The Future Hospital Scrutiny Panel report contains allegations of an absence of key documents and a failure to follow best practice during site selection, as well as concerns about the ability to stay within budget.
The panel’s review was published yesterday, as ministers were preparing to seek approval for Overdale as the preferred site for the hospital from the States Assembly next week.
Senator Kristina Moore, who chairs the panel, said States Members were being asked to make a decision without being provided with key information in documents such as a strategic outline case and outline business case.
‘The [strategic case] will include details such as, project scope, service need, affordability of options and deliverability. I firmly believe that we need the finalised version of this information before the debate in order to make an informed decision,’ she said.
‘We have also received information from government which demonstrates that it will be challenging to build the hospital within the proposed budget of £550m. Non-site specific costs of £254m bring the total cost to approximately £800m – based on the information presented so far, it is unclear whether this represents good value for money for Islanders.’
Other findings from the review include:
- Concern about how future-proofed the new Hospital would be – in the event of the non-implementation of the Jersey Care Model and population growth of 1%, capacity could come under pressure within 12 years of opening.
- Question marks over the reasons why nine potential sites – out of a list of 55 – were not pursued.
The review makes a series of 30 recommendations for the Council of Ministers, calling for 21 of the recommendations to be carried out ‘immediately’ or ‘without delay’.
The panel will also be lodging some amendments ahead of the debate, the proposition which covers the adoption of Overdale as the preferred site.
Senator Moore said she was concerned that the Assembly had been put into an uncomfortable position, particularly in regard to the cost of the scheme, but that the amendments were intended to be constructive and enable the scheme to move forward.
‘Our intention is to ensure there is greater rigour in the processes which will mean Members are more comfortable,’ she said.
