Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Nov 2017

Vol. 962 No. 5

Leaders' Questions

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

I wish to be associated with the congratulations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, on becoming Tánaiste, to Deputy Humphreys, on her move to the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation and to Deputy Madigan, on her promotion to Cabinet.

The issue I wish to raise with the Tánaiste relates to agriculture.

This is an area with which he is very familiar, given his previous stewardship of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I am sure he is aware of the pressures on farming family incomes and the various challenges facing the sector not only because of the inclement weather over the course of the past year, with a fodder crisis facing many farmers in particular parts of the country, but also as a consequence of developments internationally, including the threat posed by the current Commission negotiations with the South American beef-producing countries in Mercosur and the very real challenges posed by Brexit.

The particular issues I wish to focus on today are the communiqué published yesterday on the post-2020 future of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP and, second, the question of spending under the current CAP programme until 2020. Fianna Fáil very much welcomes the communiqué in many of its aspects, particularly the focus on small and medium-sized family farms and the agreement that the reduction in the maximum payment under the basic payment scheme will not happen until after 2020. However, the key focus when considering the future of CAP must be on its budget. Will the Government ensure every effort is made to protect the CAP budget post-2020, given that it makes up 75% of average Irish farm incomes? In addition, will the Government undertake to ensure direct contributions are increased in order to achieve that objective?

In regard to spending under the current CAP programme, the Government is clearly failing to live up to the promises that were made, including by the Tánaiste when he was Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. During his tenure in that office, he gave a clear undertaking that €1.4 billion would be spent on the various schemes, including, for example, the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, an announcement that was welcomed by all the farming organisations. However, replies to parliamentary questions I have submitted in recent weeks and months indicate that by the end of 2021, when all participants in GLAS have been paid the full amounts owing to them, just over €1 billion will have been spent on the programme, which is €380 million less than what the Tánaiste, as Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, promised the expenditure would be. Those outstanding moneys should be directed towards reopening GLAS, providing additional funding for the areas of natural constraint, ANC, scheme, and bringing the suckler cow payment under the beef genomics and data programme, BGDP, up to €200.

Will the Tánaiste address these two points in his reply, namely, the future of CAP funding and, second, the failure of the Government to live up to its standing commitments under the various schemes?

The Tánaiste

It is good to have an opportunity once again to talk about agriculture. In regard to the future of CAP, the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr. Phil Hogan, has managed this issue in a way that is politically intelligent. He has already launched a document on the future of CAP, which will allow us to have that discussion early in the context of the negotiation that will undoubtedly take place around the multi-annual financial framework for the EU budget post-2020. This affords us an opportunity to address, at an early stage, the need to prioritise CAP.

Payments under the Common Agricultural Policy contribute hugely to the economy, with the current round representing some €12 billion in payments to Irish farming families over its lifetime. That is broken down into direct payments and payments under the various rural development schemes, some of which the Deputy mentioned. The last round of CAP facilitated a very ambitious transformation of agriculture in Ireland in terms of recognising environmental responsibilities, improving technology within the sector, and exploiting the extraordinary and sustainable opportunities in this country for growth and expansion in agriculture and farming generally. We want to continue that progress into the next round of CAP. We have an Irish Commissioner who understands that thinking, but it will be up to the Government to form alliances across the European Union with other countries which value and prioritise the supports that allow us to have a sustainable and growing food sector and to support farming families into the future. That is partially a job for me as well as being a job for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, and, at the highest level of EU summits and so on, a job for the Taoiseach. We must seek to focus on how money will be spent in the future, particularly given the significant reduction in available EU funds that will arise due to the departure of the United Kingdom. Brexit is estimated to create a shortfall in funding of between €12 billion to €14 billion per year, which is one of the pressing reasons that agriculture and the future CAP must be prioritised from our perspective.

In regard to the domestic delivery of particular schemes, I can get back to the Deputy if he has specific questions. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has, year after year, undertaken a very ambitious programme of roll-out and increased expenditure during the lifetime of the rural development programme. The Minister is anxious to deliver on that undertaking.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue

In the context of the Food Wise 2025 targets and given that the agrifood sector is our largest indigenous employer, it is crucial that we work with our European partners to plug the gap in funding that will arise after the UK leaves the Union, which could potentially amount to some €3 billion under the CAP budget, and that we live up to our responsibility to contribute more if necessary.

