Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

It is fair to say that we have moved past the Owencurra issue, because that discussion has brought up a number of questions about the choices relating to money, spending and capital investment by the HSE. Members could say this about their own constituencies. It has been incredibly difficult to get information on that issue. This is particularly relevant to the Committee of Public Accounts. When a cost-benefit analysis of capital spending is done, it is done by building, not necessarily by service, on a CHO basis or by region. I have broken it down into a small number of questions, with referral notes at the end if people are interested in where those questions came from. If one is running a regional area, one cannot move people around like chess pieces on a board because of capital investment decisions. These are people's lives. However, we are only doing cost-benefit analysis by building and we are not looking at all the buildings as a community when it comes to mental health, disability, or whatever else it might be. That seems to be the case with this CHO. Is the HSE okay with this on a national basis?

If we move to Sláintecare and a more regional model, will we continue to do cost-benefit analysis and capital investment on a piecemeal basis instead of looking at particular regions and how everything slots together? One can see quickly from the notes I have attached that bits and bobs are happening all over the place, with an investment here and a rental there. There does not seem to be any joined-up thinking. When thinking of cost-benefit analysis, every regional area is almost like a campus and should be looked at as a whole. That is what I want the HSE to answer in those questions.