Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Harvey and Cllr Stephenson.

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

Cllr Poland declared he works for the MP for Melton and Syston who has been very active opposing the closure of the St Marys Birth Centre.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27^th November 2025  have been circulated and the Committee is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 27^th November 2025, were confirmed as a correct record.

The Chair is invited to make any announcements as they see fit.

The Chair noted that an additional meeting has been scheduled for 30^th April 2026.

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

It was noted that none had been received.

The Monitoring Officer reported that sixteen questions had been received:

1.     Godfrey Jennings to ask - What is the JHOSC’s view of University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust’s and Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust’s adoption of Palantir’s Federated Data Platform, taking into consideration that international human rights proponents Amnesty International have urged all public bodies to end any contracts with Palantir?

2.     Godfrey Jennings to ask - Could I request the briefing in development for Trusts due to be released early March is published alongside the minutes for this meeting? 

3.     Godfrey Jennings to ask - Does the committee agree that it is the responsibility of UHL and LPT to put in place a robust plan to consult the communities within LLR and to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing Palantir’s products with alternative products and providers, bearing in mind Trusts elsewhere have found their locally produced solutions to be far superior that what the Federated Data Platform is offering and have thus declined to adopt the FDP. Can the committee also confirm that these NHS trusts retain the discretion to act in accordance with the respective outcomes, irrespective of any supposed “mandate” from the Department of Health and Social Care, as confirmed the FDP Regional Delivery Manager in FOI requests, and that the risk of proceeding without community trust would be catastrophic, considering around 50% of people have indicated in YouGov polling that, given the choice, they would opt out of such services, which would only entrench inequalities health service planning? 

4.     District Councillor Bob Waterton to ask - At the March 2025 meeting of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Joint Health Scrutiny , the spokesman for University Hospitals of Leicester stated that a review into the clinical safety implications of the delay in funding for Our Future Hospitals was being undertaken by UHL. He promised that the review would be completed within three months and that the review would be available to the public. The minutes of March 2025 meeting state that it would be "made available via the Trust Board minutes". There is an item on the review in UHL's recently published Our Future Hospitals and Transformation Committee minutes for December 2025. However, it is not possible to find out from these minutes what the content of the review is because the associated papers are not made available to the public. Has the review now been made available to the public and, if so, how? What were its findings?

Questions relating to St Marys and Maternity Services across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

5.     Anna Pollard to ask - The case for the closure of St. Mary’s seems to be predicated in part on low birth numbers. Can you confirm why you have not taken into consideration the numbers using the postnatal ward which are much higher, with many women transferring in for excellent postnatal care from around the Trust area, and what exploration has been done into the possibility of retaining the postnatal ward in the event the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 77.

The Monitoring Officer reported that sixteen questions had been received:

Godfrey Jennings asked:

1.     What is the JHOSC’s view of University

Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust’s and Leicestershire Partnership NHS

Trust’s adoption of Palantir’s Federated Data Platform, taking into

consideration that international human rights proponents Amnesty

International have urged all public bodies to end any contracts with

Palantir?

2.     Could I request the briefing in development

for Trusts due to be released early March is published alongside the

minutes for this meeting?

3.     Does the committee agree that it is the

responsibility of UHL and LPT to put in place a robust plan to consult the

communities within LLR and to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis,

comparing Palantir’s products with alternative products and providers,

bearing in mind Trusts elsewhere have found their locally produced

solutions to be far superior that what the Federated Data Platform is

offering and have thus declined to adopt the FDP. Can the committee

also confirm that these NHS trusts retain the discretion to act in

accordance with the respective outcomes, irrespective of any supposed

“mandate” from the Department of Health and Social Care, as confirmed

the FDP Regional Delivery Manager in FOI requests, and that the risk of

proceeding without community trust would be catastrophic, considering

around 50% of people have indicated in YouGov polling that, given the

choice, they would opt out of such services, which would only entrench

inequalities health service planning?

