Inquiry into Paddington hospital fiasco attacked by key witnesses

An investigation into the failed Paddington Health Campus PFI project is under attack from the very witnesses it has called.

The review of the £1bn scheme, which was scrapped in June after £13.8m had already been spent on it, is currently underway after being commissioned by the Strategic Health Authority in North West London.

But some of those asked to present evidence argue that the SHA itself is responsible for collapse of the scheme.

In documents submitted to the chairman of the inquiry, seen by QS News, several people close to the project warned that the investigation would be a whitewash because its terms of reference appear to give the SHA the final sign-off on which findings are published. The terms also state that the review should not allocate blame for the project’s failure.

One source told QS News: “The SHA is trying to cover its back by retaining the right to conduct its own review. This is a ‘spoiler’ – a pre-emptive action aimed at avoiding being held responsible.” The source called for the National Audit Office to conduct its own investigation instead.

The documents include letters from two MPs and an architect, who were invited to give evidence by the review’s chairman, Nigel Vince, an independent Office of Government Commerce consultant.

One letter argued: “It is extraordinary that the review is being carried out by the SHA, which is culpable through having failed to monitor the project properly. The SHA approved the flawed new December 2004 outline business case for the PHC… [therefore it] cannot be considered impartial or independent.”

The letter added, “unless the review identifies when, how and who – in relation to the PHC faults – it will be seen as a whitewash.”

The Hutton report was hampered by a similar narrowness

A letter to Vince from John Randall, Conservative MP for Uxbridge, said, “The Hutton report was hampered by a similar narrowness (which) is why there are still calls for further inquiries into those matters.” His concerns were echoed by Nick Hurd, Conservative MP for Ruislip-Northwood.

The letters also attacked the review’s duration and what they called its “silly season” timing. The Lessons Learned Review is being conducted by two people over just eight weeks. It was launched on 26 July and the deadline for views and comments was 8 August.

Maria Kane, North West London SHA’s director of corporate communications, said, “At no point has anyone acted in bad faith. We felt the review needed to focus on the processes and procedures that got us down this path and therefore how we could avoid this in future. Blaming people doesn’t concentrate on the processes. We discussed this with the independent review chairman and he agreed.”

She added that the SHA would check the final draft of the inquiry’s findings only for “factual accuracy, such as incorrect figures, names, job titles and dates”. She said: “The essence of the review is a matter for the review panel.”

The PHC scheme would have merged the St Mary’s NHS Trust, the Royal Brompton & Harefield Trust and Imperial College. The fiasco has left the two trusts owing £3.2m each to Partnerships UK (PUK), a government-backed body which advises and backs PFI deals.

The QSs involved with the failed project included Davis Langdon, Turner & Townsend and EC Harris.

St Mary’s will now undertake its own more modest redevelopment and has invited tenders from QSs, although it has not decided on a timescale for the project.