Health minister rejects hospital review findings

Jersey Health Minister Rejects Majority of Hospital Review Panel's Recommendations

Health Minister Deputy Tom Binet has dismissed more than half of the recommendations put forward by the Hospital Review Panel regarding Jersey's new healthcare facilities.

The panel's report, published in February, made 20 recommendations—of which Binet rejected 11 outright, partially accepted seven, and fully accepted only two. Among the rejected suggestions were calls for more transparency about the project’s costs, funding, and overall value for money.

Binet thanked the panel for its efforts but claimed the report included "inaccuracies and certain claims that may have caused unnecessary alarm for the public." He said the accepted recommendations were already being implemented and described the others as "completely unnecessary."

"If there had been no scrutiny carried out at all, we'd be no worse off," Binet said, criticising the report for treating the project as if it were part of the NHS rather than a local initiative.

Panel Defends Review's Validity

Chair of the review panel, Deputy Jonathan Renouf, rejected Binet’s criticisms, stating the panel followed the minister’s own guidance and aimed to highlight where those standards were not being met.

Renouf argued that the review had commissioned expert analysis, which concluded that the hospital’s business case failed to follow proper procedures for major government projects. He likened the minister’s reaction to "a kid who says he’s done his homework, and when challenged, says it was rubbish homework."

He emphasised the need for a comprehensive health strategy to guide how the acute hospital at Overdale, and future projects at Kensington Place and St Saviour’s Health Village, fit into Jersey’s broader healthcare landscape.

Next Steps for Jersey’s Health Projects

Binet responded to the panel’s request for more details on the two upcoming sites, stating that while he intends to be transparent about their costs and timelines, that information is not yet available.

He defended the phased approach to development, citing economic uncertainty and the need for flexibility. "It’s just common sense," he said. "Breaking the project into parts means we can pause if funds run short."