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 3 of 14.
“In 2026, a research paper was published in the International Journal of Drug Policy , entitled: "'I just saw the alcohol brand, I never really thought of the zeros': young people's views of NoLo and alibi alcohol sponsorship". Children as young as 14 were able to identify Guinness as the sponsor of the Six Nations rugby tournament, noting that Guinness was highly visible during matches and that they had seen advertising around the stadium and at matches. One child simply said, "I just saw the alcohol brand, I never really thought of the zeros". This is evidence was published in the International Journal of Drug Policy but the Government thinks we need more. In 2025, an Australian study on alcohol advertising in disguise showed that the exposure of teenagers to zero-alcohol products had a similar effect as exposure to alcohol products.”
“Why set the bar so high for an Opposition Bill that one cannot even put a jot out of place but when it comes to a Government Bill, we can accept hundreds of amendments? Bills can be amended to be something completely different by the time they get to the end of the process. It is hypocrisy, two-faced and unacceptable. The Government needs to stop doing it and be real with the people and honest about the process. I was on radio yesterday debating this with a backbencher who said that the reason the Government was going to oppose the Bill was because it wanted the level set at 1.2% instead of 0.5%. Honestly, it is laughable. The other excuse given to us related to research. I agree that the more research we have, the better but we already have a stack of international evidence and I can quote some of it, if it is helpful.”
“The Government cannot use that as an excuse to defeat our legislation when that is its own definition. If the Government thinks we should go further now and set it at 1.5%, we can amend the legislation on Committee Stage. That is why we have a ten-step legislative process in this House. That is why we have Committee and Report Stages in here and why a Bill can go to the Seanad and be amended. The Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Butler, was here a couple of weeks ago telling us about how she accepted hundreds of amendments to the Mental Health Bill. If that is the case for Government Bills, why not take one or two amendments for an Opposition Bill? Why is there one rule for Government Bills and a different one for Opposition Bills?”
“Yesterday, I was debating this on radio with the president of the Vintners' Federation of Ireland, VFI, and the former president of same association who happens to be a Fine Gael TD, so even within government we have people lobbying on this, people with vested interests who are out to make money. That needs to be called out. I am deeply disappointed by the statement from the Government on this earlier in the week. Frankly, it is disingenuous and misleading and the officials need to reflect on that. We were told that the Government was going to oppose this legislation because of the definition that was given for low-alcohol products, set at 0.5%, but that is the definition within the Government's own Finance Act 2003. We took that from there.”
“In the interests of this institution, of democracy and of the rule of law, we need to enforce the laws that are passed. I have read back through the record and I know what the intention of the law was. The intention was to break that link, but it has not been done. The Department has utterly failed to stand up to vested interests and people who put profit before public health. The Minister of State needs to take a stand within the Department and call that out. The alcohol industry should not have a seat at the table. The industry has lobbied time and again and has succeeded. We were meant to have health warnings on products by now but that has been delayed until 2028 because of lobbying by vested interests that want to make money. This is having an impact on public health.”
“That is why the companies involved target sports and the big national sporting occasions we have in this country whereby they make the subtle link between physical prowess and alcohol. It is an approach that has to be challenged and addressed. The Tánaiste, when he was Minister for Health, said: “It is a nefarious form of advertising that companies would target sporting events primarily for that purpose.” Deputy Simon Harris, in this House in 2018, called it “nefarious” that these companies would do that, yet we still have it. Every time we turn on a match, we have the Heineken Cup or the Guinness Six Nations. All of the big alcohol brands are linking it to sport, and they continue to do it. The Tánaiste also said that the industry had lobbied and hoped to stall and delay projects. That is what it has done. We have to put a stop to it.”
“They also talk about this as a tool for growth, not moderation. We need to believe them when they say that. We need to look at the evidence and, for me, the evidence is crystal clear. One of the key issues that we need to look at is the link between alcohol and sport. It came up during the debates back in 2018. On Second Stage in 2018, the then Minister for Health, now Tánaiste, Deputy Simon Harris, said: Let us be honest. We all still remember sporting events by dint of the sport itself but we also recall the names of the companies that sponsored these events. Sponsorship has a powerful impact on people. This is all about normalising alcohol and healthy sports people in an arena.”
