One week on, the SR investigation into the Glasgow NHS land deal has become a crisis of confidence in Scottish public life

Obstructed in my search for the truth

The astonishing testimony of a public servant
who has had enough of decisions made
behind closed doors

A senior member of Europe's largest health board, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, has delivered a damning indictment of his own board following the Scottish Review's investigation into the Blawarthill land deal. John Bannon, MBE, will tell the health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, today that he has been obstructed in his search for the truth. He is calling for urgent ministerial intervention and an independent inquiry into the board's conduct. Mr Bannon says he is no longer prepared to accept decisions about the deal made in his name 'behind closed doors' without consultation with the members.
     Referring to the withdrawal of funding from St Margaret of Scotland Hospice in Clydebank for its continuing care beds, a service now to be provided by a private company at Blawarthill, Mr Bannon accuses the board of failing 'the most vulnerable members of our society'.

It is extremely rare for the holder of a public office of this importance to disassociate himself from the actions of the body he serves. It is almost unique for the condemnation to be so grave or the context of the attack – end-of-life care – so sensitive.
     Mr Bannon was so unhappy about the official response to SR's investigation, and about the sequence of events leading to our investigation, that he spent most of the weekend writing a long, detailed letter to Nicola Sturgeon, extracts from which we publish today.
     We should make it clear – very clear indeed – that when we began our investigation into the Blawarthill land deal we were unaware of Mr Bannon or of his concerns. We assumed, wrongly, that the board was of one mind. We thought, wrongly, that all 16 ministerial appointees on the board were satisfied with the decisions made in their name.
     On the contrary: it is now apparent that the chair of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Andrew Robertson, no longer commands the full support of his colleagues – a serious situation for any chair of a major public body.

This crisis of confidence at the heart of Scottish public affairs was provoked by last Tuesday's SR investigation headed 'The land deal, the end of life, and the public interest'.
     We described the Blawarthill development as 'the most controversial land deal in the history of the NHS in Scotland' – an agreement between NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and a private developer for the redevelopment of a crumbling hospital in Glasgow. What makes the deal so controversial is that it will make end-of-life care of the frail elderly a business to be conducted for profit – while the hospice which provides the care at present, and has done so with distinction for more than half a century, has its funding for this work withdrawn.
     The missives were due to be signed on 31 January. We understand that they have not been signed as yet.
     After SR went online last Tuesday, we decided to put seven questions about the 'land transaction' and its impact on St Margaret of Scotland Hospice to the ministerial appointees on the board of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. There are 16 of them, including the chairman. We did so in the belief that there are serious issues of governance and accountability to be addressed.
     Because of the urgency of the situation, with the deal due to be concluded within days, we sent an identical letter via email to all 16 and routed the letters through the office of the chairman.
     We asked each of the 16 to reply individually. We did so because, on an issue related to the care of 'the most vulnerable members of our society', the non-executive members should consider very seriously their duties under the board's code of conduct. The code states:
     You have a duty to be as open as possible about your decisions and actions, giving reasons for your decisions and restricting information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
     In our view, the wider public interest in this case demands complete transparency on the part of each ministerial appointee – and the exercise of personal responsibility.

What happened to our letters? This question should be considered by any inquiry into the extraordinary conduct of the board.
     At 3.50 on Wednesday afternoon, while we were in the process of sending the letters, we received the following email from the PA to the chairman:
     I acknowledge receipt of this email and those you are continuing to send for non-executive board members of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
     This was the first and last communication we received from the board.
     It would have been a simple matter for the chairman, or another responsible person within the organisation, to have checked our letter for the integrity of its content and, having satisfied themselves, emailed the letter to the indidivuals to whom it was clearly addressed. Alternatively the board could have informed us that, for one reason or another, it was intercepting all 16 letters; at that point we would have been in a position to take appropriate action in our own defence. Instead, we heard nothing. The chairman himself failed to acknowledge a letter personally addressed to him. The 'director of communications', Ally McLaws, did not communicate with us. These discourtesies on the part of the chairman and director of communications are disgraceful.
     In the circumstances, we wish to know whether the 15 ministerial appointees (excluding the chairman, who must have been aware of our letter) ever received an email from us. If it is established that the letters were intercepted, and that the members of the board were not offered an explicit opportunity to reply individually, we intend to complain formally to the Scottish Government.
     Later in the week, John Bannon was furious when the director of communications circulated to the board members a press response to SR's seven questions – a response prepared and made public without consultation with the members. It seems that, unknown to us, an enterprising journalist picked up the seven questions from Wednesday's edition of the Scottish Review – we had published them on the day of their transmission – and put the same questions to the board. Perhaps the board's reasoning was that, although an online magazine could be safely ignored, a national newspaper was not so easily overlooked. Whatever the explanation, the journalist got his answers. Needless to say, we view these answers with contempt.

