Select a region
Why were Guernsey senior civil servants and the entire Committee of Health and Social Care unaware of a £30 million price hike on the hospital project for several months?
This is the question being levelled at the President of Health and his Committee after it was revealed that several civil servants are no longer working for the States of Guernsey after they withheld important financial information about the second phase of the Hospital Modernisation Project.
Deputy Al Brouard gave a startling speech on the £120million project at the beginning of this yesterday's debate:
“Some members of the Programme Management team received updated estimates in February 2023, based on more detailed designs than had been used for the previous cost estimates that had informed the Outline Business Case,” Deputy Brouard told the Assembly.
Pictured: Deputy Brouard.
“It was the Outline Business Case information that formed the basis of our communications with States Members in the run up to the Funding & Investment Plan debate.
“It is an unacceptable fact that the updated estimates received in February 2023 were not shared wider than a small number of staff. The Committee and its current senior advisors were unaware of this at the time of the October 2023 debate on the Funding & Investment Plan.
“As I'm sure Members will understand, the Committee was very concerned that this information was not shared with us.
“While matters between employees and their employer are confidential to those parties, we have been advised that any staff who were aware of that information are no longer employed by the States of Guernsey. I am not able to comment further on this point.
“The current Senior Responsible Officer and Programme Director became aware of the updated estimates at the very end of October 2023, after the Funding & Investment Plan debate.
“They subsequently carried out work to establish the background before briefing our Committee on 19th December 2023. In that interim stage, officers needed time to review and thoroughly assess all matters of concern and then revert to the Committee, having discussed this with other senior colleagues in the States.”
The second phase of the Project is expected to cost more than the original £120million budgeted by the States. However, HSC believes with intervention the original figure could be kept to.
“The estimate we have received suggests the increase could be between £20m-£30m above the £120m cost envelope depending on inflation,” said Deputy Brouard.
“However, I want to reiterate the commitment we have given that our Committee has directed that all options are explored, all interventions taken, to bring the costs back in line with the budget agreed by the Assembly.”
Pictured: Plans for the Hospital Modernisation Project.
Deputy Brouard said any future options will not include the reduction in scope of Phase 2: “We remain of the view that all elements of Phase 2 are essential if we are to meet that demand.”
“If, after this work has been completed, it is found that it’s not possible to contain estimated costs to the £120m agreed by the Assembly, we will return the matter to the States so Members can debate the best way forward.”
Unsurprisingly, Deputy Brouard’s announcement was met with serious concern from other deputies, who queried how much oversight there had been of the project and how, if savings could be made now, why weren’t they originally factored in.
"Over the last two to three years, Deputy Andrea Dudley-Owen has been on her feet talking about the TEP [Transforming Education Programme] build... they have Project Management Boards, with committee members on the board,” began Deputy Neil Inder.
“Could the President of [HSC] confirm whether they have Project Management Boards, when they sit, and who attends?”
In response to Deputy Inder’s question and a follow-on from Deputy Mark Helyar it was revealed that there have never been any political members sitting on the Project Management Board of the Hospital Modernisation Project.
Pictured: Deputy Inder asked about political presence on the Project Management Board.
"It’s a shock to hear you haven’t had a member of your Committee on the board,” said Deputy Sue Aldwell. “Are you going to reassure us that a member of your Committee will be sat on that board [in the future].”
Deputy Brouard said he was “happy to give that undertaking".
In October a briefing was held by HSC to explain to the public and States members that any delay in Phase 2 would increase the cost of the project. The figure given was a £25million hike in five years. It turns out that some civil servants already knew that a £20-30million hike was already on the cards.
This point was central to a lot of further questioning.
Deputy Kazantseva-Miller asked if the Assembly “were being fundamentally misled during that meeting?”
In response, Deputy Brouard said when the Committee learnt about the withheld information they felt as concerned as the rest of the States does now. That they were being told the same information “eye to eye” and it wasn’t true.
"We relied on the professionals we had and, in this scenario, they let us down.”
Deputies Carl Meerveld and Yvonne Burford asked questions about the future cost of the project and the idea that HSC could make savings that would keep the bloating budget within the original £120million range.
Essentially, they asked why the Committee was confident it could find those savings now, when it couldn’t before.
"We are trying to run a multi-million pound project in a goldfish bowl,” said Deputy Brouard, who hoped that deputies could be patient and wait for HSC’s review into the project, “with everyone looking in and poking from the sides.”
Deputy Brouard faced further questioning later in debate as Deputy Gavin St Pier submitted several Rule 11 questions on cost to the President of Health.
Serious questions were asked about what HSC knew in the run up to the Government Work Plan debate in January, when alternative funding for the TEP was up for debate.
Deputy St Pier asked: “[At that time] was the President or any member of the Committee privy to any information to suggest that there might be significant cost pressures regarding Phase 2 of the Our Hospital Modernisation Programme?]”
Deputy Brouard said the Committee received an initial briefing on 19 December and then undertook work to “better understand the accuracy of the potential revised cost estimates”.
In a supplementary question Deputy St Pier asked if the Assembly should’ve been told of the unfolding situation during a debate about funding a project that had essentially lost out to the second phase of the Hospital Modernisation project.
In response, Deputy Brouard said the Committee wanted “the confidence to know we really had a problem”.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.