Select a region
The Government is still resisting calls to name the person who played key role in setting the site-selection criteria for the new hospital - and won't explain why.
The terms by which the 82 proposed sites were whittled down to five, to two and then Overdale as the preferred option was set by a ‘Citizens’ Panel’ of 17 islanders, who themselves were ‘facilitated’ by someone.
The name of that person, however, has never been revealed, despite Scrutiny arguing that not know who it was raises doubts about the openness and transparency of the process.
The Government say that the ‘external facilitator’ will be revealed only if and when planning permission is given.
However, the Public Accounts Committee doesn’t think this is right. It has just published its comments to the Government’s response to PAC’s review of the use and operation of Citizens’ Panels, Assemblies and Juries in Jersey.
Pictured: Deputy Inna Gardiner: "The need for anonymity is unclear".
Deputy Inna Gardiner, who chairs the committee, said: “While the Government ‘accepts’ 18, ‘partially accepts’ eight and ‘rejects’ three of the committee’s 29 recommendations, the committee is particularly concerned about the Government’s response to its recommendation to publish the identity of the external facilitator for the Our Hospital Citizens’ Panel.
“The response confirms that it is the Government’s intention to publish the facilitator’s identity only when planning permission for the hospital has been granted, implying that the identity will not be published if the planning application is not successful.
“We are of the view that, as the work of the external facilitator has been completed, the need for continued anonymity is unclear.
“To maintain its commitment to transparency and accountability, the committee has requested that the Government either publishes the identity of the external facilitator, irrespective of whether planning consent is given, or provides an explanation of why it will not or cannot be published prior to planning permission being given.
She added: “As our time as a committee is coming to an end, we advise the succeeding committee to follow-up on this work to ensure that improved practices are well embedded into the governance framework for future bodies.”
The Government said that the external facilitator was appointed on the basis of appropriate qualifications and relevant experience; and that their identity was not shared with either the ‘Senior Officers Steering Group’ or the ‘Political Oversight Group’ “in order to maintain their necessary independence”.
“The recommendation to publish the facilitator’s identity is accepted provided publication takes place once the relevant Our Hospital processes, including the successful award of planning consent, have completed,” it said.
Who was the mystery hospital facilitator?
FOCUS: How were the final five hospital sites selected?
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.
Once your comment has been submitted, it won’t appear immediately. There is no need to submit it more than once. Comments are published at the discretion of Bailiwick Publishing, and will include your username.
A minor matter really with no need for transparency! YES I am being facetious!
I EARNEST urge you ALL to vote strategically next month to get rid of the dross!
This is the very reason people are opposed to the site at Overdale, the underhandedness, the lies, the deceit, the changed plans, the controversial mock ups that are out of scale with the real building.
The OH team have been told countless times that the site is unacceptable and the plans rejected by Planning officers but they are so belligerent and stubborn.
Again I have to question why the Bailiff, as speaker of the House, is not I distinguish on transparency.
I hope Fpdeputy Gardiner persists as she will have public support.