“It is because they know this will sell more of the main alcohol product. They are pumping money into 0.0% alcohol advertising to circumvent the law, get around it and advertise in areas where there are children. They are openly saying this. It is not just me saying it. Heineken has said this. In a submission to win a marketing award, a Heineken marketer said that 0.0% product ads increase sales of the full-strength product. If the Minister of State does not believe me, she should listen to what Heineken is saying. It is telling her that this is what it is doing. It is indisputable what the industry is at here. What is deeply frustrating is the two-faced nature of those in the alcohol industry on this. They will talk in private about the increase in sales, but in public, they will say it is about moderation.”
“It is costing the health service a huge amount of money; according to the Government's own estimates, it is costing the health service €1.5 billion. We talk here all the time about cost savings, efficiencies and doing things better. We can do that by reducing alcohol-related harm and the cost it is having on our health service, our society and individuals. There is not a family in the country that has not been impacted by alcohol. What we are doing is trying to protect children to ensure there is not a greater impact on them in later life. It is as clear as day what the alcohol industry is doing. The evidence shows us exactly that. The 0.0% alcohol projects make up 1% of the total alcohol market, yet those in the industry are spending 25% of their outdoor alcohol budget on 0.0% products. Why is that?”
“That should concern the Minister of State, as the person responsible for public health. It should concern the officials in the Department as well. We know that, according to Alcohol Action, 50,000 children take up drinking each year, and this is a known risk factor for alcohol dependency in later life. What we are trying to do here is protect children and adults in later life by ensuring that they are not exposed to a large amount of alcohol advertising. We have a growing awareness and understanding of the impact that alcohol is having on our society and on people. We know there are 1,000 alcohol-related cancers each year. We know that four people die every day in Ireland from alcohol-related harm.”
“I urge her to reflect on the position the Government has put out on this. The right thing to do is to stand up in the interests of public health. That is her job as the Minister of State with responsibility for public health: to defend public health and to ensure that the laws passed by this House are enforced. We cannot allow those with vested interests to trample over the law and exploit loopholes in it. This is a modest measure that we are putting forward. It is deeply disappointing that we have heard in advance that the Government is going to oppose it. I ask the Minister of State to reflect on that before she makes her opening address. The evidence is clear. We have seen an increase in youth drinking. The Healthy Ireland study shows a 12% increase in youth drinking since 2018.”
“It is clear to the dogs in the street that the alcohol industry is exploiting the law and that there is a clear loophole in the law. The industry is using the same branding, design and colours, and it is almost identical to the advertising for full-strength products. Anybody can see that. I would ask anybody looking in to take a look at the Social Democrats’ Instagram. We have put forward a “spot the difference” test so that people can see how identical these ads are. There is no denying what the alcohol industry is doing here. It is circumventing the law. Deputy Murnane O’Connor, as the responsible Minister of State, needs to take a stand. She needs to stand up to the industry in the interests of public health and, in particular, in the interests of the children of Ireland.”
“It placed restrictions on advertising of alcohol near schools, near parks, on public transport, at sports events, on television before 9 p.m. and in supermarkets. These were modest provisions to regulate advertising. Unfortunately, the alcohol industry and the alcohol companies found a loophole in the law, and they are exploiting it. Our Bill closes that loophole. What we are asking for is enforcement of the original 2018 Act as intended, which would put a restriction on alcohol advertising. At its core, this is about protecting children. The areas that were picked were areas where there were children - near schools, on the bus, in public transport, at the cinema or watching television before 9 p.m. The Act was designed to ensure that children are not exposed to alcohol advertising.”
“I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” I am delighted to bring this Bill to Second Stage. It is pretty straightforward legislation, which would amend the Public Health (Alcohol) Act to ensure that the restrictions on alcohol advertising were fully enforced to the letter and spirit of the law, as intended. Members will remember that, back in 2018, the Oireachtas passed the Public Health (Alcohol) Act. It was landmark legislation that began to change the relationship that we in this State had with alcohol, and started many conversations around how we regulated and interacted with alcohol. A key part of that legislation was a restriction on alcohol advertising. It was fairly straightforward.”
“Yesterday, we learned that the Minister for Health was told about this a year ago and she said she was not happy about it, but that appears to be it. No sanctions and no actions have been taken against the hospital. In how many other public hospitals is this happening and what is the Tánaiste going to do about it?”
“At yesterday's health committee we learned something very concerning. Consultants on public-only contracts are continuing to do private work in the Rotunda Hospital. This is despite the fact that treating private patients in public hospitals is a breach of their contracts. It is worth mentioning that these consultants are very well paid for giving up private work, with salaries of up to €260,000, and that is just the basic pay. This is not just about a breach of contract. It is completely at odds with our national healthcare policy, Sláintecare, which is about creating universal healthcare based on need and not ability to pay and removing private healthcare from public hospitals. How can we ever have a well-functioning and quality public health service if private practice continues to leech resources from the system?”