The indictment

Mr Bannon's letter to the cabinet secretary is devastating in its implications. At its core is an allegation that he was obstructed in the course of his public duties. We have his permission to quote from the letter:

'I requested all facts, figures, tendering documentation, as I believe that all information an NHS board holds must be made available to members should they so request it, but I was frustrated, indeed would go as far as to say that I was being obstructed in my endeavours to get to the truth of an issue which was causing such widespread public concern for such a long period of time. Board officers should remember that they are there to serve the board, not dictate to it.'
    
'One would have to ask why Glasgow City Council appear to be the driving force given that it is an NHS land transaction, the cost of which is not known to anyone but board and council officers – should board members not have been advised of the receipts we will receive as a result of a land transaction?'

'I requested costings for the provision of continuing care beds for both St Margaret's and Blawarthill and the figures supplied to me by an officer of the board are contradicted by figures I have obtained from Information Services Division (ISD) Scotland – how can board members have confidence in a project if officers are not in possession of the true financial cost of providing the service? Was a Best Value for Money study carried out? – Again, neither I nor any of my colleagues could answer that as we have never had sight of it.'

'I was astonished to learn that the contract the board and Glasgow City Council will be entering into with Southern Cross Healthcare for the Blawarthill care homes is only for a five-year period. I emailed the director of finance to ask if this was the case and he replied in the affirmative. I then posed the question to him: Does this therefore mean that after five years Southern Cross could ask the board for a blank cheque as in effect there is no other care provider in the locality?....He replied: Yes, it would be a five-year contract to rent the use of the beds. Beyond the five-year period, I am not clear what might happen in terms of whether the NHS might seek to enter into a further contract or not.'

'I have been ill of late and was hospitalised when the board met in 2009 to reach a final decision. Even although I had been ill I still took an interest in board matters and frequently submitted my comments on various issues...However, my attempts to have my concerns expressed at the board meetings proved extremely difficult and I believe there was a deliberate attempt to frustrate my endeavours to have my views known in a public forum. I requested that my comments be read at the meeting of the board – this request was denied. I then requested the contact details of board colleagues, again this request was denied...'

'I finally asked that a copy of my concerns be forwarded to colleagues, however they only received them immediately prior to the commencement of the meeting. Neither the chairman nor head of administration made any reference whatsoever to the comments I had submitted.'

'Campaigners requested that they be allowed to address board members with their concerns but the chairman refused, saying that this would set a precedent. I have to advise that a precedent had already been set when campaigners fighting to save the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital were allowed to address us on two occasions and yet St Margaret's campaigners were denied this opportunity.'

Mr Bannon supports the Blawarthill Hospital redevelopment. He has done so since its inception. But he makes two vital points.
     First, as a member of the board, he was never made aware that the continuing care beds at St Margaret of Scotland Hospice would be sacrificed as a result. 'I believe there is room for both,' he tells Nicola Sturgeon, 'as they could quite easily co-exist if only intransigent minds at the NHS board were not closed to any proposal other than the proposal they have put forward. This take it or leave it attitude does not help anyone.'
     Second, the paper which went to the board in April 2008 for the redevelopment of the site 'bore no resemblance to the proposal that was subject to public consultation in 2000'.

John Bannon includes in his letter to Nicola Sturgeon a personal statement on the ethics of public life:

'I have wrestled with my conscience over this entire matter as I have grave and very serious doubts about the information or lack of which board members should have had and the fact that officers of the board are now speaking on behalf of the board without consulting us first. I can speak for myself and will not have the director of communications or anyone else speak on my behalf before affording me the courtesy of consulting me.
     The code of conduct for members of public bodies is the bible by which we should all live. It talks about selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability and stewardship; openness; honesty; but throughout, the theme is that we should always act in the public interest. I believe it is therefore incumbent upon me as a public servant to say why I am uncomfortable with a decision being made in my name.'

Mr Bannon rejects any suggestion that an internal inquiry will be sufficient to deal with the issues he has raised:

'I firmly believe that the only way this matter can be resolved and public confidence restored to the NHS board is for ministerial intervention – with an instruction that all facts, figures, documentation etc be reviewed independent of the NHS board and all other parties, either by an individual or short-life working group, otherwise public concern will continue with the matter never being resolved and the public always having the suspicion that this deal was made behind closed doors and not in the interest of the public or patient care. The only people who will suffer are those whom you and I came into public office to serve – we cannot fail the most vulnerable members of our society in their hour of need and I would implore you to use your ministerial powers to intervene immediately.'

We support John Bannon and applaud his courage. His letter raises important points of principle about the conduct of public bodies and the proper relationship between the members and officers of these bodies. But there is a more immediate issue: the conduct of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in the specific matter of the Blawarthill Hospital redevelopment and the withdrawal of funding from St Margaret of Scotland Hospice.
     We repeat: the chair of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has lost the full support of his colleagues. He has lost it in the most public and damaging manner imaginable.
     Nicola Sturgeon has consistently declined to intervene in this matter. We believe she has acted (or failed to act) in good faith. We believe also that she has not been fully informed. John Bannon refers in his letter to 'this whole sorry saga'. If it is ever to be resolved, a political will now requires to be exercised – in the public interest.

First published in SR on Tuesday 2 February 2010