Health Minister Susan Deacon made the final decision about new glsgow hospital site
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available sources do not state that Susan Deacon personally made the final decision about the new Glasgow hospital site; contemporary coverage and records discuss decisions by NHS bodies, ministers and inquiries rather than attributing a single final site decision to Deacon (not found in current reporting). Susan Deacon is recorded as Scotland’s first Health Minister (1999–2001) and appears in later roles and reporting, but the record in these sources does not show her making a final site decision for the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (p1_s3; not found in current reporting).
1. Who Susan Deacon is — relevant background
Susan Catherine Deacon served as Scotland’s first Minister for Health and Community Care after election to the Scottish Parliament in 1999; her biography and later roles are summarized in an online profile [1]. The profile also records her later public appointments, including chairing the Scottish Police Authority and later advisory roles, which show she remained a public figure after leaving frontline ministerial office [1] [2].
2. What the public record says about the QEUH decision-making
The reporting and official material in the provided sources frame decisions about the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH) as involving health boards, ministers, and later inquiries rather than naming a single minister as making a final site selection. Coverage describes planning, design and construction failings and subsequent legal and oversight actions involving NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Scottish Government oversight [3] [4]. The Hospitals Inquiry is explicitly investigating the construction, design and safety of the QEUH campus and related hospitals, indicating the contested, multi-actor nature of those decisions [5] [6].
3. Contemporary controversies and who’s been questioned
The QEUH has been the subject of major criticism: senior NHS officials have said the hospital was “not built right,” and independent reviews and legal actions followed problems identified after opening [3]. A public Hospitals Inquiry has been established to examine planning, design, construction and subsequent responses; it is hearing oral evidence from many decision-makers and NHS executives rather than focusing on a single ministerial decision [5] [6].
4. What the inquiry documents and media emphasise about decision responsibility
Inquiry summaries and BBC reporting emphasise systemic issues and multiple responsible parties — design teams, contractors, NHS boards and successive officials — with the inquiry set up to determine where responsibility lies and what went wrong in planning, building and assuring safety [5] [6] [3]. The BBC coverage notes the inquiry will examine why the Glasgow hospital “was not built right” and will question key decision‑makers across NHS and government roles [3] [7].
5. Historical press items that mention Deacon but in other contexts
Older press items in the dataset show Deacon dealing with other Glasgow healthcare controversies while she was minister — for example, constituent lobbying on organ‑removal grievances and correspondence around cancer services — but these pieces do not document her making a final choice of a new Glasgow hospital site [8] [9]. These stories indicate ministerial involvement in oversight and political accountability, not unilateral site selection.
6. Where the available sources are silent or inconclusive
Available sources do not mention a direct, documented decision by Susan Deacon that was the “final” determinant of the QEUH site; they do not show a ministerial decree from Deacon selecting the site, nor do they record her being the ultimate decision-maker on site selection (not found in current reporting). If you are seeking primary evidence that Deacon personally made that final site decision, those documents and news items in this dataset do not provide it (not found in current reporting).
7. Alternative readings and why people might attribute blame to a minister
Attributing a single final decision to a named minister is a common shorthand in political debate: ministers carry public accountability for health system outcomes, and press and campaign narratives may single out former ministers for political or legal scrutiny [8] [9]. The inquiry’s multi-year examination of planning and ministerial oversight makes clear responsibility is contested and dispersed across agencies, contractors and ministerial teams rather than reducible to one person [5] [3].
8. Bottom line and recommended next steps for verification
Do not treat the claim “Susan Deacon made the final decision about the new Glasgow hospital site” as established by the provided sources; the record here does not support that specific assertion (not found in current reporting). To verify it, consult primary government decisions and archival ministerial correspondence about site selection or inquiry witness transcripts naming Deacon in that role — materials not present in the current dataset (not found in current reporting).