Madam, - The controversy over the choice of the Mater site for a new children's hospital has produced more questions than answers. Over the past few weeks we have been treated to a series of claims and counter-claims. If even some of the concerns voiced by opponents of the project, especially child health professionals, are correct, a review is needed.
Siptu has more than 40,000 members working in the health sector, including paramedics, nurses and non-nursing grades. Change is always difficult but we have accumulated considerable experience of how best to manage it in this country over the past 20 years through the partnership process.
What is striking about the present controversy is the apparent failure of the Health Service Executive to engage effectively with some of the key stakeholders in the process. In fact the HSE has shown a distinct lack of enthusiasm since its inception for engaging with health professionals, unions or public representatives when it comes to taking or implementing major decisions. At present it seems accountable only to the Minister and there is little transparency about how its decisions are reached.
It would not take long to put in place a partnership mechanism to provide the best possible national tertiary hospital service for children. It might not even delay a new hospital as I understand that some of the alternatives to the Mater site could be delivered more quickly. Even if it were to delay the process, it would do so only by a matter of weeks and this is hardly significant when we consider that decisions taken now will shape hospital services for seriously ill children over the next half-century.
It would be relatively easy to set up a suitable process under an independent, experienced chairperson with a deadline to deliver a solution. The system has proven very successful in resolving many seemingly intractable problems in the past. Such a process would help the HSE develop a partnership approach when it addresses further change issues without generating the levels of conflict we have seen in this case. That can only be to the good.
Incidentally, I understand that four Dublin hospitals, apart from the Mater, were considered to be serious contenders to provide a site for the new children's hospital. These were Beaumont, St James's, Blanchardstown and Tallaght. Apparently some scored more highly than the Mater on a number of HSE criteria. One has to ask if the absence of a public land bank ripe for privatisation was a factor in the selection of the Mater site for the new children's hospital. Since that decision was taken, Beaumont and St James's have been asked to set aside land for private health developers, further exacerbating the inequalities of our two-tier health service.
I find it particularly worrying that the proposed new hospital will have relatively little natural light, no space for playgrounds and no gardens. Research shows these amenities help children in hospital for long periods recover faster and with less medication. It would be a pity if, in a few years, it was found the new children's hospital could not provide a world-class service because of the constraints of the Mater site and an opening appeared for yet another private hospital, bringing two-tier health care into paediatrics - the one sector so far spared this plague. - Yours, etc,
JACK O'CONNOR,
General President,
Siptu,
Liberty Hall,
Dublin 1.