Health Partners responded:

For guidance the following is NHS England statement on Palantir

Data is a core part of how the NHS delivers care, it’s at the heart of transforming services and improving outcomes for patients; using it well saves lives. The NHS Federated Data Platform will transform operational efficiency across local, regional and national NHS services, connecting critical data in real-time to accelerate diagnosis pathways, streamline discharge processes, and ensure faster, more coordinated care that reduces waiting times for all patients.

NHS England ran an independent and transparent procurement exercise in line with public contract regulations. The choice of preferred supplier was not made by a single person, it was the result of assessment by many different individuals.??A consortium, led by Palantir, was awarded the contract to deliver the NHS Federated Data Platform in November 2023.

NHS England has a duty to treat all?suppliers the same regardless of the?public perception of any organisation, or?the opinions held by any of their?shareholders.?NHS England cannot exclude any?supplier that is lawfully established and?able to bid from participating in the?procurement.?We are confident that our procurement?process did not enable any supplier?that does not meet our strict standard?selection criteria (which includes?mandatory and discretionary exclusions?relating to illegal activity, social and?environmental breaches) and robust?Information Governance requirements?to continue through the process.

NHS England takes seriously its responsibility to handle health and care data lawfully, proportionately, ethically and in confidence. Privacy by design is a core principle of the NHS Federated Data Platform. We  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

The Chief Nursing Officer for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland and Northamptonshire Integrated Care Boards submits a report to update the commission on the decision to pause births and postnatal inpatient services at St Mary’s Birth Centre (SMBC) in July 2025 consultation and engagement process.

The Integrated Care Board (ICB) provided the Committee with an update outlining engagement activity, background context and next steps in relation to St Mary’s Birth Centre. The following was noted:

·       The full report would be considered by the ICB Board on 19th March, ahead of the final decision.

·       The findings of the 2021 consultation regarding maternity configuration at Leicester General Hospital and Melton were referenced.

·       Long standing challenges relating to St Mary’s were highlighted, including low activity levels, workforce pressures and compliance with national maternity safety standards.

·       Fewer than 1% of births across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland had taken place at St Mary’s, with 92 births recorded in the year prior to closure.

·       Challenges in safely staffing the unit were outlined, including the need to meet national guidance and maintain an appropriate skill mix.

·       National changes and delays to the New Hospital Programme had impacted delivery of the planned new maternity hospital at Leicester Royal Infirmary, and overall birth numbers had continued to decline.

·       The option to relocate services to Leicester General Hospital was referenced, alongside the continued availability of local antenatal and postnatal provision in Melton Mowbray.

·       Engagement activity had taken place with women who were pregnant or considering birth between July 2025 and September 2026.

·       Engagement had been extended between January 2021 and July 2025 and had included online focus groups, direct discussions and engagement with student midwives.

·       Feedback received had covered themes including geography, communication, personal experience of care and understanding of maternity pathways.

·       Feedback would be used to inform the Board report ahead of the decision in March.

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

·       Members sought clarification on the number of responses received as part of the engagement process, particularly given the questionnaire closing date, and were advised that this would be reflected within the full Board report.

·       It was suggested that historically St Mary’s may not have been promoted consistently, and questions were raised regarding how birth options were presented to expectant mothers and whether engagement methods, including social media, had effectively reached younger women. It was explained that midwives were encouraged to promote appropriate birth settings and that discussions with women formed part of individualised maternity pathways.

·       Clarification was requested regarding the geographical distribution of women who had given birth at St Mary’s. It was reported that approximately 31.5% were from LE13 or LE14 postcodes, with others choosing alternative units or home birth.

·       Concern was expressed that the Committee had not received the full Board report ahead of the ICB decision date and that a number of detailed questions remained outstanding, including matters relating to workforce and previous clinical ratings. In response, it was stated that staffing requirements were linked to national maternity guidance, that birth complexity had increased across the system, and that compliance with safe staffing standards remained a key consideration.

