Pádraig Rice
Cork South-Central · Social Democrats · Ireland
“There is no clinical reason this should not be extended to oral contraceptives. Pharmacists are highly trained healthcare professionals. They should be allowed to operate at the top of their licence. They are available in every community and are very accessible.”
“I welcome the Bill. We spend a lot of time inside these Houses talking about other parts of reproductive healthcare and not enough about contraception, so it is really welcome that we are having a focus and discussion on it and are moving forward with changes.”
“The oral contraceptive pill has been around for well over half a century and is one of the safest and most well-studied medicines available. In 2019, the World Health Organization publicly stated that oral contraception should be available without needing prescription.”
“I move amendment No. 8: In page 5, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “Report on prescription-free oral contraceptives 4. The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on a proposal to allow registered pharmacists to dispense prescription-free oral contracepti…”
“We are talking about the prescription of oral contraceptives as called for by the World Health Organization, as set out by the Irish Pharmacy Union and as endorsed by the previous health committee. We are looking for a report on that with the detail of the various elements, if more detail is required.”
“It is important that we allow pharmacists to operate at the top of their licence and give them as much power as possible, and alleviate pressures on GPs. As I said, this is recommended by the World Health Organization and endorsed by the previous health committee and the IPU. That is the background to this amendment.”
The complete record
Every one of 664 lines we hold for Pádraig Rice, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 14.
“I welcome this debate and thank Sinn Féin for putting forward the motion. It is a really welcome debate and it follows on from the work done by the joint Oireachtas committee and the report we published on this matter. I sometimes wonder if I live in a different country when I hear some speeches from Ministers talking about the money they have invested and that their ongoing investment shows their commitment to delivering services, progressing reforms and addressing challenges. From what we have heard tonight, none of that is happening. The Government is not showing commitment to services, progressing reforms and addressing challenges. The evidence sadly speaks for itself and it is not the rosy picture that is presented by the Minister of State, unfortunately.”
“They failed to heed the warnings from the UN, from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, from Amnesty International, and from all of the human rights bodies who say they have deep concerns about this court. The Government's failure to change this has backed us into a corner and left us with no choice but to vote for these provisions. I think it is a disgrace. Our call is that in advance of next year's vote the Government would advance reforms to please give us other options here. My vote is not a vote for this court: it is a vote and an urgent call for the Minister of State and the Government to progress reforms. These emergency powers cannot stay on the Statute Book. Citizens in the State deserve a right to a fair trial and the Government is undermining that right.”
“It should concern us all that these sit on our Statue Book. In 2022, the co-leader of the Social Democrats, Catherine Murphy, called on the Government to implement reforms over the three-year period up to 2025. The Government absolutely failed to act on those recommendations and it failed to advance any of the reforms. Jury intimidation is not a uniquely Irish issue. Other countries deal with this. They have provisions and they have ways of doing it. The Government needs to look at ways other countries are doing it and implement them here. The Minister of State and the Government have absolutely failed to heed those warnings.”
“I have very deep concerns about the operation of the Special Criminal Court. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental human right. The lack of juries and the operating provisions of this court are undermining that right to a fair trial. The Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, and her Government are undermining people's human rights here. The Special Criminal Court was set up in 1972 as an emergency provision. Over 50 years later are we still saying that we are in a state of emergency in the State? There are clear examples in this court of mission creep and they should concern the Minister of State. They should concern us all. I urge the Minister of State to read the book Prophet Song by Paul Lynch. It will show the Minister of State how emergency powers are used against ordinary people.”
“The proposed public inquiry into Children's Health Ireland is in a state of crisis. At the weekend, two of the advocacy groups representing 900 families pulled out of the scoping inquiry. They did this because they have not been provided with information they need to meaningfully engage with the terms of reference. We called on the Minister to provide this information in March; she has not done so. We need statements in the Dáil this week from the Minister on what steps she will take to get this important public inquiry back on track.”
“It is not speeches in the Dáil that change lives for people; it is the work of real reform, improving services, improving access to drugs and changing legislation that has the real impact on people's lives. If we are going to have a Parliament that works better, that should be our priority.”
