Deputies still have questions over P&R’s conduct in PEH cost rise
URGENT questions are set to be asked in the States today, as deputies still want answers about how projected costs were allowed to soar on the Princess Elizabeth Hospital modernisation project.
P&R issued a lengthy statement this week, with head of the public service Mark de Garis saying he was confident that the strategic leadership team acted with the best of intentions, and refuted suggestion that officials advising the committee sought to cover anything up. This will be backed up by a statement from president Lyndon Trott.
Former staff knew more than a year ago that the costs for the £120m. project were expected to increase by £30m.
The matter came to light earlier this year, but some politicians have queried whether the matter was properly handled.
Adrian Gabriel, who has had a Rule 12 urgent question relating to the standards of senior P&R officials’ conduct accepted onto the meeting’s order paper at the discretion of Bailiff Sir Richard McMahon, said that he still wanted to better understand the responsibilities of staff in the relevant chain of command.
‘I’m pleased Deputy Trott is making a statement, and I will reserve my judgment until after I have heard it,’ he said.
Deputy Trott will have 90 seconds to reply to the question, but each States member is then permitted to ask up to two supplementary questions.
The Scrutiny Management Committee met late yesterday afternoon to discuss the issue, and president Yvonne Burford said the committee would decide after the States meeting if it had any further questions or would be taking further action.
‘I am encouraged by the fact that P&R are giving a statement in the Assembly, which will enable all deputies to question the president,’ she said.
‘Additionally, HSC is making its routine six-monthly statement which will also provide a further opportunity for questioning.’
SMC member John Dyke added that he thought P&R’s statement may be ‘slightly optimistic’, but was reluctant to comment further.
Deputy Carl Meerveld was concerned that the incident could lead to a culture within local government that was at risk of producing scandals similar to the Post Office and infected blood scandals in the UK.
‘I’m keen to see changes in the way in which we manage openness and transparency. I’m working with colleagues on a plan for greater accountability which I hope can be shared by the end of the year,’ he said.
He also questioned how the increase in cost was able to get through the treasury in the first place.
‘Within the treasury there is an assurance department that is meant to validate these processes so as to avoid a costly overspend.
‘Clearly there was a systemic failure.’
Deputy Peter Roffey said he concurred with P&R’s statement to the extent that he believed the incident was not an attempt by officials to manipulate deputies in order to secure a particular outcome.
But, he said, that did not make things all right.
‘It is the role of politicians to make the policy decisions, and they can only really do that properly if kept informed of the facts.
‘All senior civil servants should therefore fully realise the need to escalate relevant information to a political level in a timely way to allow it to be taken into account in the policy making process.’
He added that the States had to get the culture back to one where decision makers were kept informed.
‘I only hope the reaction to this event will make sure similar incidents don’t happen in future.’