·       Members questioned how the 2021 consultation had informed the current position and whether circumstances had materially changed since that time. It was acknowledged that delays to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

The Director of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (LLR( SEND and Inclusion Alliance Team submit a report to provide the Commission with information about the work of the LLR SEND and Inclusion Alliance including:

·       LLR SIA approach to co-production

·       LLR SEND Change Programme Partnership (CPP)

·       SEND Aligned Commissioning Programme

·       Shaping SEND Futures – local community inclusion model

·       Operational Plan for 2026/27

The Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland SEND and Inclusion Alliance gave a presentation to the Committee on the purpose and activities of the Alliance. The following was noted:

• The LLR SEND and Inclusion Alliance had been funded by the Department for Education having evolved from the national SEND and Alternative Provision Change Programme Partnership.
• The programme was Department for Education led and overseen locally by the Director of Children’s Services, with input from NHS partners.
• The Alliance aimed to connect and bring together different areas of the system to develop new and more integrated ways of working.
• The first 2 years had focused on developing Local Area Inclusion Plans and testing 11 elements of proposed SEND reform. The final year concludes in Summer 2026 and is concentrating on the development of a Local Integrated Service Offer.
• A key objective was to support more children and young people with additional needs to remain in mainstream education wherever appropriate.
• The ELSEC (Early language Support for Every Child) programme had operated as a pathfinder and, due to its success, there was an ambition to continue the work through to 2027.
• The Alliance was described as a coalition of the willing across partners, as it has no statutory functions, but it has 5 strategic aims including aligned commissioning and a community 8inclusion programme 
• Leicester City Council hosted the LLR SEND Joint Commissioning Strategy, which has an initial focus area around moderate mental health needs; specifically for children with emotionally based school avoidance (EBSA)
• The Community Inclusion Programme, shaping SEND Futures, is linking with the Family First programme to ensure holistic support is provided for children with additional needs and their families.
• Engagement with headteachers had identified that SEND itself was not always viewed as the primary issue, but that adult mental health, domestic abuse and wider family pressures were having significant impact on children and young people.
• Pilot engagement events had been held in Hinckley and Bosworth and Northwest Leicestershire

In discussion with Members, the following:

• Clarification was sought regarding children not supported by CAMHS, including whether this referred to those without a diagnosis or those on waiting lists, and the age range of children supported. It was explained that not every young person required CAMHS level intervention and that the project was seeking innovative approaches to meet needs earlier and at a lower threshold. The programme aimed to provide an additional layer of support, including social prescribing, improving listening and engagement, and delivering in reach mental health practitioner support within schools, even where a formal diagnosis had not been made.
• Concern was raised as to whether expanding mainstream provision could risk reducing specialist support. It was clarified that the focus was on early help and early intervention, with the intention that timely support may reduce escalation and the need for later diagnosis. It was also emphasised that specialist SEND schools remained essential for children requiring higher levels of care, and that one aim of the project was to reduce pressure on those settings where  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

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

The following matters were raised in discussion and were linked to the next agenda item, the work programme:

• It was noted that GP access was scheduled as a future work programme item. Concern was raised regarding ongoing difficulties experienced by residents in securing GP appointments, with examples provided of delayed access leading to potential impacts on diagnosis and treatment.

• A query was raised regarding what sanctions were in place for GP practices not adhering to access requirements. It was suggested that this be considered as part of the forthcoming GP access item.

• Further concern was expressed regarding digital access requirements, particularly for elderly residents without access to computers or mobile phones. It was suggested that practices may be operating inconsistently and that there was a risk of a 2 tier system emerging.

• It was proposed that additional checks be undertaken across practices to better understand current access arrangements and patient experience in advance of the meeting scheduled for 30th April.

• The Chair confirmed that the matter would be noted and considered within the work programme.

AGREED:

1.     LLR ICB to confirm to the next Joint Health Scrutiny Committee that all GP practices across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland accept telephone appointment bookings. This should include evidence of contact with all practices, with consideration given to undertaking a “secret shopper” exercise using existing ICB staff to test telephone access to appointments.

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

The Chair noted the work programme which was discussed in Item 80.

With there being no further business, the meeting closed at 12:09pm