Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the members of the hospital development board and thank them for coming before the committee today. I feel a particular responsibility to vindicate the right of people, such as those in the group before the committee earlier, to raise questions about public safety, safety of children and public money. That is my sole interest in asking the questions that I believe need to be asked. I know some questions will overlap with what others have asked.

While it is true to say that we are all on the same side, in that we do not want the status quoto continue, it is clear from the earlier presentation that serious concern has arisen among eminent people and people of goodwill. These people have declared to us that they have no vested interest. They are not happy about the way they have been treated by Government in terms of consultation. They are not happy with some of the claims which, they maintain, the hospital development board has made. That has to be put out today and a response sought from the members of the development board.

Earlier, representatives of the Connolly for Kids hospital group alleged false and misleading statements were made to counter what they describe as their valid criticisms and the major shortcomings of the site. For example, they say that in dispatches the hospital development board has claimed that one of the reasons the St. James's Hospital site is needed relates to the availability of a pet scanning facility. They have pointed out that there is such a facility in Connolly Hospital. Does this mean that the development board was wrong? Was there something misleading in the response that the development board has provided to the Connolly for Kids group directly or indirectly?

The group makes serious and concerning claims to the effect that deaths will occur as a result of the choice that has been made. Are these concerns not well founded? I have in mind all the concerns about access, parking and future expansion. We heard from a young doctor who talked about being shuttled to the children's hospital in the back of a car and feeling nauseous. He was describing real life. One could conclude that there was a real lack of empathy in the decision that has been taken. Does the development board believe those concerns are ultimately not well founded?

Individually and without prejudice to the role that the development board members now have to play, does each member of the board believe that the St James's Hospital site is superior to the Connolly Hospital option from the point of view of the welfare of children and having regard to all the concerns expressed? Would it have been the choice of each member of the development board, prescinding from the role they now have to play? Would they have chosen St. James's Hospital over Connolly Hospital?

The development board representatives referred to thinking 20 years ahead. Is 20 years too conservative? Is that enough of a time within which to consider whether the right amount of thought has been given to expansion in future? Can the development board justify its recommendations around space for expansion? Has the board costed a facility on a greenfield site as opposed to the St. James's Hospital option? What do the development board representatives think of the claims that €200 million is the difference? The claim of Connolly for Kids seems to rest on the idea that stalling the diggers now and starting again in Connolly would cost €200 million less. That is an astonishing claim. Does the development board believe it? Are those making the claim right? Are they misguided? I do not think anyone wants to suggest that anyone else is acting in bad faith, but that is an extraordinary claim.

Their claim essentially rests on two issues, namely, welfare of children - they allege future deaths if this choice is proceeded with - and an alleged massive waste of public resources. "Allegation" is the wrong word. "Prediction" is the correct word.

Ms Hardiman stated that the staff of the children's hospitals fully support the choice that has been made. How can I reconcile that with the Connolly for Kids Hospital representatives' claim that a staff survey in Crumlin hospital in November 2015 showed that 84% thought St. James's was not the best site for the children's hospital? Who am I to believe? Can both statements be true? I would be grateful for the NPHDB's opinion on that. In the presentation this morning, reference was made to the three children's hospitals believing that St. James's hospital, as the largest and leading adult teaching hospital, is the best adult co-location partner for the new children's hospital. With respect, is that really the issue? The presentation made by the representatives of Connolly for Kids Hospital argued that adult co-location is not the primary lens through which this issue should be viewed. Ms Hardiman said the NPHDB agrees with them about tri-location. The essential point made by Connolly for Kids Hospital, if I understood it correctly, is that maternity hospital facilities need to be beside children's hospital facilities and that this is the core issue. They claim that, through that lens, Connolly is the better option because of its greater potential. The statement that these hospitals might believe that the best adult co-location partner is St. James's might be perfectly true, but is that the most important issue?

The Connolly for Kids Hospital representatives were sharply critical of what the former Minister, Senator James Reilly, had to say when he said that the primary clinical driver for the decision was that children with very rare diseases could be treated by St. James's adult hospital consultants and not have to travel abroad. They state that was a false and nonsensical claim by the former Minister. Are they right? I would like to hear the views of the NPHDB on that. Was that a competent statement by the former Minister?

What is or are the biggest weakness or weaknesses of the Connolly location in the view of the NPHDB? I ask that in connection with my question as to whether the NPHDB has engaged, intellectually or otherwise, in a comparative cost analysis between a greenfield site and the St. James's option. Those are my questions. I apologise that the list is a little bit long.