Agenda item - Chair's Communications

10.1 The Chair gave the following communications:

This is a special meeting to look at issues relating to the procurement of a new GP contract for Whitehawk. As members will be aware, there has been lots of concern voiced about the way in which this tender has been conducted from people living in East Brighton, local Councillors, community groups and the MP for Brighton Kemptown. I have also been contacted by members of the HOSC requesting scrutiny of this issue.

Reflecting this interest, we have some public questions today. These are very welcome, and I hope that we’ll be able to get answers to at least some of the questions posed later in today’s meeting. If that’s not possible, I will ensure that we continue to explore these issues until all these questions are answered. I’ve also had representations from Councillors who don’t sit on this committee but who do represent Whitehawk and adjoining areas who are keen to take part in today’s meeting. I’ve invited these members to join today’s teams call – they are welcome to ask questions as guests of the committee.

It's clear that there have been problems with this procurement. This is evident from the advisory report of the Independent Patient Choice & Procurement Panel, which is included in the papers for this meeting. I’m keen to learn what went wrong and what can be improved, not just in terms of the formal tender process, but also in terms of community and stakeholder engagement before the tender started.

It’s important to note that the ICB has commissioned an external review of the procurement process, which is due to report this autumn. This external review is welcome, not least because it may consider matters not considered in the Patient Choice & Procurement Panel report. This is because Panels are only able to respond to specific issues raised by bidders and can only focus on potential breaches of NHS procurement rules. To be clear about the decision to consider this item today: we could have delayed scrutiny until this report is published. However, there is so much community concern about this issue that I thought it was essential to meet as soon as possible. The committee can always revisit this matter when the external review has been published.

In consequence, I have asked NHS Sussex Integrated Care Board who are responsible for commissioning local GP services to attend this special meeting, and I’m grateful that we have the ICB’s Chief Executive, Adam Doyle, and Chief Integration and Primary Care Officer, Amy Galea, here today as well as Lola Banjoko, the ICB Deputy Chief Integration and Primary Care Officer. Adam has unavoidable commitments later today and will have to leave the meeting if it runs past 3:30, but Amy and Lola Banjoko will be able to stay on if required.

There are a couple of potential constraints on our discussion today. Firstly, we need to be mindful that the ICB has commissioned an external review of the procurement and that that review is still underway. The ICB representatives will not be able to make any statements or comments in public which they consider could potentially influence or prejudge the review’s findings. Secondly, there are significant elements of any tender process that must be treated as confidential because they include commercially sensitive information, including about the providers who have submitted bids. This is a real concern, which is also relevant to the outcome of this much-needed procurement.

We do have the facility to go into confidential session today and – given the nature of the subject matter – I will keep under review whether it is necessary to do so. However, because this is an issue of such community concern, I do want to discuss as much as we can in public. This may mean that we have to keep discussion fairly high level and won’t be able to dive into details as much as we’d like to. We don’t want to come in and out of confidential session, so I will take as much as I can in public before going into Part 2 session if we need to.

I think it may be helpful to set out the areas that I think we should be able to cover, at least in part, in public session today.

Firstly, the committee will want to enquire as to why the decision was made to go to competitive tender for this contract. Even when everything runs smoothly, competitive tender is an expensive and potentially disruptive process, and we will have questions about the rationale for, and the costs involved in this decision.

Secondly, we will want to hear what engagement prior to the formal tender process was undertaken with patients, local residents and community organisations, and whether this was a sufficiently robust process.

Thirdly, Whitehawk is not a typical area of our city: there are really high levels of deprivation there, but also a real community spirit and lots of community organisations that play a vital role. The committee will want to know what account was taken by NHS Commissioners of the special nature of Whitehawk and how this was reflected in thinking about the contract. For instance, how was social value factored into the design of the new contract?

Fourthly, the Independent Patient Choice & Procurement Panel has already published its review – this is included as Appendix 1 to the committee report. However, we’ve recently been informed that NHS Sussex has also commissioned an independent review of the tender. We’ll have questions about why this second review is required, who is leading it, whether it will consider all the issues identified by the panel review, when it is expected to report, and whether the report will be made public.

There is clearly public concern about the way that the formal tender process, and in particular the evaluation of bids, was conducted. This is an important area of enquiry. However, there are some real issues of commercial confidentiality here, and I’m not sure we’re likely to get very far in terms of discussing these details in public session and in advance of the NHS Sussex-commissioned review reporting. We may be better advised to wait until the review has concluded if that means that we can scrutinise issues in public session at a later meeting.