To receive reports about and receive questions and answers on the business of any joint arrangements or external organisations.
Minutes:
i. Mr Baines – Rural Community Council
Recent meeting discussion regarding Social Care and focus on care in the community, also Rural Community Council promoting support they could offer with Neighbourhood Plans.
ii. Mr Bool – Combined Fire Authority
The authority was running to budget and objectives were being set. There would be a new rapid response vehicle stationed at Oakham and smaller vehicle currently in Oakham, would be moved to Uppingham. This smaller vehicle only required a crew of 2 which would enhance the service provided for Uppingham which is a retained fire station. The small appliance would replace the flatbed truck and not the pump (which was used for road traffic incidents). Mr Bool confirmed that there was a recruitment exercise taking place seeking to recruit 25 new crew members and the fire authority were also looking at offering apprenticeships, but Rutland fire stations were currently fully manned and so these new recruits would be stationed in other areas.
iii. Mr Bool – Parish Council Forum
The next meeting would take place on 24 April 2017 and would involve a question and answer session with RCC Officers on planning. Mr Bool asked that Members supported their Parish Councils where possible by encouraging attendance at this meeting.
iv. Miss Waller – Joint Health Scrutiny Panel
Attended meeting on 14 March 2017to discuss Congenital Heart Disease Services, Miss Waller confirmed that Members at the meeting were united in their approach to the issues raised and she had summarised the details of the meeting and circulated to all Members. The summary can be found below:
“The focus of this meeting was the NHS consultation on its proposals for the implementation of the agreed standards for congenital heart disease (CHD) services for children and adults.
NHS England states services are based around a three tiered model. Level 1 is the specialist surgical centre managing the most complex diagnostics and care including surgery and interventional cardiology. Level 2 services do not provide surgery or interventional cardiology but do provide the same specialist medical care as Level 1. Level 2 centres focus on diagnosis and ongoing care and management of CHD. Level 3 services are those in local hospitals run by paediatricians/cardiologists with a special interest in CHD. Levels 1 and 2 services are commissioned by NHS England and level 3 by local Clinical Commissioning Groups. This consultation, therefore, is about Levels 1 and 2.
There was total agreement amongst the councillors present that the proposal to close the Level 1 CHD service was poorly argued and the service was badly needed by people not only in the East Midlands but also further afield. NHS’s argument for closing the service is based on an assessment of hospitals against 120 key standards. No hospital in the country achieves all the 120. There also appears to be a priority placed on the standard which relates to number of operations each surgeon carries out per year (a minimum of 125) which, currently, UHL fails to achieve. NHS England are not prepared to accept UHL’s plans to reach that number are realistic and are therefore “failing” UHL on historic data. Newcastle hospital also fails the same target, and by a greater margin, but is being kept open because only they and Great Ormond Street offer heart transplant surgery and NHS England does not want this provision available in only one hospital. Councillors felt this was a case of double standards, especially as UHL has a plan to reach the magic 125 operations per surgeon but Newcastle does not. Further, UHL are unique in offering Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) on a mobile basis; that is children can be transferred between hospitals on ECMO. NHS England feel this service could be provided by another hospital but, when questioned, did not explain how or why heart transplant surgery could not be offered at a different hospital to Newcastle.
NHS England also claimed that if UHL closes Level 1 services the travel times for patients (mainly to Birmingham) would be an additional 14 minutes (for children) and 32 minutes for adults. The matrix on which this was calculated bore little relationship to where people might actually live. Presumably children and adults live in the same locations! Members were highly critical of the statistical approach NHS England took and even more so because the Birmingham’s children’s hospital has no possibility of expansion, provides poor facilities for patients’ families and is in a location lacking in reasonably priced overnight accommodation and places to eat (only Macdonald’s in the vicinity). We all felt NHS England gave too little consideration to the families of these very sick children when they made their plans.
Members expressed the view that the limitations of Birmingham, and the ease of travel to London, would make many patients in the East Midlands choose a London hospital if UHL closed down. This wouldn’t fit in with NHS England’s plans and the NHS England representatives present couldn’t explain what would happen if patients/their families exercised their right to choose in this way.
As mentioned earlier the consultation refers to Level 1 and Level 2 services. The consultation assumes UHL will continue to offer Level 2 but UHL are quite clear that Level 2 provision would not be economically viable without Level 1 provision. As the consultation also proposes ceasing Level 2 at Nottingham University Hospitals that would mean no Level 2 provision in the East Midlands. The impact on patients would be significant as it is Level 2 which provide ongoing care.
In conclusion, members were not satisfied with much of the basis of NHS’s decision making nor their consultation process. We were equally dissatisfied with the responses we got from NHS England to our questions. We consider residents in the East Midlands are being treated poorly.”
v. Miss Waller – East Midlands Councils Regional Employers Board Meeting 4 April 2017
This meeting was the opportunity for local councillors, as employers, to meet with the trade unions which represent staff we employ.
The issues for discussion were largely pay and terms and conditions for staff and other issues such as training. This meeting involved a presentation on the “Dying to work” campaign – a national campaign, begun in the East Midlands, designed to support staff diagnosed with a terminal illness. There was currently over 40 employers signed up, including national companies and public service employers. Miss Waller supported Rutland County Council signing up to this campaign and would be sending further details to Human Resources and members.
vi. Miss Waller – SACRE 4 April 2017
The minutes of the meeting can be found on the RCC website. Miss Waller wished to thank Gill Curtis, recently employed in the People Directorate, for securing the services of Amanda Fitton as SACRE’s professional officer. Amanda also works in this capacity for Northamptonshire, Peterborough and Cambridgeshire which means Rutland will benefit from a wider knowledge base. Rutland schools will also benefit as they will be able to access training that Amanda organises. Miss Waller wanted to thank Cllr Wilby for his ongoing support during this period of change. The Annual Report on SACRE would be presented to the next Children’s Scrutiny Panel and students from Harrington School would also be attending to talk about their experiences of religious education.
vii. Mr Oxley – 747 Bus Meeting
Meeting well attended and Uppingham Town Council actively encouraging people to use this bus service and will also be launching a media campaign to promote use of this service.
viii. Mr Walters – Launch of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Crime Plan
Meeting well attended and positive feedback.
ix. Mr Walters – Police and Crime Panel
Discussion highlighted the need for fairer funding for Leicestershire Police.