Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

As the Minister well knows I have no particular fondness or brief for private health care. I have made that patently clear to the Minister over the years. However, I have to recognise that in the context of the current configuration of the hospital network, Mount Carmel was playing an important and useful role. The loss of its facilities is therefore a loss to the structure of delivering hospital and acute services.

In his contribution the Minister spoke of Mount Carmel as if it was wholly and solely a maternity facility. He only spoke of it in that context and at no time did he allude to the range of other services that it has provided. I understand that they include: orthopaedics; ear, nose and throat; paediatrics; and a range of surgical procedures that were carried out at that hospital. Only a proportion of the 130 beds in the facility were designated for maternity purposes.

As regards the role of NAMA in all of this, my understanding was that it had a social responsibility but it does not appear to have employed it in this particular instance. I am told that St. James's Hospital had plans for Mount Carmel and envisaged the transfer of patients and services from St. James's, thus increasing capacity at the latter hospital, while the site designated on that campus was being developed for the new national children's hospital. Are there consequences arising from the NAMA decision concerning Mount Carmel and the development of the children's hospital?

The Minister also said he envisaged a new maternity hospital on the same St. James's campus alongside the new children's hospital. I have not had the opportunity to visit the site and can only accept what the Minister has told me. Other voices that are familiar with it would even question that it has the capacity to take a new national children's hospital, let alone a maternity hospital in tandem at the same location. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on that.

I am also anxious to know about the HSE's engagement with NAMA. This is very important. I am told that the HSE had discussions with NAMA without briefing St. James's, even though the HSE and the Minister would know that St. James's had a specific interest in the Mount Carmel facility. In the course of those discussions the HSE representatives sought to present themselves as speaking on behalf of St. James's. Will the Minister revisit all of this with NAMA, the HSE and St. James's so that we can establish the full truth and the full facts concerning the various engagements that took place, including St. James's with NAMA and the HSE with NAMA? Why was there not the same overlap in terms of the HSE and St. James's? There appears to be a significant deficit there in terms of engagement. That is coming directly from sources within these entities, particularly St. James's.

Will the Minister comment on the view that has been repeated time after time that the Mount Carmel facility was expected to return to profit this year? All the indicators suggest that is the case, so could that not have prompted a different response to the one that materialised?

At our meeting immediately prior to the Minister's attendances, the INMO's representatives made a number of recommendations and would like us to press the Minister on them. One of the recommendations is to re-explore with NAMA why it did not take on board the health care implications of the decision to move as they did against Mount Carmel, rather than solely the financial considerations. The Minister has not ruled out the reopening of the site as a health care facility, while indicating other roles it might have. Will he please elaborate on that? Can the Minister have discussions with St. James's to see if it can conclude its plans to operate the site, as it had developed them? I am told that it had intended to do so.

Of Mount Carmel's 382 staff, some 205 were nurses. The Minister said he was pleased to note that some of the staff have already been offered employment in other hospitals. My understanding was nursing and midwifery were not among the exempted grades. Will the Minister indicate what numbers and what hospital sites we are talking about? With the ongoing employment embargo how is it possible? If Mount Carmel is not going to resume providing services as heretofore, can we ensure that the displaced nursing staff and other staff will be facilitated within the network of hospital sites?

Will the Minister take on board preferential treatment arrangements for staff at Mount Carmel to ensure, as the INMO wishes, that their service is reckonable in the public superannuation scheme? I would be grateful for the Minister's replies to those questions.