Agenda and minutes

To consider any appeals in accordance with Procedure Rule 25* of the Access to Information Procedure Rules (in the event of an Appeal the press and public will be excluded).

(*In accordance with Procedure Rule 25, notice of an appeal must be received in writing by the Chief Democratic Services Officer at least 24 hours before the meeting.)

There were no appeals against refusal of inspection of documents in accordance with Procedure Rule 25 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules.

1  To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

2  To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

3  If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

  RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:-

There were no resolutions to exclude the public.

To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration.

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes.)

There were no late items, however two additional documents were circulated in relation to agenda item 7 (Minute 23 refers), as they were not available at the time of the agenda dispatch. The documents comprised of two letters, one of which was from Sir Neil MacKay, responding to the questions which had been posed to the JCPCT by the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The other letter was from Jeremy Glyde, Programme Director at Safe and Sustainable, responding to the Committee’s supplementary questions on behalf of Sir Neil MacKay.

To declare any personal/prejudicial interests for the purpose of Section 81 (3) of the Local Government Act 2000

Councillor Rhodes declared a personal interest in agenda item 7 (Minute 23 refers), in her capacity as a member of UNISON.

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutes.

The Chair reported that apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Bromby, Goldthorpe, Hall, Saunders, Wiseman and Worton.

To follow

As the minutes of the last meeting were not yet available, this item was deferred to the next meeting of the Committee, which would be held on Thursday 22^nd September 2011.

To receive and consider the attached report of the Head of Scrutiny And Member Development

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report introducing the questions posed to the JCPCT by the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JHOSC), and seeking agreement of any specific matters for inclusion in the Committee’s report to be presented to the JCPCT later in the year.

Members were informed that a representative of the JCPCT had agreed to attend a meeting of the JHOSC, which would be held on Thursday 22^nd September 2011. Members who would not be available to attend that meeting were asked to submit any questions they wished to be put to the JCPCT’s representative.

It was agreed that the following questions should be put to the JCPCT:

• The response from Sir Neil MacKay stated that Leeds has a relatively low caseload, however the Kennedy report stated that Leeds has long waiting lists. Can you explain this inconsistency?;
• Why was a review of adult congenital heart surgery not undertaken in conjunction with the children’s review? This would have made sense given the increasing number of adult procedures, and the fact that the same surgeons operate on both children and adults. It is not acceptable that decisions will have already been made regarding paediatric provision, before the review of adult provision is undertaken;
• The response from Jeremy Glyde states that consultation will be undertaken in relation to adult services only if significant changes are recommended. What is meant by ‘significant’?;
• The response from Sir Neil MacKay states that there are gaps in compliance in the Yorkshire and Humber cardiac network. Can you provide details on where those gaps are?;
• It is unacceptable to refuse to provide the breakdown of assessment scores to the JHOSC because the JCPCT does not want to see them. Under what authority is this information being withheld? Has the JCPCT been authorised to carry out confidential work?;
• If the Leeds centre was closed, the population of North East Lincolnshire (160,000) would be the most disadvantaged in terms of urban areas. What provisions are in place to deal with this?; and
• What financial assistance would be provided to families who were subject to increased travelling costs as a result of the review?

Members also discussed any issues that should be raised in the Committee’s final report to the JCPCT. It was agreed that the following points should be covered:

• The formula used to determine the required number of centres is too simple and does not take account of all the relevant factors;
• The lack of reference to the support that will be required by families who will have to travel further as a result of the review;
• Concerns that if the Leeds centre was closed, ambulance costs for the Yorkshire and Humber region would increase dramatically;
• The results of the review of adult provision should be known before any changes are made as a result of the review of paediatric provision;
• Concerns that the impact of adverse travelling conditions (adverse weather, etc.) has not been taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To be arranged

It was reported that the next meeting of the Committee would take place on Thursday 22^nd September 2011 at 10.30am at Civic Hall, Leeds, with a pre-meeting from 10.00am.