Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this subject. In the first instance, I am one of those who would be reluctant to observe restrictions on persons travelling about their business and their enjoyment in the country. However, the call had to be made, and was made at the appropriate time. It was felt then that the restrictions were important in curtailing the degree to which the virus could spread. They served and will continue to serve their purpose. This is a matter of opinion and of argument. People will say "For" and "Against", and we have to wait until afterwards to find out. As the fellow said, "If we had the benefit of hindsight beforehand we would never make any mistakes." It is an add-on that is a belt and braces to the campaign against the virus.

Deputy Shortall mentioned the point about air purification and ventilation - the two are somewhat related. I have raised this on a number of occasions in the past as well that there are provisions now whereby enclosed settings can be fitted out with air purification plants that can eliminate 100% of the virus. The availability of such technology nowadays is something that should be borne in mind because we are talking about an airborne virus and air purification has to be an element in dealing with it in certain circumstances. I acknowledge it is not in all circumstances but it certainly is a possibility that we should not ignore. To take it into account and to be able to rely on it is something that we should avail of, as required. The Minister, if he gets an opportunity, might make reference to such technology as a means of curtailing, in the event of there being particular sources of spreading identified in the future. It would be helpful. While scientists will argue as to whether it is possible to achieve 100% air purification, I believe it is. I believe that science has advanced to that extent now and given that it has, we should be happy to rely on it.

In general, I congratulate the Minister and the Government for their efforts in curtailing Covid-19. It was a difficult call. It was an appalling thing to have to do and to spend money just to stay in the same spot, to run faster, to employ more people and to put people in the front line at risk who came forward again and again, many of whom suffered loss of life - their own and their families' lives - by being in the front line. Whatever happens from here on in, one cannot quantify the extent to which we are obligated to those front-line operators. They did it willingly. They made their contribution. They put their shoulder to the wheel. They did the job that had to be done, which is a great commendation of their efforts, notwithstanding the fact that there was loss of life. More than 5,000 people lost their lives and that is not a small thing.

There are those also who deny that a virus ever existed. We have in the past couple of weeks seen situations whereby people have advised sufferers of the virus that they should go home, that they should not receive treatment, that it was all a farce, that it was all a game, all a conspiracy by Administrations to restrict their movement etc. It is sad that people take the advice from such quarters but, unfortunately, they do. As long as they do, we will have tragic consequences.

The Minister and the Government are to be complimented on the leadership they gave and NPHET has to be complimented on its leadership and the advice it, including the Chief Medical Officer, gave throughout. It was, very often, a lonely place to be telling people that they were sorry but they would have to restrict their activities, they could not go on holidays and they could not do what they normally do and go where they wanted to within their own country because of the existence of this virus. That was a difficult thing to do but they did it in the interests of the community at large. If they had not done so, we would find ourselves with numerous lockdowns, as they continue to have in other countries far from here, such as Australia and New Zealand, where it still goes on and, in fact, throughout Europe where emergencies are arising on a fairly regular basis and there then have to be introduced dramatic means of curtailing activity and containing the spread of the disease.

We have done it in this country. Everybody has co-operated. The public have co-operated as well. It has been done with the minimum of incursion on the rights and the lives of the people, but at the same time with sufficient emphasis on restrictions to ensure that the disease did not spread.

I will finish, if I might, on an attendant subject. Previous speakers made reference to the waiting lists in hospitals. It naturally follows it was never possible to keep waiting lists down and at the same time deal with Covid. It could not happen that way, notwithstanding the extra cost, the extra expenditure, the extra investment etc.

Insofar as hospital beds are concerned, however, I remember not so long ago when we were advised by experts that we had far too many hospital beds in this country, that we should close them down, that they were a drain on the health budget and that fewer of them would suffice. They were wrong, particularly in the context of an increasing population. It was totally contradictory to suggest that. With the population increasing to almost double what it was in the 1950s, we found ourselves in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s with people telling us that what we needed was fewer facilities.

That is not what we needed, though. We needed a clear indication that we had to accommodate that increased population.

We must also increase the skills in our hospitals and the wider health services. That is being done. If we are to compete with all others and deal effectively and efficiently with our people throughout the country, we must be able to attend to our people quickly, effectively and efficiently. We must be able to compete with all others, not only throughout Europe, but globally. Health services are a more global issue now than they used to be. As we on the health committee have been told many times over the past five or seven years, we operate on New York, London or Sydney prices when we have to appoint people. I understand that but it is a fact of life that we now need to invest heavily in medical infrastructure in order to achieve the effective and efficient delivery of services to people when they want them, not in three months' time. We have all encountered instances of people attending hospital only to be told to come back in six months' time. That is incredible stuff and I cannot believe that we are still seeing that kind of thing. Can Deputies imagine a person who is suffering what could be a life-threatening illness being told that the hospital can do nothing for him or her for at least six months but will talk to the person then? Particularly given the pervasive nature of some of the illnesses in question and the degree to which they can progress rapidly, the person who is ill needs to be informed that the hospital can deal with his or her illness quickly, arrest its progress and, resultantly, improve the patient's chances. That is the way we must proceed in future. We have the wherewithal to do it effectively and efficiently. It would be an investment in the future if we made the provision for that now. Yesterday's announcement of a review of the economic plan is part and parcel of that in terms of recognising what we have to do now. If we do not do it now under normal conditions, we will have to do it under emergency conditions at a later stage. When we must respond to something in a manner akin to a fire brigade, it means we have not been making sufficient provision.

I compliment the Government on its work on Covid, as well as those in the health services throughout the public and private sectors on the manner in which they responded, the sacrifices they made, the risks they took and the commitment they gave for what has been almost two years. We must recognise that achievement and congratulate all and sundry. We must also recognise that we must look carefully and critically at future requirements in terms of infrastructural investment in order to ensure that we do not find ourselves saying that, had we done something X number of years ago, we would have been much better off.

My final point is on the children's hospital. It continues to progress and I am glad to see it is progressing satisfactorily. Concerns were expressed about cost overruns. Like the Minister, I was a member of the committee for a four-year period. I did not see any accurate costing undertaken before the €1.48 billion was identified. That was the first time there was a cost accountant's imprimaturon it. That costing identified the cost at that stage. There will be situations where costs increase. That applies across the board of the economy, although not to the extent they should be allowed to go unbridled. Rather, cost increases should not stop progress or restrict us in our need to invest in hospital perfection and centres of excellence.

See this speech in context