 2018. ISBN: 978-1-9999209-1-3 2 The NHS Internal Market The Transcript of a Witness Seminar held at the University of Liverpool in London, UK, on 5 December 2017 Acknowledgements: The convenors would like to thank the witnesses for their involvement, the audience, and the staff at the University of Liverpool in London. They would also like to thank Ubiqus for transcribing the event. Photographs: Department of Public Health and Policy, University of Liverpool. 3 Contents Instructions for citation ................................................................................................................... 5 Contributors .................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Areas for discussion .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Solving the NHS Care and Cash Crisis: Routes to Health and Care Renewal
    Solving the NHS care and cash crisis: Routes to health and care renewal Norman Warner Jack O’Sullivan March 2014 Solving the NHS care and cash crisis: Routes to health and care renewal Norman Warner and Jack O’Sullivan March 2014 Reform Reform is an independent, non-party think tank whose mission is to set out a better way to deliver public services and economic prosperity. Reform is a registered charity, the Reform Research Trust, charity no. 1103739. This publication is the property of the Reform Research Trust. We believe that by reforming the public sector, increasing investment and extending choice, high quality services can be made available for everyone. Our vision is of a Britain with 21st Century healthcare, high standards in schools, a modern and efficient transport system, safe streets, and a free, dynamic and competitive economy. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and not those of Reform, its Advisory Board (except for Norman Warner), Trustees or staff. If you would like more information regarding Reform’s independence please do not hesitate to get in touch at [email protected] Authors Norman Warner is a Labour member of the House of Lords. He was a Minister of State in the Blair government from 2003 to 2007, responsible for NHS reform, among other areas. He was a member of the independent Dilnot Commission on the Funding of Care and Support that reported in 2011 to the Coalition government with reform proposals now incorporated in the 2013-14 Care Bill. As Kent’s Director of Social Services from 1985 to 1991, he was heavily involved in reform of community care.
    [Show full text]
  • Will a New NHS Structure in England Help Recovery from the Pandemic?
    ANALYSIS BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.n248 on 3 February 2021. Downloaded from 1 Health Foundation, London, UK Will a new NHS structure in England help recovery from the pandemic? 2 London School of Hygiene and The health policy challenges facing the NHS and government are enormous, but Hugh Alderwick Tropical Medicine, London, UK and colleagues argue that a major reorganisation is not the solution Correspondence to: H Alderwick [email protected] Hugh Alderwick, 1 Phoebe Dunn, 1 Tim Gardner, 1 Nicholas Mays, 2 Jennifer Dixon1 Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n248 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n248 The NHS has just faced the most difficult year in its Proposals included removing requirements to Published: 03 February 2021 history. The arrival of covid-19 vaccines provides competitively tender some NHS services, and hope that the UK may bring the pandemic under establishing local partnership committees with control in 2021, but the NHS will feel the effects of powers to make decisions on local priorities and covid-19 for many years. Serious short term spending. The proposals were designed to avoid a challenges also remain: hospitals are under extreme major reorganisation but risked replacing one set of strain,1 the backlog of unmet healthcare needs is workarounds with another.9 The plans were shelved substantial,2 and the NHS faces the mammoth task when covid-19 hit, but now legislation is back on the of vaccinating the population against covid-19.3 agenda10 and NHS England has published expanded proposals for changes to the NHS after the pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • Did Hospital Competition in the English NHS Save Lives
    Working paper No: 16/2010 January 2010 LSE Health For further information on this or any of the Zack Cooper, Stephen Gibbons, Simon Jones Health publications contact: and Alistair McGuire Champa Heidbrink Managing Editor Does Hospital Competition Save Lives? Evidence LSE Health From The English NHS Patient Choice Reforms The London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE Tel: + 44 (0)20 7955 6840 Fax: + 44 (0)20 7955 6090 Email: [email protected] Website: www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEHealth/ Does Hospital Competition Save Lives? Evidence From The English NHS Patient Choice Reforms Zack Cooper, Stephen Gibbons, Simon Jones and Alistair McGuire Working Paper No. 16/2010 First published in January 2010 by: LSE Health, The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieve system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library ISBN [978-0-85328-009-5] Corresponding author(s) Zack Cooper LSE Health and the Department of Social Policy, LSE [email protected] Stephen Gibbons Department of Geography and Environment, LSE [email protected] Simon Jones LSE Health, LSE [email protected] Alistair McGuire LSE Health and the Department of Social Policy, LSE [email protected] We would like to thank Hugh Gravelle, Julian Le Grand, Sarah Thomson, and Joan Costa-Font for their feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Redefining the UK's Health Services
