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 8 of 14.
“I am also concerned about other key Sláintecare reforms, such as salaried GPs and a statutory right to home care. The latter is a long-standing commitment dating back to the Tánaiste’s time in the Department of Health. Since then, every target for the introduction of the statutory scheme has been missed. All the while, home care waiting lists have grown. This year alone, they have increased by 12% since January. Looking at this year’s health budget, one would struggle to be optimistic. It is short on reform and even shorter on detail. Rarely has there been a more underwhelming budget for health. The Minister has shown limited ambition and limited commitment to change. It looks like Sláintecare has been put on ice for 2026. Why the standstill?”
“The recommendations related to delivering integrated care are particularly important. Why is this the case? It is because even if this Government were to make good on commitments related to entitlement to care, this would not ensure access. The integration section of Sláintecare is about improving access through a recalibration of our health system away from hospitals and towards the community, but integration also includes fundamental reform of HSE governance structures. It should be acknowledged that we are seeing some critical changes to the governance structures, most notably the phased implementation of health regions. However, I have concerns about the accountability mechanisms in place. It is deeply regrettable that the Minister has no intention of putting national and local accountability structures on a statutory footing.”
“I accept that Covid interrupted that timeline but that is not the real reason it has not progressed. Unfortunately, this Government has no interest in conferring any right to services on people. As usual, it is treating Sláintecare recommendations like a menu rather than a manual. That is not to say that every single word in the 2017 report must be accepted and that we cannot adapt to changing circumstances, but one cannot pick and choose from recommendations that are fundamental to delivering an integrated, universal, single-tier public health service delivered on medical need and not ability to pay. Regrettably, I do not think there is an appreciation of the fact that the key recommendations in Sláintecare are interrelated and interdependent. Take for example one of the central elements of the reform programme, namely, integration.”
“In a reply to a parliamentary question I submitted earlier this month, the Minister said that in order to achieve the goal of universal healthcare in line with the commitments made in Sláintecare, we must first review existing eligibility arrangements. This far into a ten-year plan to achieve universal healthcare, the Government wants to look at the existing arrangements now. This does not fill me with confidence. The focus is entirely misplaced. The 2017 plan recommended legislating for a legal entitlement to healthcare. The proposed Bill would provide for a universal entitlement to a broad package of health and social care services. This universal entitlement for everyone living in Ireland was to be phased in over a five-year period and completed in 2023.”
“I accept that a review of the long-term illness scheme was needed and should have already taken place but this so-called strategic review of the wider eligibility framework concerns me. First, if it is anything like the long-delayed strategic review of general practice, it strikes me as a delay tactic, a way of doing nothing on eligibility under the guise of awaiting its findings. Second, there is no need for a review. What exactly is there to review? Yes, in the absence of clear entitlements, a complex system of eligibility has developed. There is no denying that but reviewing it is not the answer; undoing it is.”
“To emphasise his point, Professor Thomas pointed to the bizarre fact that eligibility and entitlement is still being debated. This is something I am particularly concerned about. Why, eight years into Sláintecare, is a review of the eligibility framework being carried out? Sláintecare was clear that an entitlement to universal healthcare should be provided to all, underpinned by legislation. In 2025, however, there are still virtually no universal entitlements to healthcare, only "eligibility" for some services. This point, while overlooked, is crucial - the distinction between "entitlements" and "eligibility". "Entitlement" means that a person has a right to something, while "eligibility" is defined as having the necessary qualities or satisfying the necessary conditions to qualify for a scheme. That is a very important distinction.”
“I do not say this to suggest there is not an understanding of Sláintecare in this House, but we are, as Professor Steve Thomas has warned, in "danger of mission creep". To be clear, Professor Thomas is not just some commentator. He led the Trinity College team that supported the Committee on the Future of Healthcare in developing Sláintecare. He, like the Social Democrats, remains entirely committed to Sláintecare but I am not sure if the same can be said of all parties, particularly those in the Government. Everyone is still signed up to Sláintecare in principle but are they still committed to its vision or are they just paying lip service to the reform programme? As Professor Thomas pointed out at a recent health policy conference, Sláintecare can mean almost whatever we want it to mean; therefore, it risks losing coherence.”