Will the Tánaiste comment specifically on current Government spending under the CAP programme up to 2020? As Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine at the time, he committed to spend €1.4 billion under GLAS. It is crystal clear, following replies to parliamentary questions in recent weeks, that the Department will fall €380 million short of delivering on that promise. It is absolutely unacceptable that the Government should not live up to the promise made by the Tánaiste, when he was in the Department, and on which the now Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, is obliged to follow through. There are other things that can be done with that funding, including, as I suggested, increasing the disadvantaged payment through the ANC scheme, reopening GLAS and enhancing payments for suckler cows under the BGDP. Will the Tánaiste, working with the Minister, Deputy Creed, ensure the promise he made is lived up to and that funding is delivered? Farmers must not be shortchanged on what was promised to them.

The Tánaiste

The straight answer to that question is "Yes". We will ensure farmers are not shortchanged and that all the available funding under the rural development plan is fully drawn down for a whole series of schemes, including GLAS, the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, the sheep welfare scheme, the beef genomics and data programme, the organic farming scheme, the knowledge transfer programme and so on. There is a multitude of schemes through which farmers receive support. It is a key priority for us to draw down all available funds, and Ireland is good at doing that. We will ensure we do the same this time around.

The total expenditure envisaged under the agri-environment scheme, including GLAS, over the lifetime of the scheme is €1.4 billion. That will include transitional funding for remaining commitments arising from the agri-environment measures in the Rural Development Programme 2007-2013. There is a continuation of some of those schemes. It is not accurate to say there will be a pool of €300 million plus left on the table which we should reallocate to some other schemes. That is not how the schemes work.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

We are now fast approaching the critical meeting of the European Council to discuss the next stage of the Brexit negotiations. At this point in the process, the Government has maximum leverage and may avail of a veto to secure the best comprehensive deal in our national interests. There is an effort in the British press and by the Tories to bounce us into some kind of vague, cobbled together deal, after which, I assume, they would move on without a second thought for Ireland, our peace agreement, or, indeed, our economy. There is a very real danger that the best interests of Irish citizens, North and South, will be sacrificed in order to allow Britain and the European Union to move ahead.

The Fianna Fáil Party, for its part, seems to have moved away from its stated aim to support the Good Friday Agreement and secure special designated status for the North. The party is apparently now prepared to settle for something far less.

I appeal to the Tánaiste that his Government cannot follow the lead of Fianna Fáil in this regard. The Government must take and argue the principle that any progress that does not explicitly contain protections for Ireland's economy, our citizens and the Good Friday Agreement really is not progress at all. That is the Tánaiste's duty. Ireland cannot become collateral damage. I do not believe the Government should be bought off with vague assurances in order to allow the wider talks process to proceed. This will be another test of the Taoiseach's and the Tánaiste's leadership. The Government cannot back down in the defence of our national interests. The best way to secure our national interests is not this talk about regulatory divergence or convergence. Across Europe, and even within the British Government, it is accepted that Ireland is uniquely exposed with regard to Brexit. People recognise that Ireland requires a unique solution. That solution is for the North to be granted designated status, or whatever term is used. This means remaining in the Single Market, it means remaining in the customs union and it means the protection of the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts. That is Sinn Féin's position, it is the position of the EU Parliament, it is the stated position of the Dáil and it is a position from which the Tánaiste must not resile. It is vital that we have clarity and binding agreements. Without this the process should not be allowed to progress. Any talk of parallel processes is nonsense and dangerous at that.

Will the Tánaiste indicate if this is the position he will adopt in his meeting with Donald Tusk in Dublin tomorrow? Will the Tánaiste commit to using the veto if the Government does not achieve an agreement and if it is deemed necessary?

The Tánaiste

I thank the Deputy for an opportunity to put a number of things on the record in relation to the Government's approach to Brexit. I shall first turn to the veto issue. The talk of whether or not Ireland uses a veto misunderstands the reality we currently find ourselves in. There is very strong solidarity across the European Union among 27 countries, including Ireland, around what is required to allow this process to move on to opening up phase two, which is about future relationships, trade and transition arrangement, etc. The idea of whether or not Ireland will stand alone and use its veto actually misunderstands the fact that we are standing with another 26 countries at the moment. Yesterday I spoke with the German foreign minister who reconfirmed that position. I also spoke with the Luxembourg foreign minister who reconfirmed that position. When I represented the Taoiseach in Brussels last week I got that point reinforced to me, very strongly. I spent over an hour with Michel Barnier last week who also said that the EU's challenge is Ireland's challenge. They will not abandon Ireland on this issue. This is why we are working together to ensure that three areas that require substantial progress actually deliver that progress.