“Almost a year on from publication, one thing is sure; it has not been a great start. People with rare diseases are continuing to be left behind by the system and this cannot go on. The second year of this strategy must deliver real change. People with rare diseases cannot wait any longer. As I was saying at the start, we find ourselves in the House making statements on the important issues,but not progressing on the reforms that are so badly needed. We should focus our time, energy and efforts in this Parliament on actually achieving change. I welcome the acceleration of legislation from the Department of Health. We got the legislation yesterday. However, we need to see more of that, more legislative reform across the board in the area of heath, and to see real change. That is what makes a big difference for people and families.”
“That was followed by Austria screening for 31 conditions and Portugal screening for 30. Clearly, Ireland has some distance to go if it wants to be a leader in this area and that should be our aim. I understand that HIQA is currently examining the potential addition of congenital adrenal hyperplasia, CAH, and a further three conditions will be considered following that. It is welcome that we are now seeing movement in this area. However, we cannot allow another three year window between announcement and rollout if these conditions are approved. I draw the Minister's attention to a survey conducted by Rare Disease Ireland earlier this year. In it, 60% of respondents were found to be pessimistic about the potential impact of the rare disease strategy to improve lives. That should give the Minister pause for thought.”
“The previous Minister had said it will be rolled out by the end of 2024. That is simply not good enough. Additions to the newborn screening programme must be prioritised. This is made very clear in the rare disease strategy. The primary focus of the screening programme is to identify babies with rare conditions and improve outcomes. Early intervention can prevent the onset of disease symptoms or delay disease progression, improving the quality of life of newborns. According to the rare disease strategy, screening can be used for up to 50 rare diseases but Ireland still only screens for 11 conditions. While I accept there is considerable variation across Europe, Ireland lags behind the European average of screening for 18 conditions. As of last year, Italy was top of the pack by screening for 48 conditions.”
“This should not be necessary. People with rare diseases have enough to contend with without the emotional and physical toll of consistently having to fight for treatments and reforms of the system. I welcome the news on European co-operation on these issues and the opportunities with the European Presidency to have greater co-operation across Europe on this. I would also like to briefly speak about the newborn screening programme, which was recently extended to include severe combined immunodeficiency, SCID and spinal muscular atrophy, SMA. This expansion of the programme was approved by the previous Minister for Health, Stephen Donnelly, in 2023 and yet, it took three years to implement. This is despite the fact that funding was approved in 2024 to operationalise these additions.”
“We need a system that works and this is particularly important when it comes to orphan drugs. We are still waiting for real progress on the programme for Government's commitment and the rare diseases strategy recommendations on an early access scheme for new medications for rare diseases. Ireland is an outlier in Europe for not having an early access scheme place. Yet, our Government has only just begun looking at this with a pilot initiative in development. Where is the sense of urgency? People with rare diseases need action now and, more importantly, greater access to innovative new medicines, like their counterparts across Europe. Without a specific system for orphan drugs, people with rare diseases will continue to have to protest outside the gates of Leinster House and tell their stories over and over again.”
“I accept this but I do not accept the delays and the process is the problem. That is what we need to look at. We now know the HSE received a commercial proposal on 27 May and are waiting for the HSE drug group to make a recommendation. This must be prioritised and should be on the agenda for the HSE drug group meeting. That meeting should be scheduled without delay. The prospect of further delays cannot be countenanced and for people with FA, every delay means abilities lost and independence reduced. This is not just about some rare disease conditions or some treatments. We need to improve the system for everybody who has a rare disease. Otherwise, the same issues and delays will continue to occur. It is entirely predictable. We should not be putting any more patients with rare diseases and their loved ones through this.”
“This is the first and only treatment for around 200 people in Ireland living with this progressive and life shortening disease. It is those living with rare diseases and their loved ones who are forced to fight for access to treatment. Skyclarys has been shown to markedly improve neurological function in those with FA and they are still waiting for access. Their illness is not waiting; it is progressing every day. I understand an application for Skyclarys was submitted in August 2024, which is almost two years ago. What happened to the 180 day timeline for decisions? That obligation on the HSE is set down in legislation and yet, it is rarely met. I have been pursuing progress on the application for quite some time and have been repeatedly been told by the Minister that the HSE cannot comment on negotiations with pharmaceutical companies.”
