Download (Attachment: 4)140421

Community Safety & Leisure Scrutiny Panel
2 November 2011
COMMUNITY SAFETY AND LEISURE SCRUTINY PANEL
A meeting of the Community Safety and Leisure Scrutiny Panel was held on 2 November 2011.
PRESENT:
Councillor McIntyre (Chair), Councillors C Hobson, Hudson, Hussain, Junier,
Lowes, P Purvis, McPartland and J Sharrocks.
OFFICERS:
P Clark and S Harker.
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:
Councillor Brunton, Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Board.
S Ainsworth, Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY).
H Pepper, Teesside University.
**DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No Declarations of Interest were made at this point of the meeting.
**MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Community Safety and Leisure Scrutiny Panel held on 12
October 2011 were taken as read and approved as a true record.
SCRUTINY INTO THE CORONER’S OFFICE
The Scrutiny Support Officer presented a report to outline the purpose of the meeting which was
to address information presented by representatives from Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY),
Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) and the University of Teesside.
A representative from CAB had been invited to the meeting to provide the Panel with an
indication of any concerns raised by their clients regarding the Coroner’s Service in
Middlesbrough. However CAB had contacted the Scrutiny Support Officer to explain that they
were unable to provide any direct or anecdotal information as they had no records of anyone
contacting them for advice regarding concerns over delays in concluding inquests. Therefore,
CAB were not represented at the Panel meeting.
Members heard a detailed account of a family’s personal experience of the Teesside Coroner’s
Service, following the sudden death of their twenty-one year old son. The family waited 34
weeks for the inquest and were dissatisfied with the service they received.
At the inquest the Pathologist stated that at the post mortem examination he had found
thickening of part of the heart muscle, but had identified this as being normal. However an
independent Geneticist had stated that thickening of part of the heart muscle was abnormal and
the heart should have been examined further. Further investigation of the heart might have
identified a genetic condition from which other members of the family could also suffer.
Following the inquest the family had complained to the Coroner’s Office and the General Medical
Council.
CRY was founded in 1995 to raise awareness of conditions that could lead to Young Sudden
Cardiac Death (YSCD); Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS); and Sudden Arrhythmic Death
Syndrome (SADS).
CRY had produced guidelines regarding the necessity of post mortem heart examination and
testing in cases of sudden adult death. The guidelines had been distributed to Coroners and
Pathologists. As a result of CRY’s awareness raising, Coroners were now contacting families at
risk to advise them whether screening for other family members was required.
Some time ago, Cleveland Police had commissioned the University of Teesside to carry out a
benchmarking exercise in relation to the Coroner’s Officers’ Services, the purpose of which was
to review the efficiency and effectiveness of the Coroner’s Officers to determine whether the
staffing level was appropriate for their case load. A report on the University’s findings was
1
Community Safety & Leisure Scrutiny Panel
2 November 2011
published in April 2008.
Cleveland Police provided Coroner’s Officers for both the Hartlepool and the Teesside Coroners
and it was apparent that there was disparity in how the two Coroners functioned. The University
was asked to look at how both Coroners operated. The Coroner’s Officers were interviewed and
it was established that the Teesside Coroner required a lot more information and attention to
detail than the Hartlepool Coroner. The University Researcher was unable to confirm whether
there was any evidence quoted in the report that the information requirements of the Teesside
Coroner contributed to the length of time it took to complete inquests or not.
The Scrutiny Support Officer informed the Panel that both the Coroner and Deputy Coroner were
available to attend a meeting of the Panel on 7 December 2011.
AGREED that:
1. the information provided be noted.
2. copies of the University of Teesside‘s Benchmarking Exercise for Cleveland Police and HM
Coroner’s Service Teesside’s response to the report would be circulated to all Members.
3. an additional meeting of the Community Safety and Leisure Scrutiny Panel would be held at
10.30 am on Wednesday 7 December 2011.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY BOARD UPDATE
The Chair requested that the Panel note the content of the submitted report which provided an
update on business conducted at the Overview and Scrutiny Board meeting held on 18 October
2011 namely:





Attendance of the Executive Member for Public Health and Sport.
Executive Feedback.
Medium Term Financial Plan.
Consideration of Requests for Scrutiny Reviews.
Scrutiny Panel – Progress Reports.
NOTED
URGENT ITEMS
Panel Members were reminded that due to the current investigation into the Coroner’s Service, it
had been agreed that updates on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and
Food Hygiene would be re-scheduled to a later date.
At the time of the last update to Panel, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) had launched a
national scheme based on a number banding rather than a star rating. The Panel had agreed to
receive further information at an appropriate time if consideration was given to Middlesbrough
joining the FSA national scheme. A report recommending that Middlesbrough move to the
national scheme was due to be presented to the Executive within the next few weeks. Panel
Members considered they did not require an update prior to the report’s submission to the
Executive.
AGREED as follows that:
1. the information provided be noted.
2. the Panel would receive an update on the FSA national scheme at a future meeting.
2