The Health Minister has revealed that he only discovered by chance – as contractors arrived in Jersey expecting to finalise the £710m hospital deal – that the government’s CEO had already instructed officials not to sign it.
Senator Tom Binet has this morning issued an extraordinary five-page account of the final days leading up to the signing of Jersey’s biggest-ever capital contract, within minutes of the Chief Minister being grilled in the States Assembly this morning over the controversial process.
The statement provides more detail about the behind-the-scenes tensions reported by Express last week, when a ministerial letter showed that Senator Binet had been prepared to take personal responsibility for pushing ahead before outstanding assurance work had been completed.
“I became aware of its existence…”
Senator Binet says he went to Mulcaster House on 28 May intending to conclude negotiations with senior representatives of contractor Bouygues.
But while waiting for a delayed flight carrying one of the contractor’s representatives, the Hospital Project Director told him about a letter sent a week earlier, on 21 May, by Government Chief Executive Andrew McLaughlin to Health’s Chief Officer.
According to Senator Binet, the letter said the contract should not be signed until further due diligence had been undertaken – work expected to finish around two weeks after the election.
“The letter had neither been sent to me nor otherwise brought to my attention,” he said.
“I became aware of its existence only when the Project Director informed me of it immediately prior to the arrival of the contractor’s delegation.”
Senator Binet said the revelation created a “significant and unexpected dilemma”.
He feared Bouygues could potentially walk away if the signing was postponed, noting that a short-term contract covering around 100 workers had already ended and there was no fallback arrangement in place.
“No concerns were raised”
Addressing how the controversial ministerial instruction emerged, Senator Binet explained that, after discussing the problem with Health and Infrastructure chief officers and the Project Director, it was agreed that he could issue such an instruction to allow the deal to proceed.
“My recollection is that… no concerns were raised regarding the proposed approach,” he said.
Senator Binet says he subsequently spoke to the Chief Executive and understood that a ministerial instruction was an “available and proper mechanism” if ministers wanted the project to proceed.
However, he claims the picture changed during the following days, and on 2 June, Treasury Minister Elaine Millar was said to have told him that the assurance work should be completed – and could not be finished before the planned signing.
Then, after Senator Binet issued his instruction on 3 June, the Chief Executive said it would be preferable to wait for the assurance work.
Just 39 minutes later, Chief Minister Lyndon Farnham also encouraged him to delay the deal until the due diligence was complete.
From pressure… to compromise?
By 4 June, Senator Binet said “considerable pressure” was being applied to halt the signing.
After taking further advice, a compromise was devised under which the contract could be signed while outstanding assurance work continued, with an option to withdraw subject to contractual compensation if necessary.
The Council of Ministers backed that approach, and Senator Binet said ministers also supported him proceeding with the signing even if Bouygues rejected the compromise.
Bouygues accepted the revised arrangement and the contract was signed at around 1pm on 5 June, two days before Islanders went to the polls.
Senator Binet said the changes meant his earlier ministerial instruction was ultimately no longer required.
The detailed account was sent to media just minutes after Deputy Karen Wilson challenged the Chief Minister in the States this morning over the handling of the contract and whether Government’s processes needed to change.
Senator Farnham defended the existing system, describing the hospital contract as an “exceptional case”, and described Senator Binet as having acted “transparently”.
