Minister’s scathing response to hospital findings

Minister’s scathing response to hospital findings

Health Minister Richard Renouf says he is ‘assured’ that the current site was ‘properly evaluated’ and that ‘sufficient and accurate information’ was given to ministers and the States Assembly to help them form their decision to approve constructing on the existing site.

He also says he is ‘alarmed’ by the consequences of delaying the project and adds that if politicians choose to reverse the previous States Assembly’s decision ‘they should be prepared to say they are doing so for political reasons rather than on any evidential basis’.

His comments come after earlier this month the majority of a board – of which he was a member of – said that the Waterfront and Overdale sites should be put back to the States.

The Hospital Policy Development Board was tasked by Chief Minister John Le Fondré to provide assurance over the States Assembly’s decision to build the new £466 million facility on the current site or to raise concerns in relation to the evidence that led to this decision.

Today, in a written response setting out his dissension with the board’s findings, Deputy Renouf claims the board has not found any compelling evidence that the States Assembly has made a wrong decision and says the way it went about its task was ‘deeply unsatisfactory to me’.

His response says: ‘In terms of process, I must record certain misgivings. Our terms of reference set out the need for an evidential approach. Opinions tend to abound on such emotive and important matters.

‘Those who shout loudest are not necessarily wrong; but the views expressed to the board needed to be tested against facts. Regrettably the board did not confine itself to a disciplined framework guaranteed to achieve this.’

He also says that he ‘strongly’ disagrees with the board’s comments that there appears to be little evidence to show that the decision to chose the current site was ‘robustly tested or measured against the original site selection criteria’.

The response adds that proceedings of the board were ‘largely directed’ to finding reasons for not accepting evidence in support of the current site and ‘what developed was a ready, almost unquestioning, acceptance of statements of opinion in favour of rejecting the current site’.

Deputy Renouf claims that the board’s meetings were ‘unstructured’, there was no agreed understanding of why particular people were asked to appear before the board, there was no plan for questions they were going to ask and there was ‘little or no discussion following the presentation of evidence’.

The Health Minister adds that he has ‘huge concerns’ about the risks that would arise if plans did not proceed with a new hospital on the existing site, as ‘almost all areas’ of the current facility fail to meet modern health standards.

Although he says the noise, vibration and infection issues about building a facility next to the current hospital has given him the most ‘anxiety’, he says there is evidence that the practice has been ‘successfully’ undertaken elsewhere.

Furthermore, he says the 60s block, the Gwyneth Huelin Wing and the 80s block were all built next to the existing Hospital.

‘There seems to be no abiding folk memory of intolerable conditions which occurred during those times and I would guess that all work proceeded using standard building techniques and without the specialist knowledge and methods that now exist to mitigate disruption,’ his response says.

Senator Le Fondré has previously said that the final approval for the project would be put before the new Assembly. The Council of Ministers is due to decide when that debate will be held next month.

‘Should States Members decide to reverse the decision of the previous Assembly, they are free to do so, but they should be prepared to say they are doing so for political reasons rather on any evidential basis,’ the response says.

‘They would need to be very mindful of the consequences of such a decision, particularly in the light of the serious risks to patient safety in the ten-year delay before a new hospital would be ready.’

– Advertisement –
– Advertisement –