Agenda and minutes

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXlh5qNOUZA&list=PLrlN4_PKzPXgH2NU3lNSh-0DlLIPEBe4d

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2025 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 34.

The Chief Executive reported that three questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).

1.           Question from Mr. A. Innes CC:

As has been widely publicised, the services at St Mary's Birth Centre have been suspended for an indeterminate period of time due to staff shortages.  The community in Melton and the surrounding areas are rightly concerned that this closure may become permanent.  There has been local representations made by residents, councillors and the MO for Melton and Syston.

I would like to know what are the current plans for the birthing centre, and how do the ICB intend to fulfil their statutory responsibility to provide adequate health services for the communities they serve?

Reply by the Chairman:

I have asked University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL) for an answer to your question and I have received the following response:

“Pausing births and inpatient care at the Centre from 7 July was a difficult but necessary step. We did this to ensure the safety of mums and babies - nothing is more important. We are currently working with colleagues at the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Integrated Care Board to determine next steps for St Mary's Birth Centre. This includes discussion of the safety risks and mitigation. We anticipate an update from the ICB and UHL will happen before January 2026.”

As soon as UHL and the ICB are ready to provide any further detail about their plans I intend to request that they attend a meeting of the Leicestershire County Council Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to present a report, not just on St Mary’s Birth Centre, but on the plans for maternity services in the whole of Leicestershire. Officers will ensure that you are made aware of when this meeting will take place and provide you with a copy of the report.

2.           Question from Mr. A. Innes CC:

Melton Mowbray is serviced by a single GP practice, Latham House, and following a recent report that the project to site a second GP practice in the town has been suspended there is further upset in the community following this decision.  The Melton community cannot continue to have a situation where appointments are pushed out to 6 weeks and even for simple tests, we have to wait weeks to have these done.

I would like to ask does the Chair of the Committee share my concerns and how is the ICB planning to meet their statutory requirement to ensure that there is adequate healthcare provision for the communities in their designated areas, and more specifically for Melton Mowbray?

Reply by the Chairman:

I share the concerns of residents and local members from Melton over this issue. Therefore, we will be examining this matter in more detail at a future meeting of the Leicestershire County Council Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. I am aware of concerns elsewhere in the County over GP practices, so any report we have will cover not just Melton, but other areas as well. In addition, the issue of access to GP practices is going to be examined by the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Joint Health Scrutiny Committee in the new year.

In the meantime, I have obtained the following statement from the Integrated Care Board:

“We are working closely with GP practices across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (LLR), including in Melton, to ensure any available, additional funding and recruitment opportunities are taken up and used to meet the health needs of our diverse communities, equitably. Practices are supported to implement new ways of working to improve access and care, including introducing new technology,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

There were no urgent items for consideration.

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

Mr. J. Poland CC declared an interest in Agenda Item 3: Questions asked by members and Agenda Item 7: presentation of petitions as he worked for Edward Argar MP as a Senior Caseworker and had been involved in campaigning regarding St Mary’s Birth Centre and access to GP Practices in the Melton area.

There were no declarations of the party whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16.

A petition is to be presented by Mr. J. T. Orson CC signed by over 2,000 Leicestershire residents (over 3000 signatures in total) in the following terms:

“We are a growing community in Melton Mowbray, and it is crucial to protect all our health-related services. However, the impending closure of St Mary's Birth Centre is more than just a Melton issue - it's a significant concern for the entire University of Leicester Hospitals Trust. St Mary's Birth Centre has been an invaluable facility for expectant mothers not only in Melton but also from across Leicestershire and Rutland. Many choose it for its outstanding maternity and postnatal care, characterised by a nurturing environment and exceptional professional support.

Despite the invaluable services provided by St Mary's Birth Centre, it suffers from a lack of promotion and insufficient staffing. These issues affect its ability to operate to its full potential and serve the needs of our community. Closing this centre would not only limit choice for expectant mothers across the Trust, but also place additional strain on alternative maternity services within the region, potentially compromising the quality of care, particularly postnatally.

"Better Births" a 2016 report from the National Health Service, reveals that having more birthing options leads to better health outcomes for both mothers and babies. The centralisation of maternity services often overlooks the unique benefits provided by community-focused and midwife-led centres like St Mary's.

Our goal is to urge the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust to not only re-open St Mary's Birth Centre but to revisit the decision to remove our only freestanding midwife-led unit in Leicestershire, and secure its future with adequate staffing and through promoting its services. We need to ensure that it receives the recognition and resources deserved to remain a viable option for expectant mothers now and for future generations.

Stand with us in the fight to safeguard women's choices and local services. Sign this petition now to protect and promote the exceptional care provided by St Mary's Birth Centre, ensuring it remains the gem that it is.”

The Chief Executive reported that the following petition had been received from Mr. J. T. Orson CC under Standing Order 36 signed by over 2,000 Leicestershire residents (over 3000 signatures in total):

“We are a growing community in Melton Mowbray, and it is crucial to protect all our health-related services. However, the impending closure of St Mary's Birth Centre is more than just a Melton issue - it's a significant concern for the entire University of Leicester Hospitals Trust. St Mary's Birth Centre has been an invaluable facility for expectant mothers not only in Melton but also from across Leicestershire and Rutland. Many choose it for its outstanding maternity and postnatal care, characterised by a nurturing environment and exceptional professional support.

