We must have an answer to this fair and relevant question

FREEDOM of information – what a very, very sick joke. I was appalled to read your article (JEP 26 April) of the denial of an FoI request seeking publication of the minutes of the ministerial meeting which decided that Overdale was not only the preferred site for the new hospital, but in fact the only possible site. I was even more appalled by the pathetic reasons – excuses – given for non-disclosure.

If we have States Members who identify with the personnel described in the article, then they should resign forthwith. Are we really governed by Members who are terrified that what they think and say could become known? Do we not welcome opposition in a debate in order to reach the best result? My experience of politicians is that they are normally more than willing to express their opinions, and quite happy to disagree.

Maybe requesting the complete minutes was a step too far; maybe a request for the gist of the debate would suffice for those of us who still cannot, by ourselves, comprehend how Overdale became the only site choice.

The whole site-selection process was on the basis of a set of criteria – composed by who I do not know – which were applied to 80-plus possible locations. From the published results of the first two stages, it is abundantly clear that Overdale did not meet the criteria on several counts, noticeably size, access, ease of transition, contour of site, nearby amenities etc. Therefore, in the final stages of the discussion there must have been a change to the criteria, which presumably is clear from the requested minutes. All that the public, who will be paying for this project through three generations, need to know is what changes were made and why. It is not much to ask since it is a project that could affect every resident and visitor now and for years to come.

It is hard to imagine how many of the criteria had to be changed to allow Overdale to be recommended. We already know that access is a major problem, the proposed solution to which is both devastating and extremely costly. We also now know that relocating the Overdale facilities during the building process will involve even more millions being spent on a temporary conversion of the former Les Quennevais School. The only local amenities are two cemeteries and a crematorium, which is hardly relevant. So we ask again, what changed at the final stage of the site-selection process to allow Overdale to prevail?

It is a simple, fair and relevant question. Even without publishing the minutes of the ministerial meeting, so as not to upset those trembling Members, the question can still be answered – and I am holding my breath.