Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Bajaj, Cllr Halford, Cllr March, Cllr Mcdonald, Cllr Clarke, Dr Nil Sanganee and Rob Howard.

In the Chairs absense, the Vice Chair Cllr Dr Hill was appointed as Chair of the meeting.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business on the agenda.

The Chair asked members to declare any interests in proceedings for which there were none.

There were no announcements made.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 30^th April  have been circulated and the Committee is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The Chair highlighted that the minutes from the meeting held on 30th April 2026 were included in the agenda pack and asked Members to confirm whether they were an accurate record.  
 
AGREED:
 

•    It was agreed that the minutes for the meeting on 30th April 2026 were a correct record. 

Members are asked to note the membership of the committee for 2026-27 to

note as follows:

City Council representatives

Cllr Elaine Halford (Chair)

Cllr Mohinder Singh Sangha

Cllr Deepak Bajaj 

Cllr Adam Clarke

Cllr Melissa March

Cllr Devi Singh Patel

Cllr Liz Sahu

County Council representatives

Cllr Dr Sarah Hill (Vice Chair)

Cllr Moinuddin Durrani

Cllr Phil King

Cllr Kerry Knight

Cllr John McDonald

Cllr Peter Morris

Cllr James Poland

Rutland County Council representatives

Cllr Lucy Stephenson

Cllr Ramsey Ross

The Membership of the Committee was agreed.

The Committee are asked to note the Terms of Reference for 2026/27.

RESOLVED:  

That the Terms of Reference and working arrangements for the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Joint Health Scrutiny Committee be noted.

Members are asked to note the dates of meetings for 2026-27 as follows:

·       Monday 28^th September 2026, at 10am

·       Thursday 26^th November 2026, at 10am

·       Monday 22^nd February 2026, at 10am.

The dates of the meetings for the Committee were confirmed as follows:

­   Monday 28th September 2026, at 10am

­   Thursday 26th November 2026, at 10am

­   Monday 22nd February 2027, at 10am.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any petitions submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures

The Monitoring Officer reported that no petitions had been received.

Cllr Ramsay Ross submitted the following questions to the Scrutiny Committee:

1) Extracted from an investigation by published on 8th July 2026. 

The key points that the FT report makes are:

i) we do not know the true annual operational cost of the Palantir system vs the initial cost of the system

ii) we do know that Palantir is being given access to individual patient data, although Palantir insists that the use of this data is controlled by the NHS

iii) One third of hospitals have delivered fewer operations since introducing the system and major operational gains are limited to a few major hospitals

iv) The NHS publishes its data available at: NHS organisations live with NHS Federated Data Platform 

Supplemental information:

• UHLeicester uses Palantir as does Northants General Hosp Trust (the two trusts now have the same Chair). Cambridge Univ. Hospitals Trust and Cambridge Community Trust also use the system. These trusts all report benefits. 
• Whilst Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust uses the system, it has reported no benefits.
• Recently (July) the NHS has conceded that the cause-and-effect benefits of the FDP cannot be separated out, given the number of other variables and therefore the benefits cannot be estimated with a high degree of accuracy.
  
  

2) The has established that the Palantir Optica tracking tool, used to reduce delayed hospital discharges has found "no noticeable improvement in discharge performance among trusts using Optica…..The gradual upward trend in performance observed in these trusts before they adopted the Optica toll continued at broadly the same rate after it was implemented".

Questions to the ICB:

i)               What are those specific and quantifiable Cost-Benefits that have been delivered to date from:

a.    The FDP

b.    The Optica tracking tool (if currently used)

ii)              What is the annual operation cost of each of these systems (split between the monies paid to Palantir and those of UHL) and what is the applicable contractual date upon which the Palantir contracts can be terminated?

The Monitoring Officer reported the following questions were received by Cllr Ramsay Ross. In his absence the response was sent to him via email.

Cllr Ramsay Ross asked:

Palantir Systems – the Cost-Benefit of their adoption to UHL

Background Information to Questions:

1) Extracted from an investigation by the Financial Times published on 8th

July 2026. 

