Ms Valerin O'Shea:

I can answer a couple of these and it probably would be best to start with me.

Deputy Kelleher asked whether our views on the Mater site were the same as they are on the St. James's one. Many of us met at the Mater oral hearing and all of us, I think, were opposed to the Mater site. It is interesting to note that the Mater site was chosen. That was the only site that was ever recommended. It was recommended by the independent review group, and it was recommended over St. James's. It was considered a better site. The world and his mother could see that the Mater site was a ridiculous suggestion. That puts into perspective the merits of the St. James's site, that it was considered not to be as good as the Mater site in the only report that ever made any recommendation, because no report recommended the St. James's site.

On Deputy Kelleher's question on the Dolphin report and whether we are saying it is flawed, we are not saying it is flawed at all but the Dolphin report has been misinterpreted as having somehow recommended a site. The Dolphin report did not recommend any site. In fact, the Dolphin report stated, "Having reviewed the sites, and the options presented to us, we are in a position to present these options to the Minister." They were options that were presented, nothing more. It is not a case of the Dolphin report being wrong. The Dolphin report was exactly right. It went into great detail on the planning matters as opposed to the medical functioning of the hospital.

Deputy O'Connell asked about the weaknesses at the Connolly site and said that since I had pointed out that there were no weaknesses mentioned for the Connolly site, she wondered whether that was just planning. That was purely planning. It was in answer to the question on the planning for the Rotunda.

On the question of An Bord Pleanála that Senator Colm Burke raised, the Senator is stating that An Bord Pleanála has looked at this in great detail and that it has decided that this site is suitable. In fact, An Bord Pleanála rejected the Mater site because it stated that it was an overdevelopment for the site. That was very obvious to everybody. The hospital simply did not fit on it. In the case of the St. James's site, the board avoided addressing any of the medical issues. It purposely did not look at whether the maternity hospital will fit on the site. It directly avoided doing that. It did not consider that the medical concerns were a matter for it . It deliberately avoided addressing those issues. Space for expansion was the third matter that we consider crucial for the development of the children's hospital. The board also deliberately avoided addressing it. It said it was simply not a matter for it.

We have ended up with a decision from An Bord Pleanála that essentially looked at the structure and it has stated that this building will fit on this site. The board has not looked at the function of it, and that is what is so remarkable. It was a strategic infrastructure development because it was a national children's hospital but the board did not address that aspect of the planning application. It struck me at the time as being akin to a strategic infrastructure development application for a road. We would not view it favourably if the board decided that it did not have to consider traffic in this case. The decision is akin to that.

The next question I would like to address is that of public transport that was raised by Deputy Kelleher. Maybe Ms McNiffe, having experienced transporting a child to hospital, would address it.