By John Henwood
THE story of the new hospital, its history of failure and enormous waste of money extends back way before the present government. It was in 2012 that the then Health Minister, Anne Pryke, said the existing buildings were past their shelf life and former Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf prepared the public for the substantial probable cost of around £290 million, a figure which caused a sharp intake of breath. That much?
Since then, three successive administrations have spent not far off that amount for no tangible benefit – a legacy of mismanagement, procrastination and political ineptitude.
Chief Minister Kristina Moore and her Cabinet took over responsibility on 12 July last year, when new Deputy Tom Binet accepted what many would consider the poisoned chalice of responsibility for delivering a new hospital. Recently it emerged that he and Health Minister Karen Wilson are far from united on the requirements, so the story seems likely to have a twist or two more to come.
Eighteen months on, it is too soon to determine whether sustained progress is now being made or whether we will have to wait for yet another government to finish the job. So, let us leave the vexed and seemingly interminable issue of the new hospital aside for a while and consider the performance of our government in other respects.
The ever-escalating cost of the public sector has been described as the elephant in the room, an appropriate metaphor for an issue that is politically embarrassing. In her manifesto prior to the 2022 election Deputy Moore stated: “Government has failed to address key challenges for the community. The former CEO was employed to streamline and reduce costs. The outcome has been 800 more on the public payroll… This failure must be reversed by a transparent and accountable new government.”
Since June last year the public sector employment roll has continued to increase, with the creation of around 450 new posts. Far from reversing the growth, it has accelerated under the present government. If the previous lot were judged as having failed, then by the same measure Deputy Moore’s government is failing too. So much for her “we have no time to waste, we must start straight away”.
The chief executive Deputy Moore referred to in her manifesto – someone she helped to remove – was Charlie Parker. It is arguable at least that he could have completed the required reforms had he not been “ousted” halfway through his term. One Gov was supposed to bring down the silos in which senior managers grow separate, expanding empires to the detriment of joined-up government and more efficient public services. It was torpedoed by the vested interests of the dark side. We shall never know what Mr Parker might have achieved, but we are now on our third subsequent chief executive and it appears we are further away than ever from reversing rampant public sector growth. And it is not right to imply, as the States Employment Board has, that growth is all about more teachers and nurses. One of Deputy Moore’s pledges was to create a Cabinet Office to strengthen decision-making. The promise was kept, but what we were not told was that it would create 70 jobs. As for strengthening decision-making, well, that has not happened. And do we really need 32 people in a communications directorate whose role is to tell us what is going on in government? It is what it is not telling us that is of concern.
After the general election, in her successful pitch for the top job, Deputy Moore made transparency and accountability the banner of her leadership. There was a list of to-dos, of which some was low-hanging fruit and readily, if controversially, achieved. However, available evidence suggests the main aim of creating a government that is truly open and answerable is still a long way from being realised.
The background to the raid on premises linked to Roman Abramovich is an example of withholding information. Search warrants executed by the Economic Crime Unit, a separate body from the regular States police, were obtained unlawfully and quashed. This led to damages plus costs being paid. Neither the amount of public money involved nor the person or persons responsible for the cock-up has ever been disclosed.
The departure of former chief executive Suzanne Wiley was sudden and unexpected, coming as it did shortly after she had said how well she and her family had settled in Jersey, so the official reason given did not have the ring of truth. Ms Wiley has remained silent since. There had been rumours of poor relations with senior politicians and even hints of bullying. The real issue which led to the Island having a fourth chief executive in a little over two years remains veiled from public view. In response to criticism, the Chief Minister said her government was “living and breathing openness and transparency”. Why doesn’t it feel like that?
Then there was the spat between Deputy Binet and the Chief Minister in which the former told the Assembly that he had received a text from the latter saying that she would report him to the Standards Commissioner if he spoke in opposition to a proposed Health Advisory Board. An apparent attempt to gag a minister cannot be categorised as openness.
The children’s commissioner criticised the government for a lack of transparency over an inspection report which said facilities were failing to meet official standards. She said the information reached her by anonymous tip-off. It was later published. Earlier there was obfuscation around allegations of bullying leading to low morale at the hospital and allegations of cover-ups were exposed in the media. Eventually, after further negative disclosures the government carried out a review which concluded there was cause for further investigation. Have those investigations been completed? Did they lead to the exit of the director of the Health Department and chief nurse, whose hurried departures have never been adequately explained? More recently there were calls for greater transparency about faulty concrete in public buildings.
Issues large and small point to a government which is certainly not “living and breathing openness and transparency”. The present Council of Ministers has not had to deal with the cataclysm of a pandemic, which marked the term of its much-derided predecessor. There was a public call for change answered by some now in government who stood on the promise of “a better way”. The question now is when is it going to be better?