The key points that the FT report makes are:

i) we do not know the true annual operational cost of the Palantir system vs the

initial cost of the system

ii) we do know that Palantir is being given access to individual patient data,

although Palantir insists that the use of this data is controlled by the NHS

iii) One third of hospitals have delivered fewer operations since introducing the

system and major operational gains are limited to a few major hospitals

iv) The NHS publishes its data available at: NHS organisations live with NHS

Federated Data Platform 

Supplemental information:

• UHL Leicester uses Palantir as does Northants General Hosp Trust (the

two trusts now have the same Chair). Cambridge Univ. Hospitals Trust

and Cambridge Community Trust also use the system. These trusts all

report benefits. 

• Whilst Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust uses the system,

it has reported no benefits.

• Recently (July) the NHS has conceded that the cause-and-effect

benefits of the FDP cannot be separated out, given the number of other

variables and therefore the benefits cannot be estimated with a high

degree of accuracy.

2) The Health Foundation has established that the Palantir Optica tracking

tool, used to reduce delayed hospital discharges has found "no noticeable

improvement in discharge performance among trusts using Optica…..The

gradual upward trend in performance observed in these trusts before they

adopted the Optica toll continued at broadly the same rate after it was

implemented".

Questions to the ICB:

i)

What are those specific and quantifiable Cost-Benefits that have been

delivered to date from:

a. The FDP

b. The Optica tracking tool (if currently used)

ii) What is the annual operation cost of each of these systems (split

between the monies paid to Palantir and those of UHL) and what is

the applicable contractual date upon which the Palantir contracts can

be terminated?

The Integrated Care Board (ICB) responded:

The contract with Palantir is held nationally and the decisions about the contract is a matter for NHS England and Government, rather than one which can be taken by the ICB locally.

Our responsibility locally is to ensure that any use of patient information by the ICB complies with relevant data protection legislation, information governance requirements and our responsibilities to patients and the public. We take those responsibilities seriously.

We are receiving several representations on this issue and are recording the concerns and themes being raised by local residents. These will be shared through the appropriate routes so that the strength and nature of local feedback can inform the wider national discussion.

The Integrated Care Board (ICB) submit a report in response to the Leicester, Leicestershire's and Rutland Joint Health Scrutiny Committee's request for results, data, and progress from GP Patient Surveys, alongside a wider update on GP access performance and the actions being taken to improve access and patient experience across Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland.

The Integrated Care Board (ICB) submitted a report in response to the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Joint Health Scrutiny Committee's request for results, data, and progress from GP Patient Surveys, alongside a wider update on GP access performance and the actions being taken to improve access and patient experience across Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland. A brief overview of the report was provided with the following noted:

•    Performance had remained strong during 2025/26, with practices delivering 8 million appointments. Increased capacity was meeting demand, with strong performance against key measures, particularly in urgent care.

•    Access pathways had increased including same-day and weekend appointments, although it was recognised that there was room for improvement.

•    A key challenge was ensuring patients could access services locally.

•    In terms of digital access, more patients were now using the NHS app, and online consultations continued to grow. It was recognised that there remained a need for telephone and face to face access.

•    The Pharmacy First offer had helped to improve access while maintaining the availability of GP appointments.

•    Regarding the workforce, the Additional Roles Scheme had supported successful recruitment and increased GP capacity, contributing to a more resilient primary care workforce.

•    Patient feedback reflected confidence in confidentiality; however, difficulties contacting GP practices remained. The framework and Primary Care Access Recovery Plan were expected to help address this. The focus was on improving consistency.

In discussion with Committee Members and Officers, the following was noted:

•    Members noted that the report did not address the original request regarding how many practices did not allow patients to attend in person without prior contact.

•    It was explained that the report provided an overview of activity levels and services, and that any specific areas where Members identified issues with access could be investigated further.

•    Practices had been advised of the contractual requirement to enable patients to make contact by telephone or in person and had confirmed that these options were available. Any complaints were followed up, and while triage arrangements were in place, it was recognised that variation between practices remained and continued to be addressed.