Clearly there has been a lot of progress although there is still some work to do on citizens' rights issues. Then there are the Irish issues. There has been very good progress on the common travel area. We have had deep discussions and a lot of very detailed work has been done in ensuring Ireland can maintain, in full, the benefits of the Good Friday Agreement on this island. That has posed very challenging questions on how we manage the Border questions in the future. How do we ensure that we can protect what we enjoy today, which is largely an invisible border that has developed over time and which has allowed the normalisation of relationships through trade and movement on the island? How do we protect that in the context of Brexit? We have very strong support in doing this, as I have already said. Between now and the meeting on 14 December we are looking for a language that reflects the need for credibility around how we are to approach this issue and solve it during phase two and the parameters within which that can be done. We will not have all of the answers by the middle of December but we are looking for significantly more clarity than we currently have from the British negotiating team in order to support, with the other 26 countries and with Michel Barnier, the move to open phase two of the negotiations. I believe that most people would like see phase two happen sooner rather than later given the uncertainty that remains in the absence of phase two beginning.

Deputy Mary Lou McDonald

I thank the Tánaiste. I do not for one second misunderstand the issue of the veto or how it might be deployed. I do not gainsay it either because I have seen myself the sense of solidarity at the European level. I do not believe that the Tánaiste or any Deputies should miss the clear impatience in some circles to move on to phase two. My concern arises around the position of the Government because it is a mistake to be ambivalent on any level on this issue. It is a mistake to give any message other than that Ireland requires a resolution and an agreement that protects the Good Friday Agreement in all of its parts and also protects Ireland's economy. This requires the North to remain within the Single Market and to remain within the customs union. There cannot be ambiguity on those matters as we move in to phase two. I put it to the Tánaiste that if the Government goes down that road then it is making a very big mistake. I also put it to the Tánaiste that, solidarity notwithstanding, in the absence of that level of certainty and clarity the Government would be left with no option but to exercise the veto. I ask the Tánaiste for reassurance that he sees these matters and that he understands these matters, as Sinn Féin does, in accordance with the position that has been adopted by the Dáil, which recognised all of those strands and the necessity to have full clarity on them.

The Tánaiste

I assure the House that we are not looking for some kind of constructive ambiguity in language to get us over a political problem. I regard the decisions that may or may not be taken on 14 December as of real, historic significance for Ireland. This is about the permanent change, potentially, in the relationship between Ireland and Britain and the relationships on this island. We have been very clear on this issue and unlike others we have not changed our position for months. Perhaps what has changed is the expectation of others that Ireland might, under pressure, change its position. We have not done that. I have been very clear that our first preference in respect of solving the Border issues and the North-South co-operation issues and so on would be for the United Kingdom as a whole to show a willingness and an appetite to remain part of the same customs union and the same trading platform as the rest of the European Union. That is, however, a decision for the British Government and its negotiating teams to make. In the absence of being able to solve the challenges, which run deep, that we face on the island of Ireland by a broad trade agreement in phase two between Britain and the European Union, then we have to recognise that Northern Ireland has unique challenges that will need tailor-made unique solutions. We have made that very clear. We have spoken about the need to avoid regulatory divergence because, essentially, if we had two jurisdictions on this island operating to different rule books for regulation it would be impossible in a practical sense to maintain the kind of relationships we have today. This is why we have taken such a firm stance on this issue and we will continue to hold to that position. Hopefully we will see progress that can allow us to move on to phase two in the middle of December. If it is not possible to do that, so be it.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

In addition to his other duties the Taoiseach has retained for himself the role of Minister for Defence. It is not clear to me that he takes any real responsibility for the area of Defence. It is not acceptable for a Cabinet Minister to simply delegate the entire responsibility for a Government Department to a Minister of State. The Taoiseach does not answer parliamentary questions on the matter. I do not know if he attends monthly management meetings of the leadership team of the Department of Defence or if he regularly attends meetings with the Secretary General or other senior officials of the Department. He seems to be sidestepping personal responsibility for his Department.

