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 6 of 14.
“Last night's "RTÉ Investigates" made for harrowing viewing. We saw people with severe and enduring mental health difficulties being subjected to degrading treatment and even dying in custody. Such was the tragic case of Ivan Rosney. These vulnerable people require care and compassion, not cold prison cells. Last October, I visited Cork Prison. As a result of what I saw, I started asking questions. At the end of January, figures provided to me showed that 38 people are being held in prison waiting to be transferred to the Central Mental Hospital. That is a 23% increase since November. The average waiting time for a transfer from the prison to hospital is now seven months. For somebody in the midst of a mental health crisis, that is an eternity. At the same time, 50 beds in the Central Mental Hospital are lying idle.”
“The press release from the developer, BAM, said that a 6,000-capacity multi-purpose venue would be built within two years. A decade on, the only thing the people of Cork have been left with is a large derelict site in the city centre. It is nothing more than an eyesore with a new bridge to nowhere. Next week marks a decade since the sod was turned. To mark the tenth anniversary, I will host an event where the events centre should be. I would love to see the Tánaiste there and I would love to hear what he has to say to the people of Cork about the Government’s failure to deliver on these key infrastructure projects for our city.”
“This weekend the Social Democrats will hold our party conference in Cork, which is a city starved of Government investment. The people of Cork have been long promised light rail but not a single penny has been provided under the new transport plan. However, that is not the only broken promise. We have no BusConnects; no new dental school; no business school; no safe injection facility; no new homeless hub; and no new library. The most notorious example is the failure to build the Cork events centre. Ten years ago, in the dying days of a general election campaign, the Tánaiste’s former party leader and then Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, flanked by other Fine Gael and Labour Party Ministers, turned the sod on the project. It was a nice photo op but nothing more.”
“In addition, the State Examinations Commission is just tagging extra time on to existing accommodations, meaning those who do not qualify for current supports such as reading assistance or a spelling and grammar waiver will be excluded. Why are young people who do not qualify for existing supports, in particular students with dyscalculia, excluded? Will the Government increase this half-hearted measure and offer additional extra time in 2026, putting it in line with third level supports? Will it make this extra time a stand-alone accommodation?”
“This week the Minister for education announced extra time will be granted to secondary school students with dyslexia and other and other visual and physical disabilities in their junior and leaving certificate exams but it comes with a catch - it is only ten minutes per exam. I accept ten minutes is better than nothing but it falls far short of what these students require and deserve. It is nowhere near what third level students get. The minimum dyslexic third level students get is an extra ten minutes per hour while second level students are offered just ten minutes per exam. This simply is not good enough. In Northern Ireland, dyslexic students get 25% extra time. The Government's proposal amounts to just 6%.”
“How would you qualify for it? How would it be paid? Ministers thinking aloud across the pages of newspapers is not one bit helpful. Has no financial planning been undertaken since the cost-of-disability report was published four years ago? People with disabilities do not need more off-the-cuff commentary from Ministers. They need real progress and a permanent cost-of-disability payment. I urge the Minister to reconsider his stance on this, support the motion and provide these basic supports so that people can live decent lives in Ireland because it is not good enough.”
“The Government may have postponed this measure but people with disabilities cannot postpone their expenses. Its approach still seems to be rooted in charity rather than rights. People with disabilities need clarity and action, not more ambiguity and delay. It is now more than 20 years since the Department of Social Protection commissioned a report on the cost-of-disability payment. That was reaffirmed in the 2021 cost of disability in Ireland research report. How much longer does the Government need? Just this month, the Minister of State, Deputy Emer Higgins, told the Irish Examiner that the practicalities of payment are still being worked out. Acting like a commentator rather than a member of Government, the Minister of State was quoted as saying: What would that payment look like? What rate would it be set at?”
“One person said that in some weeks, it is a toss-up between food or bills as there is nothing left. Another person said they are not looking to be a millionaire but looking for security, a home, heat, food, family and not to fight for the basic things. A third person said disabled people are more reliant than ever on their families and their independence is being eroded. In our alternative budget, the Social Democrats proposed an extra €15 per week in disability allowance, an emergency €400 winter cost-of-disability payment, and a permanent cost-of-disability support payment. In the Government's budget, disability allowance went up by just €10 to €256. That is just €520 over a year. The Government failed to provide a permanent cost-of-disability payment, putting it off until 2027. This is inexcusable.”
