The Scottish Review,
the NHS land deal,
the unanswered questions
Where we are and how we got there
Tuesday 26 January
After weeks of research, SR publishes 'The land deal, the end of life, and the public interest', an investigation into a decision by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for the redevelopment of Blawarthill Hospital, Glasgow, which would make care of elderly people nearing the end of their lives a business conducted for profit, while a charitable hospice nearby, St Margaret of Scotland, has its funding for this work withdrawn.
Wednesday 27 January
The board's director of communications circulates the board with a copy of SR's investigation, describes it as 'sensational reading', but dismisses its significance. On the same day, SR sends each of the 16 ministerial appointees on the board an identical letter, via email and routed through the chairman's office, containing seven questions on the land deal. It appears that the management decided not to forward the letter to its intended recipients. SR publishes the seven questions online.
Thursday 28 January
The Daily Record, unpromped by SR, puts the seven questions to the board. The director of communications responds to the Record, and two other media organisations, with answers to the questions, sending a copy to members of the board, but fails to send a copy to SR. We do not respect the board's handling of this matter: the questions were addressed not to the director of communications but to 16 other named individuals. A senior member, John Bannon MBE, who had read SR's 26 January exposé, is furious that a statement has been sent to the media without consultation.
Friday 29 January
Mr Bannon begins a long letter on the Blawarthill Hospital affair, and the withdrawal of hospice funding, for the cabinet secretary for health, Nicola Sturgeon.
Monday 1 February
Mr Bannon finalises his letter. It is headed 'Scottish Review investigation' and accuses the management of obstructing him in his search for the truth, of a lack of financial transparency, and of consistent failures of consultation. He calls for ministerial intervention and an independent inquiry.
Tuesday 2 February
SR publishes extracts from Mr Bannon's letter. Nicola Sturgeon writes at once to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. She requests 'a full report from the board' which she will then consider fully. Later in the day, the secretary to the board releases SR's intercepted letter to its intended recipients. Mr Bannon asks: 'Why did they hold on to it for so long?'.
Wednesday 3 February
The Conservatives' health spokesperson, Jackson Carlaw, calls for Mr Bannon's allegations to be investigated urgently and recommends the appointment of a 'Special Representative'.
Thursday 4 February
Labour pledges to restore funding to the hospice if it is elected to power in Scotland next May. BBC Scotland, the public service broadcaster, hasn't covered any of this and still isn't covering it.
At the end of this extraordinary fortnight, we re-state our belief that the 16 ministerial appointees on the board have a clear obligation under their code of conduct, which states: 'You have a duty to be as open as possible about your decisions and actions, giving reasons for your decisions and restricting information only when the wider public interest clearly demands'. In our view, the wider public interest in this case demands complete transparency on the part of each ministerial appointee.
Earlier in the week we called for the exercise of a political will. It has been forthcoming, in varying degrees, from the ruling SNP administration, from the Conservatives and – most conspicuously – from the Labour Party. Yet from the chairman of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Andrew Robertson, and from all but one of his board colleagues (the exception being John Bannon), the silence is complete.
[click here] for The land deal, the end of life, and the public interest: SR, 26 January
[click here] for The seven questions: SR, 27 January
[click here] for Obstructed in my search for the truth: the testimony of John Bannon: SR, 2 February
|