Very serious issues are arising. The wives and partners of Defence Forces personnel are outside the gates of Leinster House this morning to continue to highlight some of these issues, in particular the clear fact that many members are leaving because they cannot live on current earnings. The Tánaiste will tell the House that the matter is being examined by a public sector pay commission, but the Government was happy to act unilaterally in respect of the new Garda Commissioner and the highly paid academics we needed to attract. I believe genuinely that the Government would find consensus in the House for a bespoke pay review for the Defence Forces, which is warranted and urgently required. I cannot understand why it is willing to recognise the Garda associations in pay negotiations but will not do the same for the representative associations of Defence Forces' personnel.

Reports this week have made it clear that an Air Corps whistleblower faces discharge from the Defence Forces. That a serving member of the Defence Forces can face disciplinary action for chronic inactivity, as it was stated, following a work-related industrial dispute is disconcerting, in particular when it is reported that he has told the Minister of State that he was targeted for raising safety concerns. Mr. Christopher O'Toole has been appointed to examine protected disclosures on the working environment at Casement Aerodrome. It is reported that the terms of reference he was given were impractical. This is all the more concerning now that we know the State Claims Agency carried out a number of health and safety management audits of the Defence Forces and that the Defence Forces can only offer speculative explanations for why prior inspection reports from Casement Aerodrome have gone missing. That is unsatisfactory, especially in the light of the fact that copies of these documents are in circulation among politicians and the media. Efforts to establish whether the documents were deliberately destroyed have amounted to asking the Defence Forces to investigate themselves.

What action will the Government take to ensure every member of the Defence Forces will earn at least a living wage? Will it commit to recognising Defence Forces' associations in pay negotiations? Is it satisfied that the Defence Forces' members who met the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, to discuss these concerns are receiving the full protection warranted under the Protected Disclosures Act? Has it considered the establishment of a commission of investigation to establish whether the health and safety management regime at Casement Aerodrome meets the standards of the day and whether the allegations have any credibility?

The Tánaiste

The Deputy has asked a lot of questions. If I do not get to all of them on the floor of the House, I will respond having spoken to the Minister of State with responsibility for defence matters. I am personally familiar with some of the cases referred to and previous whistleblowers in relation to issues at Casement Aerodrome. I commit to coming back to the Deputy in detail on these issues.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

That is appreciated.

The Tánaiste

The Government may have to make decisions on future actions there and we await recommendations from the Minister of State in that regard. It is something in which I have taken a personal interest and of which I have some knowledge, but I cannot go into the detail on the floor of the Dáil.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

It needs to happen on the floor of the Dáil.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Look at what happened in the last week.

The Tánaiste

There will be answers to these questions.

On the wives and partners of Defence Forces' personnel who are making a point today, I note that successful negotiations with the Permanent Defence Force representative associations have led to significant pay increases under the Lansdowne Road agreement for Defence Forces' personnel. The public service stability agreement for the period 2018 to 2020 provides for a series of further pay increases in the next three years. Given the ministerial offices Deputy Brendan Howlin has held, he will know of the difficulty in separating one sector from all others for special treatment in public sector pay, but that is what he is asking us to do. There are other issues about what the Department of Defence can do about other supports available to Defence Forces' personnel. There have been reviews in that regard. There are many sectors in the economy and society that can make a very valid case for improved pay and working conditions. I understand that, of course, the Defence Forces will make that case for themselves through the representative organisations and, in this case, private family members. Of course, the Government will listen. However, we have to operate within a certain pay structure across the public sector. If we were to start to dismantle it for individual sectors, the Deputy knows of the chaos it would cause.