“If I picked the Minister up right, I understand the HSE leadership has signed off on that. We want to know when drugs will be in the hands of patients. For those boys, every day without treatment means further loss of muscle functions. Some boys who were able to walk a year ago have since lost that ability. It is heartbreaking for parents to watch as their children's symptoms progress, losing their independence and mobility, especially when effective medications exist. It is also crucial that the eligibility criteria for givinostat mirrors that of the North. Across the Border, treatment is available to boys who can walk and stand with or without support. The same must apply in this jurisdiction. At the same time, people living with Freidrich's ataxia, FA, are still waiting for a decision on Skyclarys.”
“Take for, example, the children who have Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Last week, they finally received the good news that the HSE drug group recommended givinostat for reimbursement but they have had to campaign tirelessly and fight to get to that stage, all the while watching the symptoms progress.”
“Mazars, which carried out the previous reimbursement process review, was tasked with that job in 2019 but it was 2023 - four years later - before the long overdue report was published. Rare Diseases Ireland has raised concerns about the next review, given how little change the last review brought about. I can completely understand these concerns. Rare disease patients have already waited long enough and many do not have the luxury of time. More immediate action is required - not more delays. The current reimbursement process is failing patients, in particular patients with rare diseases. They should not have to campaign tirelessly to progress decisions on orphan drugs or need to lobby Government and Opposition to reform the reimbursement process. This is a heavy burden which the rare disease community should not have to carry.”
“That is crucially important for all of our strategies, in that they are time-bound and within the budget and there are the resources and funding to make sure the actions happen. Otherwise, we will not see progress. The programme for Government committed to publishing a new rare diseases strategy and that has been delivered. However, other commitments remain outstanding. The first is a review of the entire reimbursement process. A year and a half into the Government's term, that work is just beginning. I understand the tender details were only approved at the beginning of this month. We were told that this review, once commenced, would take about six months but given past performance, there are serious question marks on the timeline.”
“Equally, we cannot afford a repeat of the failure to implement all of the recommendations from the last plan. It is one thing publishing a plan but ensuring it is implemented is something entirely different and the latter should be our focus. We see this across the board. In this State, we have implementation deficit disorder when it comes to many of the State's strategies and plans. Too often, they gather dust on the shelves of Government Departments instead of being implemented in full. I accept that this time around with rare diseases, an implementation oversight group has been established and that is certainly welcome. We need to see an implementation plan published that will outline the necessary actions required to achieve the strategy's recommendations. That must have timelines and funding commitments.”
“It is something we need to reflect on and try to achieve change for people, so that families, young people and people with rare diseases can live their lives to the full and not have to spend their time and energy campaigning and advocating for progress on these issues. Any real reform of services and reimbursement processes would be far more beneficial than anything that is said in this House in terms of statements. That is what is crucially important to families. Last August, the new rare diseases strategy was finally published but it should not have taken seven years for a new strategy to be published. The previous strategy expired in 2018. Such an extensive gap without any guiding services or rare diseases policy is unacceptable and cannot be repeated again.”
“It is welcome that the issue of rare diseases is on the political agenda. It has been neglected for far too long. In a large part, it is thanks to the advocacy of parents and families as well as political allies within the system here. Members of the health committee, including Deputy O'Sullivan and Senator Teresa Costello, have raised this issue consistently. One of the things I find quite difficult as a health spokesperson is the fact we are constantly hearing from families and individuals who have to come to Leinster House and who have to campaign to get access to medication. We are talking about people who are sick, who have deteriorating diseases and who have limited energy. I do not think that energy or time should have to be spent campaigning, advocating and pushing the political system into reform.”
“I would like the Oireachtas to do more and to remove more barriers, provide expanded access and address the concerns being set out by doctors and women. I would like the Oireachtas to go further. There has been positive engagement from the Minister in working with Opposition parties on amendments and improving Bills. I wish a similar approach were adopted to Opposition legislation in other areas. I would like a more constructive approach to be adopted by the Government to matters we raise rather than rejecting them out of hand.”
