Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Thank you very much, Chairman. The Deputy is right, it is refreshing to see an all-female panel. I do not think anyone would see anything wrong with that, because very often we do sit in front of all-male panels. That is no disrespect to those men, who I am sure all work very hard, but it is a refreshing change. The witnesses are all very welcome.

I have a number of questions. The first that comes to mind relates to sprinklers. I know that was not specifically addressed in the opening statements, but it would be remiss of us to pretend people were not discussing it outside this room, because they were. I am willing to be corrected on this, but it appeared that there was an argument involving a compromise on health and safety so this would be a good opportunity to make a statement that health and safety will always win out over aesthetics. We need to be very clear on that.

Ms Hardiman referred to the name of the hospital. I thought it was a bit premature to name what is effectively a building site at this stage, but I would also be interested to know how that name was arrived at. My colleague, Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh, submitted to successive Ministers for Health what I, and others, would deem to be an eminently appropriate name. That is not for consideration here today, but the witnesses might outline the process.

With regard to the terms and conditions of staff, it is of course impossible to transfer people on the same terms and conditions, because one of those terms and conditions specifies where they work and that is clearly going to change. The witnesses might outline for us what negotiations have taken place. There is only one other person in the room who would have more experience of negotiating for staff and their terms and conditions of employment than me. I had some experience of transfers. I know that it can be incredibly difficult, and that the thing to do is to start as early as possible. I would question the use of the phrase "in accordance with their existing pay and conditions", and I would substitute "on terms and conditions no less favourable". That actually covers what would be captured in a collective agreement, and is a term that would have been used.

Also in regard to staff, there is a mix of privatised and directly employed staff in all the hospitals. I have some knowledge of some of them and zero knowledge of others, but regarding terms and conditions, how is that distinction going to be incorporated? For example, cleaning services in one hospital may be outsourced while in another cleaning staff are directly employed. Again, my preference is for directly employed staff, and I would like to see that incorporated into the legislation if possible.

There is a reference in head 10 to land, property, gifts and borrowing. Under that head, could the issue of car parking be addressed? We understand that there is going to be substantial car parking, and God knows we have had enough discussion about where it is going to be and how it is going to be organised. The next question is whether the hospital is going to run it or whether it is envisaged as a very lucrative source of income for a private entity. The committee will know my feelings on that.

With regard to the make-up of the board, there are 12 board members. It would strike me as sensible to have an uneven number in the case of a dispute.

I would also be interested to know, given the conversation we have just had, if there would be any objection to the legislation mandating a minimum 50% female and 50% male membership, if we could designate it in that way. I note that the board is not doing too badly with the current ratio of 41% female membership, which is certainly better than the ratio here. Perhaps we should not be pointing any fingers. Would the witness have any objection to that?

On head 16, conditions of office of membership of the board, will a briefing be provided to the other members of the board and the Oireachtas where a member is removed? I refer to where a Minister would exercise his or her power to remove a member of the board. How is that going to be communicated to the community in general as well as the board members? Would the witness envisage that a briefing would also be given to us?

With regard to the hospital lands and what is laid out in sections 31, 32, 40, 48 and 55, perhaps this is not a question the witness can answer, but is it envisaged that the lands will remain in use by the health service?

Head 8 refers to the pursuit of fundraising activities. That issue has had its more than its fair share of controversy so perhaps the witness might outline what exactly is envisaged by that and how that is going to work. In other entities that worked as a mechanism to enhance wages. However, that invited much criticism. Perhaps the witness might outline how that is going to work.