Agenda and minutes

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed at: Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee - 5 November 2025

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 November 2025 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

The Chief Executive reported that two questions had been received under Standing Order 35.

1.           Question from Cllr. Helen Cliff:

Given the stakeholder’s briefing dated 5^th January 2026, it now appears that the six-month “temporary pause” in services at St. Mary’s Birth Centre in Melton Mowbray was a rather disingenuous step towards a decision that had clearly already been taken. So, can the Chair confirm the continued support of this committee to retain birthing and postnatal services at St. Mary’s Birth Centre and the desire to apply scrutiny to the ICB and UHL Trust over the decisions they have arrived at to reduce service provision across the Trust, and how they have gone about making these decisions – particularly with reference to equitable access for rural communities and maintaining choice for women?

Reply by the Chairman:

I can confirm that the Committee is aware of the public concerns regarding St Mary’s Birth Centre and will scrutinise the ICB and UHL on the topic. We have been liaising with the ICB regarding which would be a suitable Committee meeting for the ICB to present a report regarding this issue and answer questions from Committee members. The date has not yet been confirmed but discussions on the date are ongoing.

At the present time, the Committee is not yet in a position to set out its views and state what it supports in relation to St Mary’s Birth Centre. A more detailed understanding of the facts and options will be required before the Committee can come to a view. We will let you know at which Committee meeting the topic will be discussed. In addition, the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Joint Health Scrutiny Committee is also intending to consider a report on this topic in the coming months. The next meeting of that Committee is on Monday 23 February 2026.

Supplementary question from Cllr. Helen Cliff:

Could the Chair provide assurance that the Committee will try and ensure that people in rural communities have equality of access to healthcare services? Would the Chair be agreeable to having a meeting with me to discuss the matter further?

Reply by the Chairman:

I am happy to meet with you. Please be assured that the Committee will scrutinise this matter. It has also been confirmed that the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Joint Health Scrutiny Committee will have an agenda item relating to maternity services at its meeting on Monday 23 February 2026.

2.           Question from Cllr. Pip Allnatt:

I am a resident of Melton, a patient at the Latham House Medical Practice (LHMP), where I attend the patient panel, and also the Leader of Melton Borough Council (MBC). Thank you for the opportunity to table a question.

LHMP, established in 1931 now has circa 36,000 registered patients, covering Melton Town and 66 parishes and villages is one of the largest group GP practises in the country. In 2022 the ICB identified our area as a “high priority in the Primary Care Estate Strategy (PCES) due to housing growth”.

County Councillor Joe Orson, my predecessor at MBC, can attest to the fact that he initiated direct working with the ICB to create a second GP practice for the town of Melton Mowbray in 2022.

In fact, MBC support health and wellbeing generally. For example, funding mental health advice to the farming community, facilitating specialist equipment for those with physical and other disabilities at our swimming pool, and movement and recreation sessions for older residents. We have provided additional car parking for LHMP to create greater capacity and safety for female clinicians; we are planning similar  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).

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 a Non-Registerable Interest in agenda item 8: Primary Care as he worked for the Rt Hon Edward Argar MP who was campaigning regarding GP Practices in the Melton area.

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

The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 36.

The Committee considered a report of the Integrated Care Board (ICB) which provided an oversight and summary on Primary Care services that were commissioned by the ICB and delivered by Primary Care providers (GP Practices) across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (LLR). The report also provided specific information on the Melton area with regards to the current and future delivery of Primary Care services. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with these minutes, along with a separate document containing answers provided by the ICB in response to questions from the Committee about ratios of GPs to patients.

The report was presented by Yasmin Sidyot, Deputy Chief Operating Officer – Integration and Transformation, ICB, and Mayur Patel, Head of Integration & Transformation (Primary Care), ICB. Toby Sanders, Chief Executive, ICB was also present to answer questions.

The Committee welcomed to the meeting for this item Mr. A. Innes CC (Melton East division), Mr. B. Lovegrove CC (Belvoir division), and Mr. J. T. Orson CC (Melton Wolds division).

As part of discussions the following points were made:

(i)           Members expressed disappointment that the report focused on the whole of LLR and did not give sufficient detail regarding GP provision in Leicestershire, which made it difficult to scrutinise the topic. Members requested the information be broken down to electoral division or individual GP Practice level. In response the ICB stated that they would provide more detailed data to the Committee after the meeting but explained that there were limitations on what could be provided as they were reliant on how the data was collected nationally. There were also data protection concerns as patients might be identifiable if data was provided at individual GP Practice level.

