That headline is quote from a Herald Facebook comments section.1
Another comment suggested – ‘Labour had more to gain from the opening of the hospital as they had 9 councillors sitting on the health board.’
There were several other comments suggesting similar views.
Are these any less reliable than what we have heard from BBC or Herald reporters or from Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie insisting that the SNP Government is to blame for forcing the hospital to open too early?
Why would the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board care when the hospital opened? It was entirely their responsibility to oversee the chief executive and make sure the project was completed on time.
How many SNP politicians were on the board? None. How many Labour politicians were on the board in 2015? Nine.
The board operated within Glasgow City Council‘s territory and it was then still a Labour-run council.
Say the Scottish Government was pushing for the hospital to open on time, can you imagine a Labour Council giving in to that? They hate the SNP.
Is there any reliable evidence that the Scottish Government did apply pressure?
The most relevant and independent voice is Fred Mackintosh KC, senior counsel to the Scottish Hospitals Inquiry.
He stated there was “no evidence of external pressure” from the Scottish Government or other outside entities to open the hospital prematurely.
Even more revealing:
Health board bosses involved in the opening of the hospital had not provided evidence of ‘pressure either from them or from anyone else’ for the campus to open early. […] So there’s pressure in the sense that it would be a good idea to meet the target because otherwise it will be difficult for everybody, there will be failures, but we didn’t detect in the evidence pressure to open it earlier than was planned.
Difficult for everybody? The nine Labour members of the board?
Finally, when did the board inform the Scottish Government of concerns about the water supply? 2018, three years after opening.4
Sources:
- https://www.facebook.com/heraldscotland/posts/breaking-political-pressure-was-applied-to-open-glasgows-troubled-queen-elizabet/1320950943385560
- https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,political-pressure-pushed-glasgow-hospital-to-open-to-early-minutes-say and https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/john-swinney-scottish-government-scottish-labour-glasgow-msps-b2910168.html
- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx20kxwej11o
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clygg3rr371o
Talking-up Scotland 
I certainly didn’t hear the Ambulance Chaser, Sarwar , mention the Labour run- Health Board when he was brandishing his ”evidence” in Holyrood of ”pressure” to open the hospital before it was ready .
Quelle surprise !
LikeLiked by 1 person
As is talked about in this article, it was the Labour run Glasgow council that were seemingly at fault here. They didn’t care about safety, that much is clear and they’d do the same again.
We must ensure the English parties get nowhere near taking control of the Scottish government in May, the legacy of their last stint there is utterly atrocious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also – what was the process that allowed them to rename the new building after the then English queen? That came out of the blue without proper consultation if I remember correctly.
Given that that woman paid off the girl who accused her son of child rape, to keep him put of court – I think it is appropriuate to officially drop the royal connection.
Rgds,
Graham
LikeLiked by 1 person
The New Southern General?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Inquiry website provides access to a host of documents including a large number of board minutes for NHS GG&C.
Way back in minutes of a board meeting on 26 October 2010, summary information on the business case for the new hospitals noted this: ‘Operational date – adult and children’s hospital complete service transfer – Summer 2015.‘(my emphasis)
The Chair’s report to a board meeting on 15 April 2014 included this following visits to the construction sites on ’14 and 21 March, 2014 by the Chair and other non-exec directors: ‘hugely impressed with progress’; ‘many parts of the buildings were complete’, ‘handover date would be the end January 2015′ and ‘project remained within budget’.
The CEO’s Update to the board on 18 February 2014 has this: ‘expect the buildings to be handed over from the contractor in January 2015’ and a ‘target of being fully operational by the end of. July 2015 had been set’ and reported to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing during a recent site visit.
From a quick look at these board minute in the period prior to opening, the construction phase, validation/handover phase, and transfer of patients to and opening of the new hospitals all occurred in a manner that saw zero concerns being brought to the board or expressed by board members in what, by style, are typically substantive minutes.
No sign the board feeling or being concerned about ‘external pressure’ to open too early.
LikeLiked by 3 people
At its meeting on 25 June 2015, the NHS GG&C board received a paper detailing the opening (‘commissioning’) of the new hospitals, including the transfer of patient to them from elsewhere in Glasgow. Part of a lengthy agenda, the submitted paper was ’noted’. The message being given to the board? A huge task that went well. It was noted that the plan for this highly complex operation had begun in detail back in mid-2014.
Following these minutes dated 25 June 2015, there is a GAP in the Inquiry’s Bundle (37) of board minutes until the minutes dated 16 October 2018. So nothing of relevance or concern about the new hospital buildings and their performance elevated to board level for over three years?
In the minutes of 16 October 2018 the board learns (for the first time?) of worrying infections occurring amongst patients, including in the children’s hospital. In the submission there is a reference to the ‘water system’. The minutes record board members asking (only) about ‘frequency’ – answer ‘uncommon’. The board ‘noted’ the infection report it had received and moved on to other matters.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Labour party grifters clearly did not care whether the building was safe or whether the hospital was fully able to function safely, I just find that utterly despicable.
LikeLike
Documentary evidence of GG&C board papers appear to show (i) that the board was content with progress on construction and then on systems validation/building handover; and also (ii) with the final commission and opening of the hospitals.
Based on board minutes in Inquiry Bundle 37 it was not until October 2018 that infection concerns were elevated to board level at which meeting the information provided was ‘noted’.
Below the board throughout an extended period there was a large and complex network of more or less well (often not well) interacting clinical, scientific, technical NHS staff, including on a host of working groups/committees with the prime contractor and a host of its subcontractors (including highly specialised ones), and with other specialist contractors and consultants working directly for NHS GGG&C.
The wider evidence based gathered by the Inquiry reveals highly technical and controversial issues over early design decisions (e.g. over choice of ventilation system); decisions taken to permit ‘derogations’ from certain technical guidelines; specialist technical evaluation/risk assessment reports not passed on and/or not acted upon; ‘validation’ tests done or not done etc. etc. All this and more playing out below the level of a seemingly unaware CEO and an unaware board.
The notion that all that the Inquiry is teasing out about how matters ended up as they did can be put down to alleged political pressure by a government minister to complete to a particular timescale is candidly, nonsense. The internal NHS and NHS/external contractor process relations are mind numbingly complex.
I’d want more convincing evidence of Labour councillors’ being blameworthy beyond being amongst the non-execs on an ‘unaware’ (passive?) board!
LikeLike