•    In response to a Member’s request for an ICB audit, it was explained that a contractual review process was in place which covered these issues. Eleven practices were currently being supported to address areas of non-compliance, which could include matters such as incorrect opening hours being advertised.

•    Healthwatch advised that access remained a key concern, with a range of routes available but variation in walk-in access between practices. There was a need to understand which practices offered walk-in access. Language barriers to online access were also highlighted, and Healthwatch was undertaking work on digital access which could be brought back to the Commission. Further intelligence sharing and joint working with the ICB was welcomed.

•    Members requested greater geographical understanding of where access issues were occurring, with some Members suggesting that penalties should be considered for non-compliant practices.

•    In response to questions regarding new housing developments, it was confirmed that healthcare requirements were considered and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

The Chair of Healthwatch Leicester and the Chair of Healthwatch Rutland submit a report setting out the concerns of the three local Healthwatch organisations regarding Government proposals set out in the Health Bill 2026/27 that would result in the closure of Healthwatch services across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (LLR). Healthwatch is the statutory, independent champion for people who use health and social care services.

The paper sets out its purpose, provides background and context on the Healthwatch role, outlines the risks associated with discontinuing Healthwatch provision, highlights the value Healthwatch delivers and presents recommendations for the Committee.

The Committee received a report from the Chair of Healthwatch Leicester and Leicestershire and the Chair of Healthwatch Rutland regarding the potential impact of Government proposals to abolish local Healthwatch services.

The Chair noted that representatives from partner organisations had been unable to attend the meeting and invited the Chair of Healthwatch Leicester and Leicestershire to present the report.

The following was noted:

       Government proposals could result in the abolition of local Healthwatch services and the introduction of alternative arrangements for gathering patient and public feedback on health and social care services.

       Healthwatch currently provide an independent statutory voice for patients, carers and service users across health and social care.

       The work of Healthwatch included community engagement, observation visits, escalating concerns, helping people navigate health and care systems and ensuring that patient experiences informed service improvement.

       Concerns were raised that there remained insufficient clarity regarding the arrangements that would replace Healthwatch and how an independent patient voice would be maintained under any new model.

       Healthwatch representatives highlighted the potential risks associated with the loss of an independent organisation through which residents could raise concerns about health and care services.

       Particular concern was expressed regarding the impact on individuals who were less likely to engage directly with statutory organisations, including those who were digitally excluded or from seldom heard communities.

       Healthwatch had undertaken a wide range of engagement activity across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, including work relating to women’s health, temporary accommodation, dementia services, suicide prevention, male mental health and support for self funding care users.

       Examples were provided where Healthwatch engagement and visits had contributed to improvements in local services, including services within University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust.

       Current funding arrangements for Healthwatch services had been confirmed until March 2027.

       The report requested that the Committee consider the potential implications of the proposed closure of local Healthwatch services and seek assurances that effective and independent arrangements for patient and public involvement would be maintained.

In discussion with Committee Members and Officers, the following was noted:

       Members expressed concerns regarding the potential loss of an independent voice for patients, carers and service users and questioned the rationale behind the Government’s proposals.

       It was explained that concerns had previously been raised with Government regarding the proposals and the importance of retaining an independent mechanism through which patient and public experiences could be gathered and escalated.

       Members recognised the significance of an independent organisation that could raise concerns on behalf of residents without those concerns being managed directly by service providers.

       Concerns were expressed that transferring responsibility for public and patient engagement to statutory organisations could create a perception that organisations were assessing their own performance, reducing public confidence in the independence of the process.

       Members noted the breadth of work undertaken by Healthwatch and the value of intelligence gathered from local communities, which may not otherwise be reported directly to NHS organisations or local authorities.

       It was highlighted that many residents may be reluctant to raise complaints directly with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

The attached briefing from University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL) and University Hospitals of Northamptonshire (UHN) provides an update on leadership and governance arrangements and is submitted for information only.

The report was noted.

Members are invited to ask any questions that are not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

No questions were raised.

Members will be asked to note the work programme and consider any future items for inclusion.

The Chair reminded Members that should there be any items they wish to be considered for the work programme then to share these with them and the senior governance officer.

With there being no further business, the meeting closed at 11.55am.