Royal Surrey needs better public accountability

I recently attended the monthly Royal Surrey Hospital Trust board meeting as an observer – the public is welcome to attend and details of the next meeting are on the Royal Surrey website. Although there were very few observers present, I’m pleased to say, the Surrey Ad was very much in evidence.

The meeting was in two parts. The first open to the public, the second (quite rightly if it is to discuss confidential issues relating to specific staffing matters) took place behind closed doors.

It was very reassuring to be given an excellent overview of the workings of the cancer department and to hear how highly its performance ranks relative to the Country’s other oncology centres.

There were, however, three major surprises for me:

1. The board did not seem to be required to actually decide anything (at least in the first part). The meeting seemed to be more of a report from the Executive Board;

2. At a time when the hospital is fighting for its very survival, the Chief Executive, Nick Moberley, missed (by quite some significant margin) his own target for introducing a balanced scorecard system which would show at a glance how well the hospital is performing against key targets – in the absence of a balanced scorecard, there was not even some dashboard of, say, top ten measures that could be used to demonstrate formally to the PCT, via the hospital board minutes, just how well managed and indispensable the RSCH is; and thirdly,

3. When there was any semblance of dissent among board members that might have hinted at criticism of the PCT (constructive or otherwise) it was very quickly suppressed by the Chief Executive (at one stage by passing a note which appeared to remind a dissenter of the presence of the Surrey Ad!).

I have attended many board meetings (as observer, presenter, participant or chairman) and I can only say that I expected more than just an AGM-style report. It may well be that the ‘meat’ of the meeting took place behind closed doors.

I am reminded of recent events at Guildford Borough Council whose leader, Councillor Hodges, has recently been called to account for taking important decisions behind the closed door of the Executive rather than in the open democratic debating chamber of the full council.

Just as I sincerely hope that the good work and reputation of the officers and many councillors of Guildford Borough Council (who have an ‘excellent’ rating from the Audit Commission), is not damaged by questions surrounding the accountability of its leader, I have to trust that Nick Moberley, at the helm of our excellent hospital at this important time, does not, through overzealous secrecy, harm the case for saving the RSCH.

Our public institutions are just that; PUBLIC. Those who take it upon themselves to lead them must remember their obligation to be accountable as well as responsible. We, for our part, must turn up to public meetings and show both our interest and our concern.

Accountability in Local Politics

'Hotel plans to be reconsidered’ Surrey Ad 26th January, tells a story of apparent arrogance and seems to show an alarming absence of business sense. I believe that Councillor Hodges should give a robust defence of his position to ensure he hasn’t, under his leadership, brought the Council into disrepute.

I am pleased that the Scrutiny Committee has been effective in its function of calling the Executive to account.

The Conservatives have shown themselves to be good custodians of the Council and, through keeping costs firmly under control and delivering excellent value for money (the independent Audit Commission’s assessment) they have kept council tax low. In general administration, therefore, the Conservatives seem to have a considerable edge over the Lib Dem opposition.

This latest proposed transaction, however, appears to show that Cllr Hodges has not learned the lessons the previous Lib Dem regime had to come to terms with when Mr Harper challenged their proposed deal with Miller Developments on the Civic Hall site (which had not been through all of the steps required for an open market transaction).

I have plenty of experience of selling substantial tranches of land and buildings in an environment where the disposal process has to be absolutely transparent and must demonstrate adequate exposure to the market so as to ensure best value.

In this case, I am not at all reassured by the reported assertion by a council solicitor ‘that the authority did not believe that any other building company would be able to develop the land in the same way’. What Council processes were adopted, and what agreement was reached by the Council as a whole to say that this was the only use of the site? Is there a formal development brief that has been issued to potentially interested parties? I don’t believe so.

Whilst I am unhappy about the handling of this particular issue, I urge all of the current Councillors (who will be up for re-election in May) to ensure this latest hiatus does not in any way delay delivery of the new Civic Hall.