As a former Minister for Defence, I record the Government's strong appreciation of the role the Defence Forces play. I have visited many peacekeeping missions around the world and had the privilege to spend time with families who have lost loved ones in the service of the country in the Defence Forces. They are valued. We are building personnel numbers in the Defence Forces and the recruitment campaign is a success. We are adding substantially more personnel to the Defence Forces than we are losing and will continue to see that trend develop into 2018.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I appreciate the Tánaiste's reply and understand he cannot give me a comprehensive response on the Casement Aerodrome issues. I look forward to either a direct briefing or a written response in due course. I have full knowledge of pay issues in dealing with the public service as a whole, but there is a compelling case to be made for separating out the Defence Forces for a bespoke review. I say this in the full knowledge of how difficult it would be. The shockingly low pay levels across the sector are having an impact on retention in key skills areas. When these difficulties arose in the health sector, we managed to formulate a way to deal with them. For example, we had a formula for skilled nurses. We need to recognise what is happening. The fact that the people concerned are not allowed to manifest their voices publicly does not mean that they should be ignored. As such, I ask whether consideration will be given to a unique pay review within the Defence Forces and outside the Public Sector Pay Commission.

The Tánaiste

The Minister of State with responsibility for defence matters tells me that this is happening in the context of having special skill sets within the Defence Forces. It is important to note, having regard to the broader arrangements in place, that combined increases in recent months for new recruits have ranged from 8% to 24%, depending on the point on which they are on the pay scales. We are seeing an economy which can afford to pay the public sector more. The bodies which represent members of the Defence Forces have bought into and want to be part of negotiations and their members are starting to benefit, but that is not to suggest there is no frustration in the Defence Forces. However, across the public sector, including within the Defence Forces, deals negotiated with representative bodies mean that we will see continuous improvements in pay into the future, which is positive.

On the Air Corps, the Minister of State has only recently received observations and replies from the three individuals who made protected disclosures on the independent review report which he had commissioned and forwarded to them. Having received responses on the report from the three individuals, the Minister of State will have to make recommendations to the Government. We will make decisions on whether further action is required.

Deputy Alan Kelly

The Taoiseach is the Minister.

Deputy Paul Kehoe

Good man, Deputy. You never lost your arrogance.

Deputy Noel Grealish

Now that the Government has apparently survived its own health scare, perhaps it can turn its attention to the far more pressing matter of the health of the nation as a whole. There appears to be a lack of urgency in the Government's response to the Sláintecare report, produced by the cross-party Committee on the Future of Healthcare. The report, with its far-reaching recommendations for radical changes in this country's approach to health care, was published back in May, but we are still waiting for the establishment of an implementation office that will see its recommendations brought into action.

If proof was needed of how much a major revamp of our delivery of health care is required, then one only needs to look at recent developments. At a time when waiting lists for treatment in Irish hospitals are spiralling out of control, the recent RTÉ "Prime Time" investigation revealed how a number of consultants were in breach of their contracts to provide a certain number of hours in the care of public patients, opting to boost their salaries with work in private hospitals. One who was observed for eight weeks was found to be working fewer than 13 hours on average in the public system even though he was contracted to work 37 hours a week.

Such scandalous behaviour, for which HSE and hospital management must also take their share of responsibility, no doubt at least partly contributed to the latest waiting list figures in our hospitals. There were almost a half a million people, more than 494,000, waiting for outpatient treatment at the end of October. That is an increase of 56,000 people on the same time last year. Despite several undertakings to improve the situation, there has also been an increase in the number of people waiting for inpatient and day case operations and procedures compared with this time last year. More than 80,000 people are on waiting lists as inpatients, also up on last year. The number waiting for 15 months or more as outpatients has almost doubled, up by 88% to almost 92,000. Add in those waiting this unacceptable length of time for inpatient or day case procedures, and there are little short of 500,000 people the length and breadth of Ireland facing absolutely unacceptable waits for a call from their local hospital. They have been forced for more than 15 months, and much, much longer in some cases, to live in pain, to live in fear and to live constantly waiting for the postman to deliver a letter that will finally signal relief. Meanwhile, the workload of nurses and other staff has increased to a point of great stress to them and to a point where questions should be asked about the level of care to some vulnerable patients. They are simply being spread too thinly on the ground. Resources are being stretched in most hospitals and the solution is not just a question of more beds. The required additional medical resources in terms of staffing, equipment and theatre facilities must be allocated too.

The Committee on the Future of Healthcare recommended that the implementation office for Sláintecare would be located in the Office of the Taoiseach. I understand that there was a worry among at least some members of the committee that the Department of Health might be given the responsibility for implementing the wide-ranging and radical changes recommended by the report. They felt that such a move would hamper progress.