“Clearly, the new system is not working, yet the Minister for Health does not plan on doing anything about it until the end of the year, when there will be a look-back exercise. Why is the Minister waiting to look back when she knows there is a problem right now? Will the Taoiseach urgently ensure that all practices in socially deprived areas receive the grant that was designed to support them? Will he tell us exactly when the never-ending strategic review of general practice will be finished?”
“It is three months since the Social Democrats' GP plan was unanimously passed by the Dáil, yet we are still waiting on the Government to progress any real reform of GP services. The strategic review of general practice was to conclude within nine months but it has now taken over three years. The minimal changes introduced in recent years fall far short. Take for example the social deprivation practice grant, which was reformed earlier this year. Under the new grant, none of the Dublin inner city practices in the Deep End Ireland group, which represents GPs working in the most disadvantaged communities, received the social deprivation grant. That includes Summerhill Family Practice. How can ending their grant funding be justified?”
“There is a real lack of transparency and accountability, and it needs to change. We need better information and better engagement with local communities and public representatives to ensure that we have a better public transport system that works for everybody. It has an impact on everybody's day-to-day life. If it were serious about climate action, which I do not think the Government is, we would be radically investing in public transport. We would be improving the bus network, delivering a Luas for Cork and enhancing our bus network. What we have instead is delay after delay, one of the oldest bus fleets in the country, people waiting for ghost buses and, as I said, towns that are not connected. It is not good enough. We need urgent change and reform. Cork deserves a better public transport system and needs it now.”
“Even when it comes to the information on a bus stop, there is a lack of real-time information. There is a lack of bus shelters. Some of the basic infrastructure that you would expect for a modern public transport system is lacking across Cork city and county. It is not acceptable any more. We also need more park-and-ride facilities. We need improvement across the system. As was mentioned earlier, we also need more local decision-making and input, and more transparency and accountability. Over two months ago, I submitted parliamentary questions around the funding of bus routes in Cork. Two months later, I still do not have a reply from the Minister of the Department. I have written to the Minister and the NTA but we have not got the substantial answers we are looking for to those parliamentary questions.”
“It is not acceptable that the people in Cork pay more for public transport than those in Dublin. That needs to change fast. Across the country, we need contactless, tap-on buses. We need to get people on and off public transport quicker to improve journey times and make it a more reliable service. There has not been urgency around this issue and that needs to change. There are also no e-buses in Cork because the depot has not been upgraded. That has been delayed again and again. As a result, we have an older bus stock and get more breakdowns and delays. I was at the bus stop outside my house recently and of the five buses due, four were cancelled. That happens because of a lack of drivers, breakdowns and delays of buses in Cork. It needs investment and support. There needs to be prioritisation of Cork because it is so far behind.”
“I welcome this Bill and the debate we are having because we urgently need reform when it comes to public transport. Cork needs better public transport. We currently have no Luas, too many ghost buses, and towns that are not connected. This is having a huge impact on people's day-to-day lives and their ability to get around the city and county. It is leading to an increased car dependency and increased reliance on fossil fuels. It is constraining development and is leading to increased traffic. It urgently needs to change. For buses in Cork, we are way behind what people have in other cities. There are currently no Leap card validaters on buses in Cork, which slows down bus journeys. It also means that people in Cork cannot avail of the 90-minute flat fare that they can get in Dublin.”
“I ask the Minister that this issue be given due consideration in the review because it is important. We need to ensure there are no loopholes, no operators are getting around the regulations and that they are enforced in full. We have a concern about that, so I ask for a commitment that it will be included in the review.”
“The purpose of this is to ensure the exemption is not taken advantage of by some companies and to prevent a black market of unregulated home care developing. It would also ensure HIQA has a record of the existence of single operators and is alert to any suspicious activity.”
