Debate contribution: Maternity and Children’s Hospital: Delays

Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on 26 November 2024.

MLA

Mrs Diane Dodds

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

26 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Maternity and Children’s Hospital: Delays

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4677360

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I beg to move

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The motion is wide-ranging and covers a number of elements of the problems that we face in the health service. However, I will concentrate my remarks on the maternity and children's hospital project. We are all supportive of the ambition to have a new children's and maternity hospital that is fit for purpose. Such projects are essential to have a health service in Northern Ireland that is ready to deliver for new parents and babies and the very sick children from across the Province who are cared for on site. I am, however, worried by a number of issues in relation to the new-build project, and I hope, Minister, that you will be able to provide answers and clarity. The increases in the costs of the project have been astronomical. They are estimated to extend to more than £400 million extra. The cost of the maternity element has practically doubled, with, as of earlier this year, £97 million having been spent, and that was prior to the most recent difficulties with the discovery of pseudomonas in the water system. Overall, for both facilities, more than £184 million has been paid out, yet work will not commence on the site for the children's hospital before next year, and it is not expected to be operational before 2030 at the earliest — a decade late. The estimated cost of the children's hospital component has already doubled to more than £590 million. You said yourself, Minister, that that is an "eye-watering" sum, and I know that you understand that it puts intolerable pressure on your Department's capital budget. We need to fully understand what is going on. There needs to be a rigorous in-depth examination of the actions of the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust since the emergence of pseudomonas infection in the new maternity hospital two years ago and of the process of its handover from the contractor in March. Shortly after the trust took charge of the building, pseudomonas was confirmed at a significant number of water outlets, rendering the hospital unsafe and requiring significant reparative work. Indeed, an answer to a question for written answer that I received today indicates that, in fact, 459 different water outlets are affected, which is 36% of the total number of water outlets in the building. On 26 September, the Health Committee took evidence from senior Belfast Trust officials. The session is available to view on the Committee page of the Assembly website. In response to queries about the expertise of those signing off the handover, the Committee was advised:

"The trust has its own water safety group with microbiologists and so on as part of that, so there are a number of people involved in that process that would be qualified".

On the contrary, the Health Minister confirmed, in responses to questions for written answer that I subsequently tabled, that the water safety group was not involved in the handover, and, indeed, did not support it. Will the Minister explain how Health Committee members came to be advised that the water safety group had been involved? The water safety and usage group had actually suggested a period of steady state running, with sampling of all water outlets to test for pseudomonas. The group also previously agreed that the assurance sought from the contractor ought to be that the building's water system was free from waterborne pathogens. I am interested in the governance processes of the Belfast Trust and how the concerns of an assurance group, such as the water safety group, are communicated through trust structures to senior management and the trust board. Does the Minister have a clear understanding of the concerns that it articulated and of whether they were reported appropriately, through the relevant structures? When doing the publicity for the handover of the building, were the trust's chair and the rest of his board fully informed of the concerns that had been raised ? Again, perhaps the Minister will clarify that in his response. Interestingly, the same firm of legionella specialists that acted as independent consultants for the handover of the building has been asked to co-lead a trust-instigated review to examine that. It is difficult to argue — I trust, Minister, that you agree — that that is best, or even normal, practice. A full independent inquiry should take place, outwith the Belfast Trust and those who participated or acted in a professional advisory capacity in the decision-making. I am also keen to know about the extent of the risk assessment that was carried out by the trust prior to the handover of the building. If the Minister is willing, it may be instructive to share that with Members and, perhaps, place it in the Assembly Library. Similarly, Members might benefit from the Minister sharing the minutes of water safety and usage group meetings over the past number of years. I am also interested in the role of the Department. What advice was offered by the health estates team? What oversight was there from the Minister, his predecessors and senior officials? Did they raise concerns at any point? Does the Department believe that there is an acceptable level of pseudomonas? I will also ask colleagues on the Health Committee to support recalling to the Committee those officials who appeared before us on 26 September. There may be merit, too, in inviting representatives of the water safety group to give evidence. The trust seems to be clinging to its contract with the company as a defence for not taking any further action, but there is always scope to act in such circumstances. The emergence of pseudomonas changed the landscape, and the trust should have acted immediately. Previously, the handover of the critical care building on the Royal Victoria Hospital site was delayed after the contractor found microbial-induced corrosion in its water systems. The Northern Ireland Audit Office's major capital projects follow-up report, which was published in February, found that the Northern Ireland public sector's current portfolio of major capital projects will cost £2·45 billion more to complete than originally estimated. It also reported that, for the seven flagship projects that were announced back in 2015, the total cost overruns are now close to £1·94 billion. Only one of those projects has been delivered. Key decisions on large-scale projects can have very significant consequences. Northern Ireland cannot afford for them to be mishandled. Estimated costs for the maternity and children's hospital have already jumped by more than £400 million, with a significant distance yet to travel. With the new regional children's hospital being embarked on, it is imperative that the trust ensures that the design of the water system in that facility is absolutely right. It must reflect the most up-to-date standards available. No further contracts should be entered into without every i being dotted and every t being crossed.

We cannot contemplate any further remedial work to already expensive facilities. There is no room for any more mistakes and no appetite for wasting significant further sums on avoidable repairs.

Minister, Northern Ireland cannot afford losses on such a scale. I know that you are vexed by the significance and extent of the problem. Those who made the decisions about the handover of the contract and decided to proceed need to be held accountable. It is long past time for things to change. You have the opportunity to bring about that change through a full, robust inquiry into what happened so that we do not continuously repeat the mistakes of the past.

1,262 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:35 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification