Resolved:  That all items be web-cast.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Langley and Paterson.

It was noted that Councillor Mrs Blackmore was substituting for Councillor Langley, and Councillor English was substituting for Councillor Paterson.

There were none.

All Members declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 8 ‘Women's and Children's Services in Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust’ and that they had been lobbied on this item. There were no declarations of whipping.

Resolved:  That all items be taken in public as proposed.

Minutes to follow

Resolved:  That the Minutes of the Partnerships and Well-being Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting of 10 August 2010 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

Interviews with:

·  Ashley Scarff (Head of Business & Corporate Planning, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust);

·  Julia Ross (Director of Strategy and Communications, West Kent Primary Care Trust);

·  Dr Paul Hobday (GP);

·  Mr Dennis Fowle (Maidstone Action for Services in Hospital – MASH)and

·  Miss Anne Henderson (consultant obstetrician, Maidstone Hospital)

·  James Blythe (NHS South East Coast),

·  Councillor Fran Wilson (Maidstone Borough Council)

·  Councillor Christopher Garland (Leader, Maidstone Borough Council)

Regarding the intention to locate women’s and children’s services in Pembury hospital, Tonbridge Road, Pembury, Tunbridge Wells, TN24 4QJ.

The Chairman welcomed the following witnesses to the meeting:

·  Ashley Scarff, Head of Business & Corporate Planning, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust;

·  Julia Ross, Director of Strategy and Communications, NHS West Kent;

·  Jenny Thomas, Director of Service Redesign, NHS West Kent;

·  Dr Paul Hobday, GP and British Medical Association representative;

·  Mr Dennis Fowle, Maidstone Action for Services in Hospital;

·  James Blythe, NHS South East Coast (Strategic Health Authority);

·  Councillor Christopher Garland, Leader of Maidstone Borough Council; and

·  Councillor Fran Wilson, Leader of the opposition, Maidstone Borough Council.

The Chairman explained  that as the reconfiguration proposals had been discussed in previous meetings, the purpose of the meeting was to consider how the NHS had met the additional requirements set by the Secretary of State in his letter of 1 July. Those were:

·  Support from GP Commissioners will be essential;

·  Arrangements for public and patient engagement, including local authorities should be further strengthened;

·  There should be greater clarity about the clinical evidence base underpinning proposals; and

·  That proposals should take account of the need to develop and support patient choice.

Mr Blythe explained that the Strategic Health Authority (SHA) would be reporting to the Secretary of State for Health at the end of September, setting out how the local NHS has addressed those criteria. That report would also respond to the concerns raised by the Kent County Council Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (KCC HOSC) in its original letter to the Secretary of State. The report would be based on the work of the Primary Care Trust (PCT) and Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (MTW NHS Trust). The views of Maidstone Action for Services in Hospital (MASH), KCC HOSC and others would be reflected in the report, and their submissions would be appended to the report in full. The SHA would not be making a recommendation to the Secretary of State on the proposals, but would recommend publishing the report.

In response to a question, Mr Blythe informed the Committee that the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP) had recommended to the Secretary of State for Health that the reconfiguration proposals should not be reviewed. The Secretary of State had accepted its recommendation, so the local NHS was proceeding with planning to implement the proposals whilst engaging with the community to resolve their concerns. He acknowledged plans may have to be amended after the Secretary of State makes a decision on the reconfiguration following the SHA report at the end of September.

The Committee heard evidence from the witnesses, and discussed the criteria, as follows:

Support from GP Commissioners

Dr Hobday commented that GPs had only recently been consulted about the changes. He explained the British Medical Association (BMA) had held a survey of local GPs. Of 127 GPs surveyed, 77% had responded and 97% opposed the reconfiguration proposals.

A Member stressed that it should be clear in the report to the Secretary of State where the views of GP Commissioners originated from. Residents of Tunbridge Wells were understandably in favour of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

5:00 p.m. to 7:42 p.m.