“We know that, in most European countries, it is recognised that fatal foetal conditions and the length of neonatal survival are unpredictable and most other countries avoid having specific day counts. We should follow suit here. The Social Democrats would have liked to have gone further. However, I hope this Bill passes and makes progress. I hope it is enacted and put on the Statute Book. I have a concern that that is as far as this Oireachtas will go and we will be left waiting until the next Oireachtas or longer, that women will be left waiting and the political energy and capital was spent on this one change as opposed to the further and deeper reforms that are needed and are recommended in the O'Shea report, which was commissioned by the Government.”
“We also need to make changes in terms of fatal foetal abnormality to ensure no more women have to travel abroad. That was core to the referendum. I was the secretary of Cork Together for Yes for a long time and I knocked on many doors and spoke to many women. When we were campaigning in Cork and across the country, it came up time and again that women should not have to travel abroad to access services that should be available in Ireland. Until we make all the required changes, women will continue to travel abroad, and we cannot have it. We must be brave in this Oireachtas, go further and implement those changes, particularly in respect of the 28-day limit in terms of fatal foetal abnormality.”
“It is welcome that the rule will be removed and it is welcome to hear that there is significant support across the House, including, I understand, from the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and others in government, for making this change. From the Social Democrats' perspective, we would have gone further. Our Bill a number of weeks ago would have gone further with the changes. The O'Shea report had a series of recommendations. The review was provided for in the original legislation in 2018. The O'Shea report should not be allowed to sit on a shelf and gather dust. Its recommendations should be implemented in full, and we need to make progress beyond just the three-day wait, including on decriminalisation. The arrangement is having a chilling effect on doctors, and there is the possibility of a 14-year prison sentence.”
“They may have difficulty accessing an appointment. There is an uneven distribution of services across the country and that impacts marginalised and vulnerable women in particular. The IFPA conducts an annual analysis of its services, and this is probably the most detailed qualitative data set available. It has found that 98% of its clients proceeded to access abortion care following the three-day wait. This data makes it clear that women are affirming their decisions before consulting a medical professional. The IFPA has said that standard practice regarding informed consent is that doctors encourage patients to take additional time if that is what they need, but there is no scientific support for imposing a time limit. Women will still be able to have that time to make the decision, but it just will not be enforced.”
“My party had a motion setting out a 20-point plan on how to improve access to GP services. Some women are forced to travel between counties to access GP services and, under the three-day wait, are forced to do that twice and at a huge personal cost. Therefore, the provision absolutely needs to be removed. Others will talk here about the number of people who change their mind or do not return for the second appointment, as the Minister of State referred to, but this is not just about people changing their minds. There are issues around having miscarriages, negative pregnancy tests, ectopic pregnancies, having gone to another doctor, having gone over time, having travelled abroad and having been pushed over the 12-week limit between the two appointments. There are many reasons people may not return to the second appointment.”
“It is interfering with women's ability to make decisions about their own bodies and it is having a disproportionate effect on vulnerable groups, including those experiencing domestic violence, those who have language-based access issues, those who struggle to access a GP, and many others. We are aware that the World Health Organization recommends against the provision because there is no medical evidence for it. It is beyond time that the three-day wait was gone. We are aware that there are other barriers, like people being forced to take additional days off work just in order to go back to the second appointment. Therefore, the provision is completely unnecessary and needs to go. We are also aware that there are huge issues in accessing GP services across the country.”
“On behalf of the Social Democrats, I am delighted to welcome this Bill and say we will be supporting it. We support access to free, safe and legal abortion. We need to trust women, listen to them, provide care with compassion and remove barriers to access. There are currently too many barriers to accessing terminations in Ireland, and the three-day wait is a core part of that and needs to be removed. We are strongly in support of that. As others have said, the three-day wait is medically unnecessary and insulting to women. It is the only form of healthcare with a State-imposed delay. It is a paternalistic restriction, and we have a history of paternalistic attitudes in our healthcare service that need to be undone.”
