Deputy Richard Renouf said the Future Hospital team leading the £466-million facility had acted with ‘professionalism’ throughout the process to choose a plot.
His comments come after the JEP reported last week claims by Assistant Chief Minister Chris Taylor, who said that evidence may have been deliberately ignored to make the Gloucester Street site appear to be the best place for Jersey’s new hospital.
Mr Taylor is currently leading a review examining all evidence that led to the current site being chosen above others, including the Waterfront, Overdale and the People’s Park. Deputy Renouf is also on the review panel.
Answering a question from Deputy Mike Higgins yesterday about whether evidence had been withheld from politicians, Deputy Renouf said: ‘The Future Hospital team has undertaken the gathering of information to assist with the site selection of the future hospital and, as Health and Social Services Minister with some responsibility for the team, I believe it has acted with professionalism and dedication throughout the site selection process.
‘I am assured it has not withheld information regarding possible sites for the future hospital, with the limited exception of some material, which in the normal way is not disclosable in the public domain under normal freedom of information principles.’
Deputy Higgins asked the minister if he could explain why Mr Taylor, the Constable of St John, had stated that information had been withheld.
‘I’m also a member of the hospital policy board and the Constable St John was making comments as a member of the same board,’ the minister said. ‘I can confirm we have discussed those comments and at a recent meeting of the board we determined that we had reached no conclusions thus far except to conclude that the Island urgently needs a new
hospital.’
When asked by Deputy Higgins if he believed Mr Taylor was wrong to state that information regarding the future hospital was withheld from Members, the minister replied: ‘I can’t say whether anyone is wrong or right in the views they express, because we are still considering the evidence in the course of our work.’