“We agree with this in principle but the Social Democrats have concerns with the approach taken as unscrupulous employers could create a series of small providers to shirk their regulations. There is also the possibility for the Uberisation of home care providers with introductory agencies matching clients with home carers who are not subject to the regulations and will not be required to have the same standard of training or experience. Our amendment would still allow for single operators to continue working on a one-to-one basis, including personal assistants, and protect the right of an individual wishing to employ their own carer directly. However, if support is provided to more than one client, the amendment would require them to seek an exemption from HIQA.”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 9, to delete line 21 and substitute the following: “(a) the person provides a home support service to fewer than 2 persons, (ab) the person has been granted an exemption by the chief inspector from the requirements or conditions imposed by or under this Act,”. On Committee Stage we discussed the piece in relation to the number of clients. The current Bill exempts home support providers with fewer than four clients from regulation. The Minister said on Committee Stage it was decided on a proportional basis that people who do one-to-one sessions and might be personal assistants - a profile distinct from those doing just home support - would not be governed by the legislation.”
“The repeal referendum was not the end of the campaign for reproductive rights. We will continue to campaign on this issue. If we do not with the vote tonight we will be back because the women of Ireland deserve better.”
“We can debate matters and fix things if they need to be fixed, and we can have a Bill that works for everybody. I am sure the over 600 officials who work in the Department of Health will work with the Minister on drafting amendments. Every time Bills - even Government Bills - are introduced, they are vastly amended on Committee Stage and on Report Stage. That can happen with this Bill too if, as has been reported, the Minister has difficulties with it. The final thing I will is about the process of progress. When we had the Repeal referendum, it was not frozen in time. There was always going to be a review. The review of the legislation was built into the legislation. We now have the review. We need to act on it. In the same way as marriage equality, that was not the end of the campaign for LGBT rights.”
“For far too long, we looked away as women travelled abroad. That has to stop. We have to ensure that nobody is forced to go abroad. The referendum was also about smashing the shame, stigma and silence. We have to ensure that continues and that we have legislation which is robust and which works. The second thing is that people will say there are difficulties with the Bill. That always happens with Opposition legislation. People they say that things need to change. To that, I say that the Minister should come back with amendments. That is why we have a ten-step legislative process. This is Second Stage. On Committee Stage, Report Stage and in the Seanad, the Bill can be amended and improved. Matters can be teased through on Committee Stage by the select committee.”
“I thank my colleague Deputy Cairns for her leadership on this issue and for bringing forward the Bill. There are three things I would like to discuss which I think will come up during the course of our debate in the House this morning. The first is what the referendum was or was not about. For those of us on the progressive left who campaigned on this issue day after day, month after month and year after year, we are really clear about the what the referendum was and was not about. It was about listening to women, providing care and compassion, ensuring that no woman would have to travel abroad for healthcare and taking this issue out of the Constitution and into the hands of legislators to legislate in respect of it. It was also about reproductive rights and freedom, and that is what our Bill is about.”
“I would love the Minister to make that commitment on the floor of the Dáil and say that this will not be extended to front-line workers. Ultimately, we need to have those safe staffing levels. That should be the guiding benchmark in terms of recruitment for our staff. That would have the biggest impact on nurses and midwives.”
“That money should be spent on filling these permanent posts, improving the services, resourcing our health service and it is not being done. Crucially, what needs to happen is that we need a multi-annual budget for the health service. Since 2016 it has been promised time and again, Government after Government, but we have not had it. It would lead to better planning, more sustainability and we would not have this knee-jerk reaction of pausing recruitment and stopping hiring. If you were going to buy a car, you would ask if you could pay off the loan over three or four years. You would not think of one year at a time. We need to have better planning for our health service and we need a real guarantee from the Minister that there will not be a freeze on front-line workers.”
“It is going to have a big impact. Who is going to do the administrative work? It is going to fall on the clinicians and it is going to really impact on services. While I do welcome the controls on agency spend, we have been here before. We know that since 2020, €4 billion has been spent on agency staff. That is a staggering amount of money. It is poor outcomes for staff, patients and the public purse and it needs to change. We know targets were set for converting agency posts into permanent posts. There was meant to be 960 conversions over 2024 and 2025. However, the Department and the HSE fell 132 posts short of that, 77 of which were in nursing and midwifery. Converting those posts into permanent posts is a basic thing that could be done. It is a staggering amount of money spent on agency staff.”
“I submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister in November on the staffing levels and found out there are over 3,700 funded posts from 2024 and 2025 that have not been filled. Of the 2024 funded posts, 27% remain unfilled. Of the 2025 funded posts, 80% remained unfilled. We provided the funding for them but they have not been filled by the HSE. That is on top of the 3,100 previously unfilled vacant posts. Across the service, 7,000 posts across the HSE are vacant. This is why nurses and midwives are under such stress. It is because there are vacancies right across the service. We know 1,100 funded nursing and midwifery posts remain vacant while the HSE spends €124 million on agency staff. The decision last week on the hiring freeze on non-front-line workers was a knee-jerk reaction done without consultation with workers and unions.”