(ii)         In response to further questions from members about the ratio of GPs to patients, it was explained that there was no national guidance on the number of GP practices per geographical area or per population size. Locally the ICB used a benchmark of 75 primary care appointments per thousand population, but this was not part of the formal contract with GP Practices. This figure was used by the ICB to identify where there was significant variation in levels of provision across LLR.  A member raised concerns that focusing on an average across a large area could mask serious access problems in some (rural) areas. The ICB agreed to provide data on GP to patient ratios in Leicestershire after the meeting.

(iii)        The ICB submitted that the level of access to GP Practices in Leicestershire compared well with the national and regional picture, though acknowledged that improvements could still be made locally and recognised that the public were raising complaints with elected members about access.

(iv)       Concerns were raised by members that because patients were not able to get appointments at GP Practices this was displacing demand elsewhere and putting pressure on other services such as the Emergency Department. It was questioned whether the capacity of primary care was genuinely being increased or whether capacity issues were being masked by displacement. In response the ICB said that the numbers of patients attending the Emergency Department was not greater than had been planned and no peaks had been seen, but work would continue to ensure that patients attended the most appropriate place for the treatment they required.

(v)         Members welcome the use of the NHS 111 telephone line and the increased use of digital tools by the NHS such as the NHS app and other online services. However, it was questioned how effective these services were at directing patients to the right service and whether demand  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

The Committee considered a joint report of the Director of Public Health and the Director of Corporate Resources which provided information on the proposed 2026/27 to 2029/30 Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) as it related to Public Health. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 9’, is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

(i)           There was a typographical error at paragraph 10 of the report which should have said “The impact of what is effectively a direction to increase expenditure on the prevention, treatment and recovery from drugs and alcohol misuse of 10% year on year…”

(ii)         Members welcomed that this time the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) had given provisional Public Health Grant allocations for the next three years rather than the usual one-year settlement.

(iii)        The DHSC had specified ring fences within the ring-fenced Public Health Grant to be spent on drugs and alcohol treatment, recovery and prevention, and smoking cessation. These figures were included in the report at Table 2 - Net Budget 2026/27. The exact spending on those ring-fenced areas was largely prescribed nationally and had to be used to meet Key Performance Indicators. In response to a query from members as to what would happen if this money was not spent and whether it could be transferred to a different Public Health budget stream within the Council, it was explained that there was a risk that DHSC could ask for the money to be returned or they could reduce the amount given to the County Council in future allocations. This had happened to local authorities elsewhere in the country with regards to smoking cessation funding.

(iv)       An amount of approximately £2 million of the Public Health grant was used to commission, by way of service level agreements, health improving elements of services in other departments that fulfilled the public health grant requirements and the priorities of those departments. Newton Impact was carrying out an Efficiency Review of all the County Council’s services and spending to identify savings to help meet the budget gap. Positive conversations had taken place between the Public Health department and Newton Impact regarding how Public Health could contribute to the County Council’s savings. It was not expected that Public Health would transfer funding directly from its budget into the budgets of other County Council departments. However, it was hoped that the work of the Public Health department would help reduce the demand on services provided by other departments within the County Council. For example, the Public Health work regarding frailty and falls prevention could help reduce the demand on adult social care.

RESOLVED:

(a)        That the report and information now provided be noted;

(b)        That the comments now made be forwarded to the Scrutiny Commission for consideration at its meeting on 28 January 2026.

The Committee considered a joint report of the Integrated Care Board (ICB) and the Director of Public Health which provided an update on pandemic preparedness across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (LLR). A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 10’, is filed with these minutes.

The Committee welcomed to the meeting for this item Amita Chudasama, Head of Emergency preparedness, resilience and response, ICB.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

(i)           Exercise Pegasus had taken place in September, October and November 2025 which was a national Tier 1 pandemic preparedness exercise.  There were concerns that this Exercise had not been as useful as it could have been and it did not have the right kind of input from central government. All the learning from the Covid-19 pandemic had not been implemented by central government and incorrect assumptions had been made about local capacity.

(ii)         There was still an issue with the availability of Personal Protective Equipment and it was not stockpiled locally.

(iii)        It was difficult to prepare for a pandemic in advance without knowing the exact nature of the pandemic. Detailed plans were not able to be written without knowing how infectious it was and how it was transmitted etc. Therefore, planning focused on broader strategic issues, local resilience structures and channels of communication. More specific Command and Control documents would have to be written at the time of the pandemic.

(iv)       Concerns were raised that during the Covid-19 pandemic briefings with district councillors had been infrequent and information had been poorly communicated. Whilst there had been debriefs with NHS staff and top tier local authorities, district councillors had not been asked for their feedback and learning from the Covid-19 pandemic.

(v)         Other countries had managed the Covid-19 pandemic in a different and sometimes more successful way and learning should be gained from those countries.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the update be noted.

The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 4 March 2026 at 2.00pm.

RESOLVED:

It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Wednesday 4 March 2026 at 2.00 pm.