My question relates to the commitments in the programme for Government to support people with disabilities in maximising their potential and to remove barriers which impact on access to services, education or healthcare. Last week in County Mayo, I met Cillian Mearns, who is seven years of age, and his mother, Lorraine. Cillian and his friend, Grace, are two of the children in Mayo who are awaiting a decision to approve the drug Spinraza to treat spinal muscular atrophy. Cillian's mother told me that time is of the essence for him because his condition worsens by the day and he needs this drug. The decision in February not to approve what has been described as a life-changing drug is morally wrong and has trapped very ill patients, including children such as Cillian and Grace, in the middle of a bidding war between the Government and the pharmaceutical industry. The HSE stated in February that it is likely that there would be further discussions in the following weeks about funding the drug. I understand that a new application has been submitted. These families are desperate for answers. What was the outcome of the discussion with the HSE? When will we see a decision on the latest application? When can we expect a definitive conclusion and the approval of the drug Spinraza?

So far this year, 23 new medicines have been approved for reimbursement by the HSE. In 2013, the House concluded that decisions on which drugs should be approved should not be political decisions. Such decisions are, therefore, not made based on political considerations but on medical evidence and the necessity, for all sorts of reasons, to ensure that we pay a fair price. If we pay an unfair price, other things will suffer and nobody wants that. It is always open to companies which have a medicine that they want reimbursed to come back in with more data supporting the clinical claims they are making or with a fairer price.

The horrific vision of fire tearing through the historic Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris last night is a reminder of the vulnerability of our built heritage. The roof of the cathedral, including oak beams of up to 1,000 years old, has been all but destroyed. In the light of the tragedy, are there plans for an audit of our built heritage, including places such as Dublin Castle, Christ Church Cathedral, St. Patrick's Cathedral and similar structures across the country, to ensure they are equipped with the latest in fire protection systems? Are there detailed plans to respond to fires in such buildings? Is it a requirement for a fund to be made available to provide support to the private and public sectors to ensure that preventative measures are taken in advance of any such tragedy occurring here? This should be a wake-up call. I am interested in hearing the views of the Taoiseach on this matter.

There are no current plans to do as the Deputy suggests. However, it is a helpful suggestion and may be a good idea. After the Grenfell Tower fire, we carried out an analysis to see if we would be equipped to deal with a similar fire. I suppose the same issue arises in respect of some of our heritage properties that may be vulnerable to fire. I will take the issue up with the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, and the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Madigan, and see if it would be a good thing to do.