“In other countries, they do this. In Australia, they have enshrined in law that the safe staffing framework must be resourced. We can do that too. Our time today would have been better spent legislating for safe staffing levels in our hospitals instead of talking about and giving thanks to nurses, and actually improve their working conditions like they have done in other countries. We know people are leaving here to go to work in places like Australia where there are better working conditions. The Australian health practitioner regulation agency saw an 86% rise in Irish healthcare workers registering there since 2019. People are moving because of the working conditions. People are leaving the health service because they are under such stress and strain and it really needs to change.”
“We have also seen in the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, survey of their members really shocking and startling results: 70% say there is inadequate staffing and skill mix; 60% considered leaving their job in the last month; 40% said work negatively impacted on their psychological well-being; and 25% of nurses and midwives attended a GP due to work-related stress in the past year. The stress and the strain our nurses and midwives are under because of the working conditions should be setting off alarm bells in the Department of Health. It really is not good enough. The Minister for Health says the safe staffing framework is well resourced. I would ask her to talk to nurses, midwives and patients because the experience on the ground does not reflect that. It has never been fully resourced and it needs to be.”
“On this International Nurses Day, I want to commend our nurses and midwives and thank them for their work and service. Nurses and midwives need more than thanks on the floor of the Dáil. They need better working conditions, they need more staff and they need more resources. That is what would make their jobs easier. We know April was the worst April on record for overcrowding, with 11,000 patients treated on trolleys. It is putting huge strain on nurses, midwives and staff which means really bad outcomes for patients. This needs to change.”
“I have no doubt that the new restrictions will be unpopular with many, but history will look favourably on these important public health measures. I commend the Bill.”
“Specifically, I would like to know whether the Department considered the inclusion of menthol or mint, as flagged in previous debates, and what the update is on that. This is where the line should be drawn. The suggestion that was made on the floor of the House that banning vapes is like banning cider because it tastes like apples is a ridiculous argument and one that should not be entertained. Finally, I would like to again restate the support of the Social Democrats for the Bill. We have long called for measures to address the alarming increase in vapes and nicotine pouch use, in particular among children and young people. It has been clear for some time that we need to address the normalisation of these products and treat them in a similar manner to cigarettes.”
“According to the Library and Research Service, the understanding is that this approach would be easier to implement rather than one which restricts certain ingredients or sensory attributes. I would be interested in hearing more from the Minister of State on the reasons for this approach and the research carried out by the Department to support this view. This may well be the best approach, in particular from an enforcement point of view, but it would be beneficial if she could provide Members with a briefing note, in particular in advance of Committee Stage. I would also appreciate if she could provide further information regarding the decision to restrict flavour names to just two options, namely tobacco and unflavoured.”
“Pick-and-mix style displays of vapes has gone on for too long. I am, however, concerned that the plain packaging rules and flavour name restrictions will not apply to nicotine pouches. That seems short-sighted. Why is the Minister repeating the mistakes of the past? Inevitably, we will be back in the House rehashing this debate in a couple of years. On the question of flavours, I am glad the regulation is finally being advanced. This was recommended by the health committee as far back as 2022, when the committee had a Sinn Féin Chair, and had cross-party support. There can be no justification for the array of flavours currently available, most of which are clearly designed to entice children. However, the approach taken would regulate flavour names rather than the flavours themselves.”
“In 2024, the UK Royal College of Physicians said tobacco company funded research accounted for a significant proportion of the science on new nicotine products and harm reduction approaches. It went on to raise serious concerns about the quality and veracity of that research. That is something we all need to be cautious about and careful of when making these arguments. We need to know exactly who is funding much of the research that is being put out there. I would like to make a few points on the provisions of the Bill. I welcome the advertising ban on vape and nicotine pouches, the restrictions on displays and the introduction of plain packaging for vapes. The packaging and display of these products should be treated in the same way as tobacco, namely out of sight and in closed containers behind shop counters.”
“The connection between Philip Morris International, the producers of Marlboro, and the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World has been exposed in recent years. The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, which has since rebranded, was said to have the stated aim of ending smoking in this generation. In 2023, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners described the foundation as nothing more than a fig leaf for Philip Morris's real business, namely nicotine addiction. Between 2019 and 2021, the world's largest tobacco company contributed over €160 million to the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. During this period, less than 1% of the foundation's revenue came from other sources. As of 2023, the foundation has financed more than 70 academic papers on topics including vapes and rates of smoking cessation.”
