Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In relation to the assessment of capital needs in the health sector, that was very much covered by the capacity review that was commissioned by the Minister for Health. The capacity review was in the programme for Government. It is referenced specifically in the Sláintecare report. The capacity review was published in January. It outlines the kind of increase in capacity that we need in terms of acute hospital beds, critical care, social care beds for the elderly and also what is likely to be required in terms of increases in staffing levels in primary care and other areas. That capacity review very much informed the NDP and Project Ireland 2040. In addition, of course, we already know what we need in terms of ICT investment in the health service because that was covered in the eHealth analysis which was published before that.

It is fair to say that what is put in Project Ireland 2040 for health is very much evidence-based and very much based on those reports and reviews. What we see in health is a commitment of almost €11 billion over ten years, doubling the capital expenditure for health over ten years and allowing us to make those game-changing investments that are needed in areas such as information and communication technology which is really in deficit in the health service, the acute hospitals and primary care.

Service level commitments are in the HSE service plan for 2018 but we do not have any long-term service level commitments. Deputy Micheál Martin makes a valid point in that regard. Perhaps that is something that we need to put into the Sláintecare implementation report as to how we believe this ongoing increase in spending and ongoing investment in health infrastructure should result in outcomes for patients because that is what matters most. When we talk about outcomes for patients, it should not only be about waiting lists and overcrowding, important as those issues are. We need to talk about matters such as patient experience and survival rates for cancer which are important too.

In terms of the establishment of a Cabinet committee on Irish unity, that is not a good idea. First, there is not a majority in Northern Ireland at present in favour of a united Ireland.

We are in the middle of very sensitive Brexit negotiations and may continue to be for a number of months, perhaps even more than a year. We are trying to defend the Good Friday Agreement from some who are seeking to undermine it. We are also trying to get the Assembly and the Executive up and running. The establishment now of a Cabinet committee on Irish unity would be unhelpful in our efforts to defend the Good Friday Agreement in that we would be saying we are looking beyond it. We are not. The Good Friday Agreement is the best way forward for Northern Ireland. I also think it would be provocative towards unionism. While there may be occasions on which one may need to provoke people, I would not do it for the sake of setting up a Cabinet committee. It would have to be something that would result in a real outcome for people. This is why I do not favour a Cabinet committee on Irish unity.

Regarding the Good Friday Agreement more generally, the Government is absolutely committed to the agreement. It is an international agreement. It is in part made up of the British-Irish Agreement, after all, between two sovereign states. I have noted that some hardline Brexiteers, albeit not members of the British Government, have sought to undermine the Good Friday Agreement in recent weeks. I further note that these are the same people who insist that we must respect the result of their referendum, which was approximately 52% to 48% in favour of Brexit, and we do respect that. However, I remind them that we had a referendum as well on the Good Friday Agreement, for which 94% of people in this jurisdiction and 71% of people in Northern Ireland voted. I therefore ask these people to respect our referendums and the sovereign and democratic will of people in Northern Ireland and Ireland with regard to the Good Friday Agreement. I very much welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State, Karen Bradley, in the House of Commons yesterday in which she boldly stated that the UK Government is steadfast behind the Good Friday Agreement, whatever some other people may say.

I think there is a problem with money messages. A huge amount of legislation of variable quality is coming through this House and no money has been voted by the Oireachtas to implement any of it. We have a huge disparity between the quality of legislation that comes from Government and that which comes from the Opposition and the rules in this regard. An Opposition Member, or a Private Member sitting on the Government benches, can produce a Bill on Thursday, publish it on Friday and have it debated in the Dáil and passed through Second Stage the following week. The Government cannot do that. It must ordinarily produce heads, then draft the legislation in consultation with the Attorney General's office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, have the Bill go through pre-legislative scrutiny, publish the Bill and have it debated in this House. That is the proper way to do things, and there should be equality of standards between what is produced as a Private Members' Bill and what is produced as a Government Bill. We should not accept a lower standard of legislation from the Opposition or from Private Members than we expect from our Government. A former Secretary General, Mr. Dunning, did a report in which he put forward very workable proposals as to how we can improve things in order that we have less legislation coming through but legislation of a quality that could become law. I encourage those parties that have not yet accepted that report to do so. We will then be able to make changes and get more Private Members' legislation through and I will be in a position to issue money messages.

I will have to follow up on the 100-bed unit for older people in Connolly. I am not sure what is the up-to-date picture. My recollection is the same as Deputy Burton's, that is, that it was to be built and that the older units would not be closed until it was built, but I welcome the reminder about this important local issue and I will definitely follow up on it today.

Deputy Martin mentioned earlier the issue of the selection of the President of the European Commission. I support the Spitzenkandidat system. It is a good system. I think it is more democratic to allow the outcome-----

See this speech in context