“There is a real opportunity to remove the legal scars caused by criminalisation, but this is just one step. This is just one thing. For true restorative justice, we need so much more, including transgender healthcare, closing gaps in family law, banning conversion practices and updating equality laws. Those of us campaigning and marching in Dublin Pride in a couple of weeks' time will be sending the message that we need much more to be done on this.”
“I will take a minute to highlight some of the concerns raised by the LGBT+ Restorative Justice Campaign, in particular the omissions under military law. The 2022 working group report recommended including relevant offences under military law. That group was set up by the then Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee. Those issues should have been addressed. Similarly, convictions prior to the establishment of the State should have been included. Provisions related to how relatives and friends can apply are too limited. Many of us in the LGBT community call our friends our chosen family. They should be able to apply. I welcome the awareness campaign. That is a crucially important part of the measure. It needs to go right around the world. This issue is of a global nature because people left.”
“I will speak for two minutes. I welcome the disregard amendments. I was delighted, on behalf of the Social Democrats, to sign the cross-party Opposition Bill, with Deputy Ó Snodaigh and others, to advance this issue. It is also an issue I campaigned on before my election to the Dáil. I welcome these amendments and thank the Minister for bringing them forward. It should not have taken the State 33 years to get to this point; it should have happened much sooner. However, we welcome that it has happened. As I said previously, lives have been destroyed by these arrests and convictions. So many men across generations have been impacted. I have no doubt that those who lived through the 1980s and the HIV-AIDS crisis were impacted. More should have been done for those people.”
“It is in the power of the Minister for Health to issue those regulations. She can draft them in any way she wants. If she wants to exclude 0.0 products, she can do that. That is her power as a Minister and I ask her to use it and draft those regulations in a way she sees fit. If the Minister of State wants her amendment, we can do it on Committee Stage. If she wants to wait for evidence, we can take a timed amendment. I am willing to compromise on that. In relation to health warnings, they should be done by regulation, as the Act set out. It was meant to be done by now but will not be done for another two years. I have doubts the Government will ever do it because it is captured by the vested interests of the alcohol industry and is not standing up for the interests of the young people of Ireland. It is deeply disappointing.”
“We know from the Irish drug and alcohol survey that 37% of 15- to 24-year-olds had an alcohol use disorder. That should be a public health concern. The officials in the Department of Health have let the Minister down. The speeches tonight should be reviewed. The debate we have had this evening is deeply disappointing. I ask the Minister of State and her colleagues to reflect on it. I ask her to bring that message back. Let us have honest, reasonable debates in this House. Let us engage in the issues. Let us try to work together in the interests of the people who elect us to improve public health and health outcomes. Is that too much to ask, instead of coming in here and opposing Bills for nonsensical reasons? They are a smokescreen. Health warnings were the other excuse given.”
“Everybody knows these are alcohol ads in a very cheap disguise. On television, sometimes viewers cannot even see the 0.0 when it is on the field of play. I do not think a 12-, 13- or 14-year-old who goes to a match in the Aviva should be bombarded with alcohol advertising. There is enough pressure on our young people without us forcing stacks of advertising on them. We know the earlier people start to drink, the more impact it has on them in later life. It is a risk factor for dependency in later life. Despite what the Minister of State, Deputy Murnane O'Connor, said, there is an issue with youth drinking, which has increased. A Healthy Ireland study showed a 12% increase in youth drinking since 2018. That should concern the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth.”
“She needs to take her job seriously as a Minister in the Irish Government and stand up to the vested interests and say that in this democracy, in this country, the Government puts public health first and does not care if the alcohol industry loses some money, that it is going to protect the children of Ireland by not exposing them to alcohol ads on their way to school, on the bus, in the playground, in the supermarket and on television before 9 p.m., and that it is going to enforce the law as passed. For anybody who sees those ads for Heineken 0.0, it is almost identical to the main product. Heineken has admitted this. It said when it applied for an award that it used the 0.0 ads as a way to increase sales of its main product. The industry admits this, so why can the Government not admit it?”
“That is why they are opposing these public health alcohol Bills. The Government should have the honesty to say to people, "Actually, no, we're on the side of the alcohol industry, the lobbyists and those who want to make profit, not public health." These are modest measures. All I am asking is that the Government enforce the 2018 Act in full, as passed by this House. If we cannot even enforce the legislation we pass, we have a rule-of-law issue. We have a significant issue if this democracy, Parliament and Government cannot enforce its own legislation because of big business and the lobbyists and vested interests who want to make money. The Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, needs to stand up to them.”