Can the Taoiseach confirm that the implementation process will be under the control of his Department and not the Department of Health? Can he indicate when the process will be up and running?

The Tánaiste

On the last question, the progress report will be made to the Minister of Health but the Minister for Health reports to the Taoiseach in the context of the Cabinet subcommittee on health, which has a specific focus on Sláintecare. The Taoiseach holds the Department and the Minister to account on progress made.

The concept of Sláintecare is an all-party approach to ensure we have consistency in terms of providing decent health care across the country as Governments change and we are absolutely committed to this, as are other parties. We are anxious to get on with the implementation process to which we have committed. In July the Government agreed to move forward with the establishment of a dedicated programme office, specifically the recruitment of a lead executive. This marked a critical first step in gearing up for the significant programme of reform and demonstrates the Government's commitment to this process. Some €1 million has been allocated to this office for 2018 in line with the report's recommendations. The recruitment process for a head of this office is already under way and is being managed by the Public Appointments Service. It is essential that we are positioned to attract candidates of real calibre who can be responsible for driving the reform programme in which the office will be involved.

In parallel to this process the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, is developing a response to the report and a draft implementation plan, which will be done and published by the end of this year. This process seeks to translate the Sláintecare report into a programme of action for the next ten years and will consider issues that arise in designing such a programme, including key actions, deliverables, costings, timelines and the interdependencies which will be necessary across Departments. It was acknowledged in the Sláintecare report that more detailed consideration of these issues would be required and this work is under way. The process is being led at a most senior level in the Department and in the HSE and also involves close engagement with the Department of the Taoiseach and the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform. The involvement of these Departments was a key recommendation of the report and that is why it is happening. We will have an implementation plan, as recommended by the Sláintecare report, by the end of the year and the Minister, Deputy Harris, is on schedule to get that done. In parallel, we are putting in place a delivery office with people who have the motivation and talent to ensure we move the process forward into next year.

Deputy Noel Grealish

My own local hospital, University Hospital Galway, UHG, which is the busiest in the country, is an example of the woes of the current health system, with its growing waiting lists and overcrowded emergency department. The situation has been made worse by the fact that leaking roofs over the operating theatres in Merlin Park Hospital have resulted in some procedures having to be carried out in UHG and, of course, the cancellation of many operations. I appreciate that there has been some movement to reduce the inpatient and day case list but I find it disturbing that this hospital still accounts for more than a quarter of all the patients in the country who are waiting for more than 15 months for inpatient treatment that they badly need. Put another way, one in 11 patients on the waiting lists for inpatient or day case treatment nationally have been waiting for more than 15 months. In Galway that proportion is one in six patients. It is shocking, for instance, that a total of 114 people have been waiting for more than a year in Galway for cardiac treatment, when this time last year there was just one patient in this situation. There were 17 people last year waiting for more than a year and a half for oral surgery and this total has since soared to 570. We seem to be going backwards, rather than forward, in terms of health care and the reforms suggested in the Sláintecare report cannot come fast enough.

The Tánaiste

I suspected there would be some questions relating to Galway in the Deputy's contribution. As part of budget 2018 it was announced that funding to improve access to emergency care in 2018 will enable the opening of additional hospital capacity, including new beds, and additional diagnostic services and surgical capacity will be provided to reduce emergency department overcrowding. Additional capacity will be introduced in Galway in this respect. A new 75-bed ward block was completed in 2016 and the new acute mental health department is expected to be operational by the end of 2017. Galway is a pilot site for the national patient flow improvement programme and it is starting to work. There has been significant progress in planning for the new emergency department, with a design team to be appointed in the coming weeks, and there has also been a significant upgrade of the maternity unit, as well as 30 additional beds opened in 2016 as part of a wider winter beds programme. The cystic fibrosis outpatient department was completed a number of years ago and we are also looking at elective orthopaedic contingency implementation work at Merlin Park.

I am not saying we are where we need to be and there are clearly issues with, and pressures on, health provision in Galway, of which the Minister is very aware. However, we have a significant funding programme, both capital and current, and that will ensure we address these issues over time.

An Ceann Comhairle

We have run substantially over time. I must not have been ringing my bell loudly enough. We have 15 minutes for questions on promised legislation, with 18 Deputies indicating.