“It is deeply disappointing that the Government is opposing this motion and I think there are people with disabilities across the country who are going to be very disappointed as well. Our contributions are not alarmist; they are grounded in evidence and research. We know that the annual cost of living with disability is estimated at between €10,000 and €15,000. According to the ESRI, there is a weekly cost of between €488 and €555. A household with a disabled member needs an income that is 52% to 59% greater after tax just to reach the same standard of living as a household without a disabled member. For households with a member who is has severe limitations, the additional cost can be as high as 93%. I want to pass on to the Minister what some people with disabilities have said about their lives and the impact on them.”
“Will the Taoiseach be advancing LGBT rights as a priority during our Presidency of the European Union? Ultimately, what is the Taoiseach doing at home to protect and enhance LGBT rights?”
“Around the world, LGBT+ people remain under continuous attack. In December alone, Kazakhstan's senate approved a ban on so-called gay propaganda, which basically amounts to blocking any information on the LGBT community. In Türkiye, a court shut down an LGBT youth organisation for supposedly encouraging people to be lesbian, gay or bisexual, while in Budapest the police have recommended pressing charges against the mayor for simply organising a Pride parade. These incidents cannot be viewed in isolation. They are part of a pattern of escalating repression. We also know that there are still 65 countries where it remains a crime to be homosexual. What is the Taoiseach and the Government doing globally to promote LGBT rights? Does the Taoiseach support a UN convention on the rights of LGBT people?”
“As I said in my opening speech, I would like a letter from the Department or the Minister giving the Department’s position on each of the recommendations and as soon as possible for them to give us a clear timeline on the legislation, when it will be published, when it is intended for it to be taken through the Houses and ultimately commenced. That is the key because sometimes we pass laws and never commence them, as we are seeing with the 2024 Act and the section we referenced. I might be the final speaker before Christmas so I join others in wishing everyone who works in the Houses of Oireachtas a very happy Christmas, as well as all the Members and staff. I thank everybody for all the support over the past year and all they work they have done. I hope people get a good break over Christmas.”
“We as a committee have engaged constructively on this and will continue to do so. We will make time available at the committee. I would be happy to hold additional sittings if they are needed to progress this legislation and get this sorted once and for all. It is really important we do this, in particular for the children. The recommendations laid out in the report, if accepted, would solve many of the issues and address many of the concerns people have been raising over decades. I welcome that the recommendations have been considered seriously by the Department.”
“People around the country are surprised when they meet same-sex couples who have children to see how the law has not solved the issue and that it has not provided them with the family rights other people enjoy. A decade on from marriage equality it is really frustrating that the work has not been done in these Houses and Government Departments to iron out the detail of the law to provide pathways to parentage for same sex couples. Also, as was said, there are other families who have done surrogacy abroad and there are families created in lots of ways in which both parents are not recognised and they have been waiting far too long for this to be resolved. I hope we will not be back here next Christmas still talking about this. I hope next year will be the year we get this resolved and sorted.”
“There is a low level of legislative output and it is frustrating that we have not seen this Bill passed, and other areas. Law reform is needed in lots of other areas. We were talking yesterday about vapes and other areas. There is a need for law reform and we would like to see some of that progressed, including this Bill. As I said, it is crucially important. As Deputy Sherlock said, there is a diversity of families who are affected but there is an area of work already done around LGBT families. We passed the marriage equality referendum over ten years ago. When people went to the polls that day they were voting to provide equality for families, for families to be treated equally, and for full recognition of their families.”
“Absolutely, and we had an argument about that because we thought it should have been dealt with at the health committee and that it did not need the floor of the Dáil to do it. All of the legislation could have been progressed. I had a look back over the historical span of the number of Bills passed. In some years in this Oireachtas we had 45, 50, or 60 Bills passed.”
“It is frustrating when we hear that this is the delay, that the State's failure to pass a law means that now people have had to go to the courts, which is now holding up the passing of the law. When will this end? If we pass the law we can resolve all of that. I have no doubt that if the law is passed those people who are before the courts would withdraw those cases because the legislation will resolve the issues and will provide them with the protections in place. As I have said a number of times here, I am concerned about the legislative output. I think we have passed fewer Bills in this year than nearly any year since the foundation of the State.”
“We are going to have more cases. The longer the Minister delays the more cases we will have, and the more delays we will have. These cases will advance through the courts. Cases that are in the High Court will be in the Supreme Court and we will wait and we will wait. What the Department and the Minister can do is resolve all of that and they can provide the certainty. We can legislate in this House and families would not be forced to go to the courts. It is at huge personal cost and huge stress for individuals to go to the High Court to try to vindicate their rights to get protections for their family, very basic protections in law, to be regarded as the parents of their own children. We should not be expecting families to do that.”
