Rugby Borough Council: “Fight to be had” if councillors have been misled over St Cross ward closure
They were told that staff had been informed, and promised their first alternative job role.
The leader of Rugby Borough Council insisted there would be “a fight to be had” if NHS bosses have misled councillors over the proposed closure of a ward at St Cross Hospital.
Political rivals formed a united front at Wednesday’s meeting for all councillors at the Town Hall reporting that hospital staff had told them they had not been consulted on plans to close the 25-bed Hoskyn Ward, which looks after older adults, from December 4th.
They described very different accounts to that given by University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire (UHCW) chief executive Professor Andy Hardy at a recent meeting called by Rugby MP John Slinger.
Councillor Maggie O’Rourke (Lab, Benn) said she had been “quite shocked” by the disparities having heard from staff at a public march held on Saturday to protest against the closure.
She said: “We were told that all Hoskyn Ward staff were very happy, everything was fine, everyone got their first choice (of alternative role),” she said.
“We went to the march on Saturday and it was clear that was not the case at all. None of them knew what was going to happen to them and no one had been speaking to them.
“As you can imagine, that made me lose a bit of trust in the whole process. That was a turning point for me, I was really quite upset.”
Councillor Jerry Roodhouse (Lib Dem, Paddox) read out correspondence received from a nurse as recently as Wednesday morning who told him there had been “no news on our jobs”.
Quoting them, he added: “Honestly, this is so stressful. We know there are not enough jobs in Rugby for everyone to get their first choices.”
He noted how minutes of the meeting with Professor Hardy suggested “everything was sweetness and light” and that “staff have all been told”.
“Something is not working,” said Cllr Roodhouse.
“I find it really disgraceful, and I have told the chief executive this, because the way they approached this is not the way to do business.”
Councillor Ian Picker (Con, Hillmorton) said: “I also know people involved and I also know what was said was perhaps not a full interpretation of what had happened.”
Councillors unanimously voted through a motion that, among other things, committed to requesting UHCW “urgently” reviews its decision in light of the “lack of any consultation”.
It continues: “If the board is unwilling to review this decision then this council gives notice that it will refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, asking him to intervene, given the lack of due process.”
Leader Councillor Michael Moran (Lab, Admirals & Cawston) said the lack of consultation showed “an abject lack of respect” and promised swift action.
“We are writing to the trust as of tomorrow,” he said.
“Depending on that response, we will then write to the Secretary of State. For me, that is part one.
“As has been alluded to with urgent care services, we have a fundamental duty and responsibility to our residents and constituents.
“One of the things I read through our task and finish group was the question of whether we are getting a fair deal from the trust – I know it was not for the want of trying but there was an absence of data coming back from those partners.
"That is just not acceptable.
“That basic requirement of holding unelected bodies like the trust or the ICB (integrated care board – the panel that commissions NHS services) to account is absolutely a part of our job. We are not here to make friends.
“We can be perfectly polite, reasonable and serious in doing the job we are here to do and on that basis, we will report fully and transparently everything that is needed here.
“I have asked our chief officer for legal and governance to explore all avenues as to what representation and rights we have as a borough council to look after our residents in challenging those bodies, to question, formally, whether they are doing the job they are meant to be doing.
“Only when we have proper transparency, facts and figures can we all be clear on the job that needs to be done.”
On the differing accounts of the handling of the Hoskyn Ward decision, he cited “so many inconsistencies”.
“You can choose any language you want but an untruth said in a really formal setting is absolutely unacceptable and we will take that further,” he added.
“You cannot mess around and lie to people when it is such a fundamental issue about their jobs. It is not just a job, for many NHS staff it is a vocation.
“We are not going to let this drop. If something has been done that is not correct then there is a fight to be had.”