There is a particular kind of meeting that keeps the NHS foundation trust model honest, at least in theory. A council of governors gathers in a modest room, usually quarterly, made up of elected patients, staff and members of the public, and asks the trust board questions it might otherwise not have to answer. Nobody watches. No minister attends. It is unglamorous by design, a piece of governance architecture built into the 2003 foundation trust reforms specifically because the state wanted hospitals accountable to somewhere other than Whitehall.

It is this body that Sir David Behan, chair of King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, has reportedly dismissed as an exercise in virtue signalling: a gesture of democratic legitimacy performed for its own sake rather than because it changes how a hospital is run. Coming from the chair of one of the country's largest teaching trusts, appointed to his own post only after that same Council of Governors approved it, the remark carries more weight than an offhand aside. It reads as a considered judgement on the future shape of NHS governance.

The context makes the timing matter. NHS foundation trusts were designed as semi-autonomous organisations, earning greater freedom from central control in exchange for stronger local accountability. Two decades on, that bargain looks increasingly one-sided. Integrated care boards now hold the commissioning purse strings and set system-wide priorities. NHS England's own functions are being absorbed back into the Department of Health and Social Care. Financial control totals, workforce plans and performance trajectories are increasingly negotiated at regional and national level, leaving individual trust boards, and by extension their governors, with a shrinking share of genuine discretion. Behan's argument, whatever its merits, is at least honest about where power now actually sits.

The counter-case is not sentimental. Councils of governors appoint and can remove trust chairs and non-executive directors, a formal power that boards cannot simply route around, however inconvenient it becomes. They also provide one of the few remaining channels through which patients and local communities can put a direct question to hospital leadership outside of a complaints process or an inspection. In a system already contending with public distrust over waiting lists, safety failures and opaque financial decisions, dismantling even a partially functioning accountability mechanism is a bet that few in Whitehall would want to own if it goes wrong.

What Behan's comments expose is not really a debate about governors at all, but an unresolved question about what kind of accountability the reformed NHS actually wants. If integrated care systems are to be the genuine locus of decision-making, then a governance structure built around the individual trust starts to look like a legacy artefact, however well-intentioned. If, on the other hand, ministers still want patients and staff to have a formal lever over how their local hospital is led, then that lever needs strengthening rather than quiet abandonment, because a right that nobody bothers to exercise is functionally the same as no right at all.

For trust leaders watching this exchange, the practical lesson is sharper than the rhetorical one. Any chair minded to agree with Behan privately would do well to say so through the proper reform channels rather than in public, given how directly it undercuts the legitimacy of the process that put them in the job. For policymakers, the more useful question is not whether governors are decorative, but why a mechanism designed to anchor hospitals to their communities has been allowed to drift into looking that way.

‍