SNP’s Monklands Hospital plan was ‘already two years behind’ when ministers scrapped it
Plans for a replacement Monklands Hospital were already running around two years behind schedule when the SNP Scottish Government scrapped them, according to documents obtained by the Mail on Sunday. Campaigners and opposition politicians are demanding ministers give an honest timeline for the project, saying it is now highly unlikely a new hospital in Airdrie, Lanarkshire, can be completed by 2031 as previously promised, while NHS leaders have separately raised serious concerns about fire safety and "endemic" infection control problems at the existing, ageing building.
A Cost Review report from NHS Scotland Assure, submitted to the government in March, found that orders for key materials such as the concrete frame had not been placed as required in August and October 2025, and that project approval needed in early 2026 had not been achieved. A separate report from NHS Scotland's west subnational group suggested NHS Lanarkshire had proposed a 2032/33 commissioning date. Ministers Neil Gray, Maree Todd and Jenni Minto were reportedly briefed on the problems in March, but the public was not told until new health secretary Angela Constance announced on 25 June that the project would be "reset" due to cost, with construction now promised to start in 2028. Scottish Labour's Jackie Baillie and Tory MSP Meghan Gallacher accused the SNP of concealing the delays, while campaign group Stand Up For Monklands called for full transparency from Constance, John Swinney and Neil Gray.
- Monklands Hospital replacement plans were two years behind before being scrapped
- Ministers knew of delays in March but told public only in June
- Critics demand honest timeline; new hospital not expected before 2031-33
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of scrapping the plan could argue that ministers have a duty to stop or redesign projects when delays, costs, site concerns or delivery risks make the original proposal untenable. They may contend that persisting with a troubled scheme merely because work has begun can waste more public money, and that a revised approach offers the best prospect of a safe, sustainable replacement hospital in the long term.
The case against
Critics could argue that cancelling a replacement for an ageing hospital after it was already significantly delayed compounds the uncertainty faced by patients, staff and the local community. They may say ministers should have resolved problems earlier and driven the project forward, since further delay risks leaving essential services in unsuitable buildings and undermines confidence in major public infrastructure planning.