    Redefining the UK’s Health Services Monday, 30th November – Tuesday, 1st December 2015 REPORT The state of man does change and vary, Now sound, now sick, now blyth, now sary, Now dansand mirry, now like to die:- Timor mortis conturbat me.1 Introduction In intensive care, neonatal care, oncology, and other areas of the NHS, professionals are having similar grim conversations: the system is not delivering best value for good population health outcomes, at the same time that funding, amid contrary reports, is dwindling in relation to need. It is not so much about waste and efficiency, though these are continually important, as about intelligently allocating limited resources for best health outcomes across the nation. ‘Health’ is not ‘survival’. Up to half of babies born extremely preterm will die after prolonged intensive care. A significant proportion of the remainder live their lives with severe mental and physical impairment – at great emotional cost to families, and fiscal and other costs to society. Paediatric intensive care is generating an increasing population of technology-dependent children with no prospect of independent living or quality of life. Many late-stage cancer patients suffer extraordinary torment – the right word – for a few more weeks precariously alive. The frail elderly, often with multiple disease states, are routinely sent to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) – the majority of those admitted as an emergency remaining physically incapacitated, and the minority returning to independent life at home. Such care can itself involve physical and mental suffering, as well as great cost. Much of this disease burden is entirely preventable, yet preventive and public health measures which would make a real difference to quality of life are not seen as a priority for investment.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Impact of Private Finance Initiatives on Hospital Capacity in the English NHS?”, SOAS Department of Economics Student Working Paper No
    What is the impact of private finance initiatives on hospital capacity in the English NHS? Dina Toubasi Student Working paper No. 1 February 2021 The SOAS Department of Economics Student Working Paper Series is published electronically by SOAS University of London. Suggested citation Toubasi, Dina (2021), “What is the impact of private finance initiatives on hospital capacity in the English NHS?”, SOAS Department of Economics Student Working Paper No. 1, London: SOAS University of London. Department of Economics SOAS University of London Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG, UK Phone: + 44 (0)20 7898 4730 Fax: 020 7898 4759 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.soas.ac.uk/economics/ © Copyright is held by the author(s) of each working paper. What is the impact of private finance initiatives on hospital capacity in the English NHS? Dina Toubasi* Abstract This research examines the effects of privatisation, especially in the form of private finance initiatives (PFI) on the capacity of NHS hospitals in England since the 1980s. The findings presented in this paper indicate that privatisation, especially through PFI, has imposed higher costs on the NHS, which were usually met through a transfer of resources from patient and clinical care to meeting financial obligations. The result has been a reduction in bed numbers across NHS hospitals, which has significantly undermined the ability of the service from meeting the health care needs of the population. Keywords: NHS; private finance initiatives (PFI); privatisation; financialisation; hospital capacity; COVID-19 JEL classification: H51; I18; L33; L38. Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Elisa van Waeyenberge, for her valuable support, guidance, and insight throughout the process of writing this dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Government and NHS Reform Since the 1980S: the Role of the Market Vis À Vis the State, and of Political Ideas About the ‘Direction of Travel’
    Working Paper Series April 2020 Government and NHS reform since the 1980s: the role of the market vis à vis the state, and of political ideas about the ‘direction of travel’ Working Paper 05-20 Jane Lewis Social Policy Working Paper 05-20 LSE Department of Social Policy The Department of Social Policy is an internationally recognised centre of research and teaching in social and public policy. From its foundation in 1912 it has carried out cutting edge research on core social problems, and helped to develop policy solutions. The Department today is distinguished by its multidisciplinarity, its international and comparative approach, and its particular strengths in behavioural public policy, criminology, development, economic and social inequality, education, migration, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and population change and the lifecourse. The Department of Social Policy multidisciplinary working paper series publishes high quality research papers across the broad field of social policy. Department of Social Policy London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE Email: [email protected] Telephone: +44 (0)20 7955 6001 lse.ac.uk/social-policy Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. To cite this paper: Lewis, J. Government and NHS reform since the 1980s: the role of the market vis à vis the state, and of political ideas about the ‘direction of travel’, Social Policy Working Paper 05-20, London: LSE Department of Social Policy. Jane Lewis Abstract This working paper takes the ‘long view’ of NHS reform.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Care: Organisations, Partnerships and Systems
    House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee Integrated care: organisations, partnerships and systems Seventh Report of Session 2017–19 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 23 May 2018 HC 650 Published on 11 June 2018 by authority of the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee The Health and Social Care Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department of Health & Social Care. Current membership Dr Sarah Wollaston MP (Conservative, Totnes) (Chair) Luciana Berger MP (Labour (Co-op), Liverpool, Wavertree) Mr Ben Bradshaw MP (Labour, Exeter) Dr Lisa Cameron MP (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) Rosie Cooper MP (Labour, West Lancashire) Diana Johnson MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North) Johnny Mercer MP (Conservative, Plymouth, Moor View) Andrew Selous MP (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire) Derek Thomas MP (Conservative, St Ives) Martin Vickers MP (Conservative, Cleethorpes) Dr Paul Williams MP (Labour, Stockton South) The following Members were members of the Committee during the Session: Dr Caroline Johnson MP (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham) Maggie Throup MP (Conservative, Erewash) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/hsccom and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
    [Show full text]