Future Hospital: Report puts current site back on the table… again

Friday 08 February 2019

A scathing new report criticising the Chief Minister and the “lack of political leadership and decision-making” on the Future Hospital site has made a last-ditch attempt to put the current site back on the table ahead of a key debate next week.

Next Tuesday, politicians will debate a proposal to take plans to develop the current hospital site, which have twice been rejected by the Environment Minister, off the table altogether.

But a panel of politicians tasked with investigating the Future Hospital process - made up of Deputy Mary Le Hegarat, Constable John Le Maistre and chaired by Deputy Kevin Pamplin - are pushing for the present Gloucester Street site to remain an option, arguing in their report that building elsewhere could delay the project by between two-and-a-half and 10 years.

Their findings come in a report that heavily condemned a Policy Development Board (PDB) commissioned by the Chief Minister and led by Constable Chris Taylor, which concluded that the decision process had been deeply flawed and argued in favour of building on a new site. Since then, the Constable has come out in favour of Overdale.

However, Deputy Pamplin's panel blasted Constable Taylor's group as “biased” and warned of the “very serious” implications of voting for an alternative site.

Pictured: The Scrutiny Panel behind the latest damning report in the Future Hospital saga.

Some of the main issues raised in the 44-page Scrutiny report regarding the conduct and work of the PDB included:

• the Panel felt “very concerned that a significant proportion of the membership of the PDB was biased from the outset against the current proposals to locate the future hospital on the current site”;
• the Board were tasked with a job “better suited to Scrutiny”;
• the Panel were “troubled that there appears to be two competing accounts of how the Policy Development Board viewed its task”;
• the Panel have “serious concerns about the quality and robustness of the PDB’s governance arrangements”.

Pictured: The Hospital Policy Development Board report which blew open the site debate late last year has come under fire from the Scrutiny panel.

The Panel's report also makes a series of recommendations on the Future Hospital project and its surrounding issues including reviewing the Planning system so that the final say on “approving or rejecting a major infrastructure project… lies with the States Assembly rather than with the Minister for the Environment.”

This comes after Environment Minister Deputy John Young made the decision to follow the Planning Inspector’s advice and reject Planning permission for rebuilding the Hospital on the current site.

Despite various developments which have left the prospect of building on the current site all but dead in the water, the main thrust of the Scrutiny report appears to be an attempt put the Gloucester Street site back on the table, just four days ahead of the States’ site debate.

In their report, the Scrutiny panel make the case for amending a proposition brought by Deputy Russell Labey and backed by the Council of Ministers to overturn identifying Gloucester Street as the preferred site for the new Hospital. 

They argue that the current site shouldn’t be entirely ruled out from consideration, stating that States Members are in fact presented with two options within next week’s debate. 

Pictured: The Scrutiny report warns of the urgent issues that will arise should the Future Hospital project be further delayed.

The report reads: “Option 1: If you think that the process leading to the existing site being selected as the preferred site was flawed, and you think that justifies reopening the question of site selection, you should vote for the proposition. However, you will be voting to delay the future hospital by at least 10 years as a result.

“Option 2: Alternatively, if you think that the risks of delaying the future hospital are too great, then you should vote against the proposition." 

One of the Scrutiny panel’s four recommendations reads: “This report has highlighted how poor, or lack of, political leadership and political decision making has led to poor outcomes in relation to the future hospital. On this basis, the States should not rule out the existing site as a potential site for the future hospital. If the States decides to reopen the question of site selection, the existing site must be included in the new site selection process.”

The other recommendations call for the Planning review, advise that the Council of Ministers “should establish a Political Oversight Group for the future hospital project immediately” and that the Chief Minister should clarify the relationship and distinction between Scrutiny panels and Policy Development Boards.

Deputy Pamplin commented following his report's publication: "What the evidence shows... are the clear consequences of voting to delay the Future Hospital. Regardless of how we find ourselves at this stage, now and going forward we must do our best to provide a hospital in the best interests of the patients, staff and indeed all islanders."