I visited the Epsom General Hospital this morning to attend the Trust Board meeting where the controversial proposals, that would lead to moving some Obstetrics and Paediatrics care to St Helier, were to be discussed by the Board.

The meeting was, as the Chairman kept reminding us, a meeting in public not a public meeting. He did, however, permit questions and comments from members of the public.

The first thing to say was that the room in which the meeting was held was ridiculously small. Conference Room 1 has a partition at the back, which had to be opened, to allow more people to participate. Even so some people remained outside in the corridor and, I believe, some had to leave.

Chris Grayling, MP for Epsom & Ewell, was asked to say a few words before the meeting began. It was clear from the start that Mr Grayling had thoroughly prepared his material. He launched a scathing attack on the proposal and highlighted a number of salient points. In particular that the argument for closing maternity services at Epsom could not be based on safety because if that were the case then the unit should close immediately. One of his key remarks was supported by a one year old, whose twin had died in the womb, and who would not have survived the journey to St Helier for the emergency caesarean that was carried out.

There were a number of other forceful speakers, who unfortunately I don't know, one of whom was a 65 year old man who had been damaged at birth, who challenged the board to justify a decision that would force mothers to have their babies in St Helier.

The final speaker against, that I was able to hear, was a consultant from the hospital, representing those members of staff against the closure. This lady received a standing ovation for her carefully reseached case against the closure.

It seemed to me that the case for closure was weak and poorly presented. The consulted proposing the closure assured us that her graph clearly showed something or other - neither did it show nor was it clear. If you insist on you graphs and charts don't use the default colours in Excel. They are awful. She ploughed on with he statistics which were, unfortunately, contradictory and misleading in my view. The two groups of people, mothers with difficult births and children requiring high dependency care, that would be moved to St Helier were, in my view, the two groups who most needed family support and it was being taken away from them. As a number of people pointed out public transport to St Helier is difficult at the best of times.

The proposal seemed to be more about doing what was efficient for the Trust management than what was right for the patients and the community. It is interesting that Epsom has one of the highest saftey records for neonatal care. A move of Epsom's mothers to St Helier would improve their much poorer statistics to make St Helier look better without any real change.

I could not stay to the very end but it was a very heated meeting that will, hopefully, have not been able to make the wrong decision.

Yet another briefing session, this time at Epsom Town Hall, mainly for new councillors. We had a visit from a senior Police officer, whose name escapes me, to tell us about neighbourhood policing. This is, I believe, closer to what people are asking for. More visible policing but also policing which doesn't lose sight of what the community wants. It's a developing process and there have been recent changes as to how it will be implemented in Epsom & Ewell. Currently the number of Police panels for the area has to be finalised. The relationship with the community will, hopefully, crystalise then. There is also talk of 'natural neighbourhoods' and of how they are involved. The whole process is dynamic and can therefore react to urgent and immediate needs as well as dealing with issues of a temporary nature.

The latter part of the evening was given over to the Finance Director, John Turnbull, to tell us where the Borough's money comes from and what it is spent on. This was never going to be very exciting. But John dealt well with an important subject clearly marking the boundary between the officers' roles and the members' roles in deciding how money is raised and spent. He also clearly made the point that the Borough is one of the big spenders in the area even if we can't always decide where some of the money goes.

I had to go to Mole Valley Council offices in Dorking last night for a training session on Scrutiny.

It was a very interesting session and I think I learned a lot - I hadn't realised there were so many different types of question.

Need to read "A hard nut to crack" and "13 steps to scrutiny success". The first I found and linked to. The second I'm wondering if it shouldn't have been, "14 steps to scrutiny success".

I think the most interesting thing about the evening was meeting councillors from other authorities and seeing them in action. Part of the evening was spent on a role playing exercise. I can see how difficult it must sometimes be for officers who may have to answer questions without trying to blame someone who may have ignored their advice.

I shall have my first taste of the real thing next Wednesday, 13th June.

A mention in the newspaper regarding one of the decisions by the planning committee where we rejected an application. Nice to see that the local paper does take notice of such things even if they are 3 weeks late with the article on the elctions.