“It would be a really good act if the Minister could commence that because we do know that all the pieces are in place for this and it is just waiting on the Minister to sign the Commencement Order. Saying in her statement that she intends to do it is not enough. I want to know why the Minister has not done it and if she will do that before Christmas. I would like if the Minister of State could bring that back to her. In her closing statement the Minister of State also referred to the legal cases, and that this may be one of the reasons why we have not seen progress in the last six months. We cannot wait while the cases go through the courts. In the absence of legislation what we will have is more cases before the courts. Families who are deeply frustrated are now taking to the courts to vindicate their rights.”
“From these parliamentary questions we know that the courts have done their side of the work, that the District Court has updated the rules, that the Circuit Court has updated the rules, and it is now sitting on the Minister's desk waiting for the Minister to sign the Commencement Order. I would ask her to do that before Christmas. At least do that. Commence the one part. The law is already passed and the rules are in place. What she could do now is sign the Commencement Order and give these families the gift of those protections before Christmas for this small cohort of families so that they would have that joint parental right. It would be the start of the journey on this.”
“These are people who created a family together with a friend who might have been a donor before we had marriage equality. In some cases it was while same-sex activity was still a crime. They created families together, they did it ethically and the State has never recognised them jointly as parents. These are people who brought these kids up together in loving, stable relationships, raised beautiful children and all they are asking for is that they get recognised as their parents. It is there in law. It is written into the law but it has not been commenced by the Minister. This is something I have asked parliamentary questions about. I know other Deputies have asked parliamentary questions about it.”
“It is frustrating that we have not got that clear timeline from the Minister of State today about when the Bill will be published, when it will be enacted, when it will be commenced, when the families directly affected will get the rights that they are arguing for and when the families will get the protections they need. Crucially this is what it is about. It is unfortunate that we go into another year with that uncertainty. This could have been resolved this side of Christmas and it is disappointing that it is not. A number of Deputies referenced the commencement of section 232 of the 2024 Act. That relates to families who used a known donor in the past, in particular lesbian couples who used a known donor in the past, and them getting recognised and jointly protected. I know people whose kids are now 18 and they still are not protected.”
“I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister of State. I really welcome the remark that many of the recommendations will be included and reflected in the legislation when it is finally published. That is very welcome. I will be glad to report back to the rest of the committee on that. That is great to see. What is missing, and I think the Minister of State would agree, is clarity on the timeline here. When we engaged with the Minister over the summer there was pressure for us to progress our engagement on this issue because the Minister was keen to progress the legislation. As I said, we worked on this report in August and we published it when we came back straight away. This is why I am slightly frustrated with the delay here. We wanted to see the legislation before Christmas and we wanted to see this progressed.”
“I would love to hear from the Minister of State about when the Minister intends to commence the 2024 Act and when she intends to bring forward the supplementary Bill that will hopefully, once and for all, close all of these gaps. These recommendations from the Oireachtas joint committee are not radical but they will fix the gaps. They will provide families right across the country with the protections they need and, in particular, children so they have the right to both of their parents. For the parents across the country, I really hope we do this without delay.”
“17 is that the Department of Health should run an awareness campaign in advance of the commencement of the 2024 Act. The aim of the awareness campaign is to provide clarity for intending parents on the new law and the transitional provisions. Clear guidance should be given on the required documents and procedures. It is really important as these are big changes to the law. This is a new framework and a new, big Act. The Department has a role in providing clarity, creating awareness and informing people of what the procedures are under the new law so if they are intending to become parents, they know what is involved and what rules they have to follow. The Department has to spend some money on that and run that awareness campaign. Finally, our 18th recommendation is that clarity must be provided on when the Act will be commenced in full.”
“When we set up these new State bodies, agencies and regulatory frameworks, we have to fund and resource them properly. From what I can see, we have not heard how much money has been allocated. If we want the AHRRA to carry out this function and to manage this whole area, we need to resource it properly. Recommendation No. 16 is that the provisions of the 2024 Act should be reviewed to ensure they are trans inclusive, especially the provisions relating to gametes. We often talk here about trans rights and we need to do that in law as well. We must make sure that our law is inclusive and not excluding people. We can do that by making the language more gender neutral in certain areas. It is a simple change but an important one. Recommendation No.”