“The Government should put forward a timed amendment, as it does all the time, to say we will return to the issue in 12 months' time. If it is a question of evidence, why not introduce a timed amendment and have this debate in 12 months when the Government has the evidence from HIQA? It is not doing that. It is opposing the Bill for no good reason. It should have the honesty and decency to say that to the Irish people. There is not one good reason for the Government to oppose the Bill, other than the fact that it has been captured by the lobbyists and vested interests of the alcohol industry, who sit on the benches opposite as well. I debated with some of them on the radio yesterday - publicans and heads of the vintners' association inside and outside government who want to make money from selling alcohol.”
“I cited evidence from the International Journal of Drug Policy and the evidence published by Stanford University. I cited the Australian study and the Asian study. There is a stack of international evidence. There is research published by Alcohol Action Ireland which has a long reference list, with reports from the World Health Organization and universities around the world on this issue. This argument that there is not enough evidence is disingenuous. It is unacceptable and not good enough that the quality of decision-making by Cabinet is to say we do not have enough evidence. I do not believe the Government really believes we do not have enough evidence, but if it does and it wants to get HIQA to look at this, all well and good. It would take a couple of months.”
“We need to actively engage in policy debates and discussions. We need to engage with the issues and for that to happen, a responsible Minister needs to stay in the House and listen to the contributions from Members. Members have prepared contributions, done research and worked on these issues for months and the Minister of State responsible walks out after making her contribution. She does not engage with the issues I raised or respond to any of the points put forward by the Social Democrats. Is that the quality we have from this Government? Is that what we are to expect from this Government? I expect more from Ministers and the Government and I want that message to go back tonight. We heard from the Minister of State, Deputy Murnane O'Connor, that we have got no evidence. I cited the international evidence in my opening address.”
“We have Committee Stage, Report Stage and Final Stage, a Bill goes to the Seanad and it can be amended and improved there. If the Government wants to make changes, if it wants to increase the level to 1.5% instead of 0.5%, if it wants to make those small textual changes to the Bill, we have a process for it. We need to be honest with the people of Ireland about this because, as I said at the start, every single Government Bill gets amended. Some of them get amended into completely different Bills altogether. The Minister for Health tells us all the time how she took 600 amendments to the Mental Health Bill, but for an Opposition Bill we cannot take even one, and that is so frustrating. I ask the Government to take a different approach. In the interests of democracy, of the citizens and of how we run this Republic, we need to do better.”
“Is it any wonder there are so many people in this country who have no faith in Irish politics? There are so many citizens who disengage from the democratic process when that is the quality of the debate and the engagement in this House. When the Opposition comes in with solid proposals, backed up by evidence, supported by external groups, there is no engagement, the proposal is dismissed out of hand, "The Government is opposing this". There is no talk of maybe taking it to Committee Stage or taking amendments. If the Government wants to make improvements, I am absolutely open to working with the Government, making amendments and making changes. As I said at the start, there is a reason we have a ten-step legislative process.”
“It is doing a disservice to the citizens of this State, to the people who elect us, that that is the quality of the debate we have in the House. It is utterly unacceptable, and I expect to engage with the Minister for Health and the junior Ministers on it. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, to pass that message back to the Minister for Health. I am also furious because the Minister of State's party leader, Micheál Martin, my constituency colleague, time and again in this House stands up here and tells us the Social Democrats have no ideas, no solutions, no policies. Then we push forward constructive Bills seeking to address what are real public health issues and the Government dismisses them out of hand for no solid reason at all. It is infuriating, frustrating and deeply disappointing.”
“The Government does not care about public health, and if anyone was in any doubt about that, tonight's evidence stands before us in that the Minister did not even stay to listen to the debate. I am furious. It is unacceptable and it is not good enough. I honestly think we need to have real engagement on the issues. Frankly, it often feels in this House that you are shouting into a void. There was no engagement with the opening remarks we made about the evidence we set out or our argument because there was a different Minister here. The Government has just completely ignored what the Social Democrats put forward in our opening address and did not engage in any debate or any discussion. It is deeply frustrating. I say this as a new Member of the House: we need to run this Parliament better. It is not good enough.”