“The most sinister and under-reported benefit for tobacco companies has been the opportunity to have a seat at the table again through funding research and the promotion of vapes as harm reduction products. I fear this argument is a Trojan horse, allowing the tobacco industry back into the conversation and giving it access to policymakers, albeit not directly. As I have said, the evidence indicates vaping is less harmful than cigarettes. The harm reduction argument is made when it comes to those trying to commit smoking, but the tobacco industry is not genuinely interested in harm reduction. It is only interested in creating addiction. That is why all of us need to examine the harm reduction argument critically, consider who is making it and, critically, who is funding it. We must not just accept this at face value.”
“It is unsurprising that the tobacco industry has turned to vapes and other novel nicotine products to safeguard its profits. Not only do vapes mitigate against falling cigarette sales, they offer tobacco companies other significant benefits, including larger profits through lower taxation, the opportunity to circumvent tobacco legislation, such as marketing flavoured brands, preventing the loss of customers who quit cigarettes by getting them to switch to vapes and attracting new customers who would not have started smoking cigarettes in the first place. Thankfully, the Bill and other measures will call a halt to many of the benefits for big tobacco, at least domestically.”
“The disposable brands that have captured the Irish market, namely Elf Bar and Lost Mary, are produced by ambiguous Chinese companies. According to the Irish Heart Foundation, evidence indicates that China's vape market is now overseen by the state's national tobacco corporation and the state tobacco monopoly administration. It does not end with vaping. Big tobacco is also driving the surge in nicotine pouch use, another product being aggressively and cynically marketed to young people. Last August, the Irish Cancer Society reported that big tobacco took centre stage at several festivals and concerts across the country, heavily promoting highly addictive nicotine pouches at festivals like Electric Picnic and Altogether Now.”
“Vaping causes real harm. It is, therefore, welcome that the Bill provides for a ban on vapes that resemble toys and games because the manufacturing of vapes designed to appeal to children must be one of the tobacco industry's most despicable moves of late. It must be repeated again and again that a considerable share of the vape market in Ireland and globally is controlled by the tobacco industry. These companies recognised the shift away from cigarettes and moved quickly to exploit it, adopting their business model to recruit a new generation of nicotine dependent customers to feed their profits. The products and branding may have changed, but the companies have not. Marlboro and PJ Carroll have already diversified into vape products.”
“According to the most recent Healthy Ireland survey, 17% of 15- to 24-year-olds report daily or occasional vape use. This should not be news to anyone. Just look at any of our cities, towns our villages. This Government and its predecessor have sleepwalked us into a youth vaping crisis with its lacklustre approach to regulation. While available evidence indicates that vaping is safer than smoking, the long-term impacts are yet to be understood. We do know that vaping is not risk-free. According to the HSE, the short-term impacts of vaping include nicotine dependence, sleep problems, mental health difficulties, such as anxiety, damage to heart, lung and blood vessels and exposure to toxins. Children are thought to be at even more risk, with the HSE citing particular concerns around attention and learning, mood, impulse control and anxiety.”
“When it is passed, the Bill before us will finally deal with the tobacco industry's concerted efforts to manufacture vapes that appeal to children. This is welcome, although again long overdue. We know from Central Statistics Office data that 7% of adults in Ireland vape daily, most of whom are current smokers or ex-smokers. The real concern, however, is that vaping rates among children are much higher at double that of the general population. A WHO study of school going children in Ireland found that 13% of 12- to 17-year-olds are currently vapers having vaped in the previous 30 days. Another study conducted by the European School Survey Project on alcohol and other drugs found that 16% of 15- to 16-year-olds in Ireland currently vape. When young adults, many of whom started vaping in their teens, are included, the number is even worse.”
“I appreciate that a six-month notification process must be followed and that the delay is out of the Government's hands but the process should have commenced years ago, not just last December. Stephen Donnelly talked about his intentions to ban disposable vapes as far back as November 2023. He eventually secured Government approval to move forward with the ban in September 2024, and that was after two rounds of public consultations, one run by the Department of Health and the other by the then Department of Environment, Climate and Communications. Why is there always such hesitation when it comes to progressing vape regulation? There is strong talk but no substance for action even though we know that children are being targeted by the tobacco industry.”