“There is room for dealing with this on a case-by-case basis and for ethics committees to examine these cases so that people are not criminalised for stepping one inch beyond the law and facing criminal prosecution because of that. There should be a framework here for an ethical way to deal with these issues. Recommendation No. 14 is that every effort must be made to ensure consistency between the 2015 Children and Family Relationships Act and the 2024 Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act, particularly, for example, in relation to habitual residency requirements. Recommendation No. 15 is that adequate funding and support should be provided to the AHRRA to ensure that it can fulfil its various functions efficiently. I would be interested to hear if any money has been provided in the budget for the new agency.”
“The 2024 Act contains no provision for parental leave or benefits for surrogacy families and this must be rectified as a matter of urgency. I ask that the Department of Health would write to the Department of Social Protection to get provisions in place as soon as possible so that these families can avail of legal benefits and surrogacy benefits. There cannot be a gap there. The 13th recommendation is that the Assisted Human Reproduction Regulatory Authority, AHRRA, should be provided with the power to establish ethics committees to consider individual circumstances in cases where surrogacy agreements go beyond the prescribed framework. We cannot have a rigid checklist.”
“Our tenth recommendation is that a legal value should be put on the female genetic link in donor-assisted human reproduction and surrogacy. Recommendation No. 11 is that the 2015 Act should be amended to allow joint parental rights for same-sex couples in cases of non-clinical conception. This is really important. We should not be forcing people to go to a clinic to conceive a child when they can conceive at home in comfort and with reduced costs. Ultimately, there is a key question here about reproductive freedom. There are ways to protect the rights of the child, genetic information and so on. They have been set out in Private Member's Bills put before this House and the Government should accept those and work through them. People's right to reproductive freedom should be respected in this House.”
“Our eighth recommendation is that children of citizens born abroad through surrogacy or donor-assisted reproduction should have the right to become Irish citizens. Our ninth recommendation is that all unnecessary barriers to recognition must be removed. Non-court administrative processes should be considered as part of the Adoption Act. The requirement for the High Court should be reconsidered and applications for past surrogacy agreements should be allowed to be made through the Circuit Court. We have to make it as easy as possible for parents to get through these processes. Expecting people to go to the High Court, at huge cost, is not necessary is not provided for in other Acts and should be reduced.”
“Those children deserve Irish citizenship and deserve to be recognised. We need to fix the gaps in the law to allow that to happen. Our seventh recommendation is that provision should be made for a path to parentage for Irish citizens returning home who are in same-sex couples and whose children were born or conceived abroad in countries that do not recognise both parents. We know that, right across the world, there are countries that fail to recognise same-sex couples and their families. If Irish citizens are living in these countries, like Poland or Hungary, for example, and they have children there, when they return home, there should be a pathway to get recognised as parents. This only affects a small group of people but it is an important issue.”
“They have been their parents from before they were born and the State should recognise that. We need to close the gaps in the law to allow these people to be parents and not let criteria like where children were conceived or where they were born exclude them from having two legal parents like any other family. In cases of Irish citizens born abroad, the Bill must include a process to recognise the parentage of those children born through surrogacy or donor-assisted reproduction. We have to provide protections for our citizens abroad. It cannot just be the case that we have a pathway to parentage for those born in the Republic. We have Irish citizens living all around the world. So many people from my generation were forced to emigrate and they have children born abroad.”
“They have decided that they are going to have children, but at the moment we have so many families where only one parent is recognised and the other parent is left as a legal stranger. This has huge impacts on children and their families. Not having a pathway to parentage means that the person who is raising them is not even recognised as their parent. It has impacts in terms of going to school and to the doctor and at passport control. It can give rise to longer term issues around acquiring citizenship rights and, in the event that one of the parents dies, there are issues around inheritance. It is fundamentally important that children have the protection of both of their parents and that the people who are raising them are not legal strangers. These are their parents and they have always been their parents.”
“It should be happening here. This is not just the recommendation of the Oireachtas joint committee. It is also the recommendation of the Ombudsman for Children and the special rapporteur for child protection. They have both recommended that the paramountcy principle be inserted into the 2024 Act and that is a key request. It is top of the list here, which is important, as is the piece on judicial discretion. We believe that the Bill must be equality proofed. Recommendation No. 5 is that in cases of international donor-assisted human production, the Bill must provide a mechanism for second parents to have their parentage recognised. This is really crucial. People have created families together.”