“Deputy Cummins in her speech said she was disappointed; I am frankly furious. No disrespect to the Minister of State with responsibility for AI, but we have a senior Minister and three junior Ministers in the Department of Health and not one of them could stay for the debate. It shows the lack of interest the Government has in this issue. It shows a complete disrespect for the House and for the issues before us that not a single Minister in the Department of Health could stay here for what has been a debate of about an hour. They could not show that respect for the House. Not one Minister from the Department of Health could stay for a Bill on public health.”
“These are vested interests and they are trampling all over public health measures in the pursuit of profit. Is it too much to ask of the alcohol industry to abide by the law? Finally, I want to thank the members of Alcohol Action who have joined us today and who have been working extensively on this issue and have worked with me on this legislation. I also want to say a big thanks to Jake Ryan in my office for his work on this. I really hope the Government will change its approach from the one expressed earlier in the week.”
“Any child who goes to the Aviva stadium with a parent at the weekend will be bombarded with advertisements for alcohol. They will see it on the centre pitch and on the sidelines. They will face ad after ad. When they go to the supermarket, where alcohol is meant to be separated, they will see the zero-alcohol ads outside the separation point, next to the meat counter aisle. They will be bombarded with ads. As I was walking around today, I was counting the ads. I saw alcohol ad after alcohol ad. This morning on my way into the Oireachtas, I saw a 0.0 ad for Heineken at a bus stop in Harold's Cross right beside a school. Is that acceptable? Will the Minister of State allow it or will she stand up to the industry like we on this side of the House would?”
“In 2020, however, a court in France found that advertising zero-alcohol products with the same branding as the full-strength product was illegal because it constituted indirect advertising of the full-strength alcoholic version, which was prohibited in law. That is why when one watches the games in France, they are called the H Cup but in Ireland they are called the Heineken Cup. They have tackled this issue in other countries but the Government here has its head in the sand and will not even enforce its own law that it passed in 2018. We would not give children a zero-alcohol beer, so why would we allow it to be advertised to them? It is as simple as that. If we can collectively say we are not giving zero-alcohol beers to children, then we should also collectively agree that they should not be seeing ad after ad for them.”
“Advertising that associates zero-alcohol products with their full-strength brands have been banned, which is similar to what we are looking for here. Non-alcoholic beverages must use completely distinctive branding to avoid any association with the parent alcoholic brand. Why can we not do what they have done in Norway? It is a simple solution. Zero-alcohol products use different branding so that there is not that association. It is very straightforward. We could pass our Bill and the companies could rebrand their products and not have that direct link between the two. In 1991, France became one of the first countries to tackle alcohol advertising. The French public health code defines alcohol-free beverages as those that contain no more than 1.2% alcohol, technically allowing advertising of alcohol-free alternatives.”
“This research concluded that early exposure to alcohol brands increased brand familiarity, which is one of the factors that affects drinking attitudes and purchasing intentions of young people. Another study from Stanford on zero-alcohol products and the guise of responsibility revealed a stark divergence between how zero-alcohol products were described publicly and privately by the industry. In public, the industry talks about it as a tool of moderation but in private it talks about it as a tool to drive market growth and increase main sales. There is a stack of international evidence. We know what other countries are doing in this area, including Norway and France. Norway has banned brand sharing.”
“That study concluded that regulatory approaches that sought to limit adolescents' exposure to alcohol should also extend to zero-alcohol products. This is the international evidence that the Government is looking for. It is published in study after study. A 2019 study from Asia on brand advertising and brand sharing of alcoholic and non-alcoholic products found that brand sharing increased brand familiarity and affected brand recognition and awareness. This research also revealed that young people who saw the logo of companies that sold both alcoholic and zero-alcoholic beverages were found to associate the logo primarily with the alcoholic version of the product, indicating that zero-alcohol beverages are working as advertising vehicles for the parent companies.”