Minister defends stance on report 'inaccuracies'

The health minister was cleared of bullying allegations in an independent report

The health minister has defended his stance on a healthcare committee's annual report which led to a row over a meeting held last year and allegations of bullying.

An independent investigation published last week has cleared Lawrie Hooper of any breach of the code of conduct.

He has now listed "a handful of the most prominent errors" made by the Health Services Consultative Committee (HSCC).

Mr Hooper was asked to outline what inaccuracies were in the board's annual report, of which he said there were many.

The HSCC's annual report stated a decision to align its reporting areas with Sir Jonathan Michael's 2019 Independent Health Review had ministerial support, which Mr Hooper said it did not.

He said: "This approach does not have ministerial support and never has done."

'Factual inaccuracies'

Mr Hooper said the HSCC was "fully aware this was the case" and had written to him "confirming I had raised objections" and understood his position, he said.

The row between Mr Hooper and the HSCC centred around a meeting held last year and the contents of the board's annual report.

Mr Hooper told the House of Keys there were incorrect references to legislation and groups and the report mentioned a "transformation data team" which did not exist.

It had also stated that "earmarked funding was being diverted" from the healthcare transformation fund to other priorities, he added.

Mr Hooper said: "No such diversion of transformation board earmarked funding had taken place."

These were "just a number of the factual inaccuracies or fundamental misunderstandings that were noted in the report", he told the House of Keys.

Douglas Central MHK Chris Thomas said these were "hardly the crime of the century "and seemed "insignificant in importance" set against the "hugely constructive potential of the overall themes developed by the HSCC".

The row and its fallout between the minister and the board's lay members could have been avoided, according to an open letter published this week.

Eight past and present committee members said the minister could have adopted a more "mature" and "professional" approach.