“That is fundamental and really crucial. Linked to that is our third recommendation, that in decisions on parentage in relation to surrogacy or donor-assisted human reproduction, the courts and decision-making bodies should be provided with some level of judicial discretion. Each case is different and discretion is a key feature of family law. If we look at other pieces of family law like the Adoption Act 2010, the Child Care Act 1991, the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964, the Mental Health Act 2001, the Children First Act 2015 and the Child and Family Agency Act 2013, we see that they all enshrine the use of the paramountcy principle. I do not understand why this has not been done here. We do it in lots of other areas of family law where there is discretion and the best interests of the child are enshrined in the legislation.”
“We cannot be back here again in 12 or 18 months with a third or fourth Bill. Once and for all, we must close the gaps. We have identified them and we need to do it for the families affected. Our second recommendation is that the Bill must have a child's rights-based framework. Provision should be made to enshrine the paramountcy principle of the child's best interests in the granting of parental orders or in the declaration of parental orders under the 2015 Children and Family Relationships Act and the 2024 Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act. This is one of the key requests of families and advocates, that we enshrine the best interests of the child in the legislation. It is really important that when judges are adjudicating on these matters, they are asking what is in the best interests of the child before them.”
“If the Department is not accepting the committee's recommendations, I would really like to know why not. If the Minister of State is not in a position to tell us today, I ask that she would write to the committee to set out, in detail, the Department's position on each of our 18 recommendations. The committee worked on this report last summer and we would really like to see a robust response from the Department. We have not heard from the Department yet on it and it is important that we do. Our first recommendation is that the Bill must address all of the gaps in the 2024 Act. That is a simple, fairly straightforward call that we get this right now. We had the Act in 2024 and, as we have identified, there are serious gaps in that legislation. The next piece, the second Bill, has to close all of those gaps.”
“These are people who, after they put their kids to bed at night, get on Zoom calls with other parents who have been left behind and who lack family rights. They have been campaigning now for over 25 years to have their families recognised, to have equal parental rights and to be treated equally by the State. They have campaigned outside the Dáil, held protests and written so many submissions to Government Departments. I do not know how they have the energy to keep doing it and it has gone on for far too long at this stage. I will talk through some of the recommendations from the report. As I already said, there are 18 recommendations and I would be really keen to hear from the Minister of State on each of the recommendations and the Department's position on them.”
“The recommendations also include a list of legislative actions for the Department of Health to consider as well as recommendations on surrogacy leave, which is a matter for the Department of Social Protection. I hope that the Bill, once passed and enacted, will be the final step in what has been a very long journey towards the creation of an inclusive assisted human reproduction framework for Ireland. As I said, this has been a very long journey and I commend the families and the advocates on all of their work on this. Prior to my election, I worked with LGBT Ireland, one of the organisations that advocated in this area and I saw first-hand how hard these families have worked to advocate for their rights.”
“I thank the key stakeholders for their extensive engagement and constructive proposals, in particular, the LGBTQ+ Parenting Alliance, made up of LGBT Ireland, Equality for Children and Irish Gay Dads, and Irish Families Through Surrogacy. Both groups have carried out extensive and detailed analyses which have informed and shaped the recommendations of this report. I also thank the officials from the Department of Health for their engagement on the issue and the committee secretariat for its ongoing support. As I mentioned, this report has 18 recommendations which we hope will help to shape the draft Bill to ensure that it meets the needs of everybody concerned.”
“It’s important to acknowledge that this pre-legislative scrutiny report is based on a policy paper provided by the Department of Health rather than a published general scheme or draft Bill. This policy paper was supplemented by a series of written questions to the Department. While not best practice, this approach was undertaken to ensure there would be no unnecessary delays and that the legislation can progress as it is a matter of real and pressing importance for the families affected. Our committee was really keen that we would do this work as quickly as possible. We did not wait for the Department to provide us with the full scheme, because we want to see this legislation passed and enacted as quickly as possible.”
“The proposed supplementary legislation that was the subject of our consideration must close these gaps and finally provide a workable framework for assisted human reproduction. It’s crucially important that supplementary legislation is as inclusive as possible – with a central focus on the rights of the child. In particular, the proposed legislation must facilitate ethical international DAHR and protect the rights of our citizens abroad. It’s also important that it recognises and vindicates the right to procreate and the right to private and family life. Any interference with these rights by the State must be proportional and minimally invasive. Legislating in this area is complex, but not impossible.”
“The foreword states: The journey towards robust legislation to regulate and support donor assisted human reproduction (DAHR) and surrogacy has been a long and winding one spanning over a quarter of a century. This has included the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction (2000), a special Joint Oireachtas Committee on International Surrogacy (2022) and a series of cases through our courts. At times over the last 25 years progress has felt slow, at others sudden. What has developed during that time is a fragmented landscape, with significant gaps and barriers. The Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act 2024 (the 2024 Act) was a landmark and long-awaited piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the legislation, which remains uncommenced, contains several gaps and leaves too many families behind.”
