Brendan Ryan (Dublin Fingal, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Rural Independents Group for submitting this motion on the new national children's hospital. The new hospital promises to be an exciting development in the area of modem paediatric medicine. It is beyond time that children in this country had access to a modern state-of-the-art centre of excellence for their care. I know that everyone on both sides of the location argument shares that view.

When brought to completion, these facilities will revolutionise paediatric care in Ireland.

It makes sense to tri-locate an adult hospital, a maternity hospital and a new national children's hospital on one central site. It provides a one-stop facility for areas of medicine that are intrinsically linked. I note Deputy Mattie McGrath's objection to the idea of tri-location. In his e-mail to Members today, he argued that it would be hugely disruptive, costly and unlikely to ever happen. Perhaps he could elaborate in an evidence-based manner on why he feels this way. The key factor should be that any proposal is clinically sound. Even if we were not talking about the site at St. James's, tri-location makes sense from the point of view of having diagnostics, early interventions and access to highly-respected medical professionals in the one domain. I find it difficult to oppose a concept that would allow for the best possible patient outcome along with an efficient use of resources. When implemented, the new plan would also cater for satellite units at both Connolly Hospital in Blanchardstown and Tallaght Hospital.

While the Labour Party sympathises with some of the arguments made, particularly in respect of the costs, abandoning the new hospital and starting afresh could set back progress in this area for many years. Our children have waited long enough. If the Government was to change its mind on the location, and technically it has not made a final decision, we would risk eroding public confidence in the project as a whole. We cannot afford to leave another generation of children behind because of indecision on the part of this House. We are at a key juncture and it is important to note that were we to abandon the choice of St James's, we have no guarantee of a site thereafter. The planning process is lengthy and the idea of turning around would serve to leave another generation of children behind.

In saying that, it is also fair to point out that this plan is not perfect nor should it be portrayed as such. Every potential site has its positives and negatives. I attended two recent presentations in the AV room in Leinster house in respect of the proposed location for the national children's hospital. The first had highly reputable speakers who argued convincingly against the St James's location. As a result, when the second presentation took place last week to outline the proposal for St James's, I felt compelled to go along in order to hear how the proponents of the St. James's site could possibly convince us how such a "totally unsuitable" site could be the right one but they did just that and I was impressed with what I heard. Dr. Peter Greally, consultant respiratory paediatrician, Dr. Sean Walsh, consultant in paediatric emergency medicine, Dr. Adrienne Foran, consultant neonatologist, Dr. Ciara Martin, consultant in paediatric emergency medicine, Professor Owen Smith, professor of paediatrics and adolescent medicine, Dr. Sharon Sheehan, Master of the Coombe Women and Infants University Hospital, Dr. Emma Curtis, consultant paediatrician, and Professor AIf Nicholson, consultant paediatrician at Temple Street Children's University Hospital, explained to us and convinced me and others in the audience why they believe that the campus at St. James's is indeed the best location for the new children's hospital. I have received many e-mails in recent days urging me to vote for this motion this evening and strongly suggesting that St. James's is the wrong location. One such e-mail suggested that nobody "apart from a few crackpots" believes that St James's is the right location. The people I have just referenced are not crackpots. They are highly-respected professionals in this field. The point I am making is that there are experts on both sides of the location argument who argue trenchantly and very convincingly in favour of their point of view.At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Health and Children in 2015, the former Senator, Professor John Crown, stated:

My position in the debate on the location of the national children's hospital continues to be that it was nearly impossible to obtain a medical opinion on the location of the hospital that was not, in some sense, biased by institutional loyalty on the part of the person making the statement. I do not propose to debate the issue again.

He also stated, "at the time, I argued that we should all support locating the hospital at one site and that once a site had been chosen, we should all shut up and get on with it." In my view this is exactly the point we have now reached with the national children hospital. I think that is where we are now. I have a bit more to say but it is a good point at which to stop. It is now time to get on with it in the interests of children. Let us stick with the decision and get the project done.

See this speech in context