Despite the invaluable services provided by St Mary's Birth Centre, it suffers from a lack of promotion and insufficient staffing. These issues affect its ability to operate to its full potential and serve the needs of our community. Closing this centre would not only limit choice for expectant mothers across the Trust, but also place additional strain on alternative maternity services within the region, potentially compromising the quality of care, particularly postnatally.

"Better Births" a 2016 report from the National Health Service, reveals that having more birthing options leads to better health outcomes for both mothers and babies. The centralisation of maternity services often overlooks the unique benefits provided by community-focused and midwife-led centres like St Mary's.

Our goal is to urge the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust to not only re-open St Mary's Birth Centre but to revisit the decision to remove our only freestanding midwife-led unit in Leicestershire, and secure its future with adequate staffing and through promoting its services. We need to ensure that it receives the recognition and resources deserved to remain a viable option for expectant mothers now and for future generations.

Stand with us in the fight to safeguard women's choices and local services. Sign this petition now to protect and promote the exceptional care provided by St Mary's Birth Centre, ensuring it remains the gem that it is.”

The Chair stated that the issues raised in the petition were of interest to the Committee and liaison was taking place with NHS partners about which would be a suitable Committee meeting to have a report and presentation on this topic. Interested parties would be informed of the date of the meeting in due course.

The Committee considered a report of Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust (LPT) which introduced their new strategy ‘Together we thrive’. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with these minutes.

The Committee welcomed to the meeting for this item David Williams, Group Director Strategy & Partnerships, LPT.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

(i)           One of the key elements of the strategy was a move from analogue to digital. It was hoped to automate admin processes, such as changing an appointment date, so that staff could focus on other tasks. This approach was welcomed in the main by members, but it was emphasised that it was important to ensure people that were not digitally enabled were not left out.  In response reassurance was given that LPT aimed to help promote digital literacy. It was explained that if the majority of patients engaged with LPT digitally, this would leave more time for staff to engage with the patients that were less digitally enabled. Members raised concerns that the latter were the cohort that would need LPT services more and could therefore still be negatively affected by the move from analogue to digital.

(ii)         Members raised concerns about vulnerable people with mental health issues having to engage with Artificial Intelligence rather than a human person.

(iii)        In response to a question as to whether the commitment to building compassionate care and wellbeing for all needed to be contained within a strategy, as it should be business as usual, it was emphasised that it was important to re-enforce this aim. Examples of where the wellbeing work was effective was the community events taking place at Fearon Hall in Loughborough and the respiratory work taking place in West Leicestershire.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the LPT strategy ‘Together we thrive’ be noted.

The Committee considered a report of East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS) which gave an overview of their work. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 9’, is filed with these minutes.

The Committee welcomed to the meeting for this item Susannah Ashton, Divisional Director, EMAS, Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

(i)           One of the advantages of EMAS being a regional organisation rather than solely for Leicestershire was that in periods of high demand in Leicestershire resources could be taken from elsewhere in the region to help out.

(ii)         At times EMAS would take a patient picked up in Leicestershire across the border to a hospital in the West Midlands as it was closer, however EMAS would not pick patients up in the West Midlands.

(iii)        Ambulances could take longer to reach patients in rural areas. The software used by EMAS gave advice on the best routes to take to avoid roadworks or other blockages. Although there were ambulance stations in rural areas this did not mean an ambulance would be at the station ready to go when a call came in for a rural area. The ambulance could be on a job in another area.

(iv)       The table in the report demonstrated that the category 2 response times had lengthened significantly in December 2023 and again in December 2024. This was thought to be due to an increase in demand around that time of the year rather than being due to staff being on holiday. Reassurance was given that staffing levels did not fluctuate during the year and were kept consistent.

(v)         In response to concerns raised, members were reassured that whilst patients were waiting for an ambulance or paramedic the control room would keep in touch with them. The number of call takers and clinicians available to provide the Hear and Treat service had been increased. NHS England had set a target of 20% of ambulance calls being managed by the Heart and Treat service; the latest figure for EMAS was 24%.

(vi)       In response to a question about how ambulance handover times at the Emergency Department in Leicester compared with other areas of the country, it was explained that it varied. The National Standard was a 15 minute handover time but as this was not always realistic, in 2025 ICBs had been asked to aim for a 30 minute handover time. It was agreed that the exact comparison data would be provided to members after the meeting.

(vii)      Members queried what percentage of people called for an ambulance when they did not need one and could have received treatment via another method. Some patients that were dealt with by EMAS had called 111 and some had called 999. Patients did not always call the correct number for their medical issue, but either way they would receive the same service because the same pathway system was used. Members indicated that they might wish to scrutinise these issues further at a future meeting.