“The members of the committee include Deputies Michael Cahill, Sorca Clarke, David Cullinane, Martin Daly, Pádraig O'Sullivan, Peter Roche, Marie Sherlock, and a number of Senators, including Senators Manus Boyle, Maria Byrne, Tom Clonan, Teresa Costello and Nicole Ryan. This was the first report we published. It is a really important topic, one that has real impacts on the lives of many people, some of whom have joined us in the Gallery this evening, who are directly affected by the issue and whose lives and families are impacted by the delay in the legislation and in the failure of the State to legislate on this issue over a long period of time. I intend to talk through our report. I will outline the foreword for the record. I will read that out and I will talk through the recommendations, of which we have 18 in total.”
“I move: That Dáil Éireann shall take note of the Report of the Joint Committee on Health entitled "Report on Pre-Legislative Scrutiny of the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) (Amendment) Bill", copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 9th October, 2025. Tonight we are debating a report published by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health. This was a report we worked on last summer across the committee as a pre-legislative scrutiny report on the forthcoming Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) (Amendment) Bill. I thank everybody who worked on the report, and who contributed to it, in particular my fellow members of the committee. I chaired the committee and Deputy Colm Burke is the Leas-Chathaoirleach.”
“I hope the Minister of State will take the message from the Taoiseach that amendments from the Opposition benches will be accepted. I will be proposing constructive amendments to improve the legislation, close the loopholes and ensure we have an effective ban in place. I really hope the Minister of State will work with me in good faith to ensure we have the best legislation possible. We all want to get this right, first and foremost to protect children. We are up against a tobacco industry that is not going down without a fight. It will exploit every single loophole. That is why we need to ensure the legislation is watertight. We need a Bill that will stand the test of time, not one that will be obsolete on arrival.”
“Will the Minister of State outline the expected timelines for the introduction of both Bills in practice? Will the supplementary legislation and this Bill be commenced in tandem or separately? The Social Democrats will support the Bill to progress to Committee Stage. However, there are gaps in it that need to be addressed. I sincerely hope the Minister of State will work constructively with us to strengthen the Bill. We have a shared aim in this matter. At the Working Group of Committee Cathaoirligh last week, the Taoiseach said the Government would engage with the Opposition on amendments and that he is always open to accepting amendments. That has not been my experience to date of the Department of Health, with none of the amendments put forward so far from the Opposition benches being accepted.”
“Will the service's enforcement capacity and budget for authorised officers be expanded to ensure the ban can be enforced on a national basis? It is really important that it has the resources to enforce the ban. If we pass this law, we must resource the HSE to do effective enforcement. Is work under way to recruit to the additional posts that will be needed? I note that the Bill's regulatory impact assessment estimates funding of €3.1 million per year will be required. My understanding is that the EU notification process can take up to six months. Has that process begun or can it not commence until the legislation is passed? I am conscious that the upcoming public health (tobacco products and nicotine inhaling products) (amendment) Bill will also require notification at EU level.”
“This would be a major issues because there are large disposable vapes on the market that last for the equivalent of ten standard disposable vapes. While these large vapes can be recharged for a period and might last ten times longer than a standard disposable vape, they are not refillable. For the legislation to be effective, enforcement is important. As we know, the existing laws are already being breached by some retailers. In 2024, the HSE carried out 249 vape-related inspections. Those checks found that 55 of the inspected retailers were selling vapes that breached the EU regulations. Last month, the HSE confirmed to the Irish Independent that 40 retailers in 2024 were found to be breaking the law by selling vapes to children. Following the passage of the legislation, the HSE's national environmental health service role will increase.”
“Section 2(1) defines them as follows: "single-use vape" means a vape that is not designed or intended to be re-used and includes any vape that is— (a) not refillable, or (b) not rechargeable My concern is with the use of the word "or" instead of "and". Both the Department and the Oireachtas Library and Research Service use "and" in their briefing documents. The Bill digest states that "a vape will only be considered reusable, and therefore legal to sell, if it is both rechargeable and refillable (not just one or the other)". The use of "or" in the Bill is somewhat confusing and clarity is needed in this regard. A vape should only be considered reusable if it is genuinely both rechargeable and refillable. The wording in the Bill means a vape could be considered reusable if it has one of those features.”