(viii)    Concerns were also raised that the call operators were allocating ambulances to calls when the patient could have been conveyed to hospital via other means. Members queried how good the call handlers were at triaging patients and deciding what treatment and assistance they required. In response it was explained that the accuracy was variable and it could be challenging for the call takers to make the right assessment as most patients did not have the medical training to describe their symptoms accurately. However, calls could be re-categorised very easily once EMAS had seen a patient face to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Health regarding the latest HIV late diagnosis position, and actions underway to improve diagnosis across Leicestershire. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 10’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

(i)           Leicestershire was ranked 15th out of 16 when benchmarked against comparable authorities for the metric ‘HIV late diagnosis in people first diagnosed with HIV in the UK’. The data had to be considered with caution because not all authorities carried out the same amount of testing. Although Worcestershire was rag rated green for this metric, they carried out far less testing than Leicestershire. Leicestershire was ranked 3^rd out of 16 for testing rates. The HIV late diagnosis indicator was based on the proportion of all those diagnosed with HIV who were diagnosed late and very few authorities were meeting the national target of <25%. The Cabinet Lead for Health stated that it was more important to increase testing numbers, and not be too concerned if this led to an increase in positive tests.

(ii)         In response to a suggestion that the whole population of Leicestershire could be tested for HIV, it was explained that this would not be a proportionate and necessary approach, but increasing testing numbers was important.

(iii)        The Public Health Department was analysing the HIV data to see what could be learnt. There were some difficulties as due to the small numbers, data was redacted. Demographic data was not available at district level but was available at Leicestershire level.

(iv)       During the Covid-19 pandemic HIV testing at home had been introduced and this had continued after the pandemic. It had been proved to be popular and successful. The amount of tests taking place at home was increasing year on year. Members welcomed this.

(v)         Nationally, work on HIV was directed through ‘Towards Zero – An action plan towards ending HIV transmission, AIDS and HIV related deaths in England’. Members welcomed this work and felt that the aim was realistic. However, concerns were raised about the possible impact of budget cuts on HIV work.

(vi)       There were concerns that the public was not using barrier forms of contraception as much as they should be and were too reliant on taking Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP). This was leading to an increase in other sexually transmitted infections such as syphilis and gonorrhea. Messages needed to be disseminated to the public to remind them to use condoms.

(vii)      Peer support groups were available for people with HIV.

RESOLVED:

That the update regarding HIV diagnosis be noted and the actions underway to improve diagnosis across Leicestershire be welcomed.

The Committee considered a report of Healthwatch Leicester and Leicestershire which presented their Annual Report 2024-25. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 11’, is filed with these minutes.

The report was presented by Fiona Barber, Healthwatch Leicestershire Board member.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

(i)           Access to GP appointments was one of the main issues raised by the public with Healthwatch.

(ii)         In response to concerns raised by a member about parking at Leicester Royal Infirmary, Fiona Barber agreed to raise this with University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust during her next meeting with them.

(iii)        The Healthwatch Leicester and Leicestershire Contract was held by Leicester City Council and Leicestershire County Council under a formal joint working agreement. In response to concerns raised by a member that cuts could be made to Healthwatch funding as part of an efficiency review taking place at Leicestershire County Council, reassurance was given that the current contract was funded in total via a ring-fenced grant.

(iv)       The government was proposing that Healthwatch functions related to healthcare be combined with the involvement and engagement functions of Integrated Care Boards and Healthwatch functions related to social care transfer to local authorities. Primary legislation was required to implement these changes as Healthwatch had been set up as a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The legislation was currently being drafted but was not expected to pass through parliament until later in 2026. In the meantime Healthwatch was continuing business as usual.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the Healthwatch Annual Report 2024-25 be noted.

This report will not be presented. Instead, members are asked to use it to identify any areas of health performance that require more detailed scrutiny at a future meeting.

The Committee considered a joint report of the Chief Executive and the ICS Performance Service which provided update on public health and health system performance in Leicestershire and Rutland based on the available data in October 2025. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 12’ is filed with these minutes.

Members were asked whether there were any areas identified in the report that they felt required more detailed scrutiny at a future meeting. Secondary/elective care appointment waiting times was suggested and how the waiting lists were managed. In addition it was noted that the metric relating to suspected cancer patients starting treatment within 62 days of referral was rag rated red therefore members felt that it was worth a detailed look at the reasons behind this.

RESOLVED:

(a)        That public health and health system performance in Leicestershire be noted;

(b)        That officers be requested to provide a report for a future meeting regarding secondary care appointment waiting times and cancer referrals.

The Committee considered the work programme of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Joint Health Scrutiny Committee, a copy of which marked ‘Agenda Item 13’, is filed with these minutes.

RESOLVED:

That the work programme be noted.

Future meetings of the Committee are scheduled to take place on the following days all at 2.00pm:

Wednesday 14 January 2026;

Wednesday 4 March 2026;

Wednesday 3 June 2026;

Wednesday 9 September 2026;

Wednesday 4 November 2026.

RESOLVED:

That future meetings of the Committee take place on the following days all at 2.00pm:

Wednesday 14 January 2026;

Wednesday 4 March 2026;

Wednesday 3 June 2026;

Wednesday 9 September 2026;

Wednesday 4 November 2026.