“Sláintecare had and has cross-party support and remains official Government policy but momentum has undoubtedly stalled. Implementation has always been patchy but now more than ever, it seems as though the reform programme is being slow walked. I do not think that has been done consciously but I believe that a lack of political will has converged with a lack of institutional knowledge. On the latter point, I, like so many others, was not in the House in 2017 when Sláintecare was agreed. The membership of both Houses of the Oireachtas has changed considerably in the years since and just five of the 14 TDs who sat on the Committee on the Future of Healthcare are still in the Dáil. Of those five, not one is in the Department of Health, nor indeed is their party’s health spokesperson.”
“Ultimately, we cannot continue to stand over a system where the taxpayer is subsidising private healthcare. It is totally unjust and unfair that taxes pay for 77% of health expenditure, yet people with private health insurance have quicker access to healthcare compared to their fellow taxpayers without insurance. Equally, those who have private health insurance should not feel the need to have it. They should not feel pressured into it, out of fear for themselves or their families failing ill. They should not feel obliged to dig even deeper every year to pay health insurance premiums, but the reality is that they do. This is not a European norm. Ireland is an outlier. Sláintecare recognised this dysfunction in our health system. In fact, it was the motivating force behind the setting up of the Committee on the Future of Healthcare.”
“That is almost half the country. Last year, total premium income stood at €3.6 billion, up from €3.2 billion in 2023. According to the Health Insurance Authority, the average individual plan increased by 12% in 2024. As of June, the average premium stood at €1,830, an increase of €147 in 12 months. This is a huge expense for households, and it is way beyond the reach of many workers. Even though almost half the country has health insurance, only 12% of overall health expenditure is paid for by private health insurance. In fact, despite some reform, there has not been much change in the last decade. In 2014, private health insurance accounted for 13% of health spending. However, we should, hopefully, see a more considerable drop in the figure in the years to come, as the process of disentangling public and private healthcare progresses.”
“As in previous years, the Social Democrats will be supporting the Health Insurance (Amendment) Bill. Risk equalisation is necessary to ensure that older and sicker people do not face huge premiums because of their perceived risk. This modest measure also helps mitigate cherry-picking low-risk groups, such as younger and generally healthier people. In the context of our two-tier health service, where approximately 46% of the population have health insurance, the risk equalisation scheme is essential. Eight years on from the publication of Sláintecare, it is concerning that the private health insurance market continues to grow. That should give the Minister of State pause for thought, because it is hardly a ringing endorsement of his predecessor’s track records on reform. A total of 2.5 million people in Ireland have health insurance.”
“There is a fear of disclosure among older members because of the history of criminalisation by the State. There are also issues with accuracy and under-reporting that will result. It is also regrettable that there is not going to be a question on sex characteristics to include intersex people. I would like to see the Government take four actions. Research needs to be carried out early next year to better understand these complex issues. There must be concrete steps to ensure that the census is confidential at an individual level. We have to ensure that the new questions are inclusive of intersex people. Finally, I urge the Government to pass the disregard Bill to disregard historical convictions for men, which has been co-sponsored by six Opposition groups.”
“I too wish Deputy Donohoe the best and echo his call for investments in libraries. I have raised the issue of Cork city library. We have been waiting four years for a new-build library. Perhaps that is one the Tánaiste could invest in. It would be crucial and would be part of Deputy Donohoe's legacy. The issue I want to raise is relates to the census. I welcome the decision to include questions on sexual orientation and gender in the next census. For the first time, a hidden part of our population will become visible in official State data. This census data matters because we can measure the health, economic and housing disparities faced by gender and sexual minorities. However, it comes with challenges. There are concerns in the community around confidentiality.”
“What we need, therefore, is an expansion of the legislation to also include safe drug consumption and for the facility in Cork to be prepared for that, with ventilation and all the requirements around that. I do not think the required planning is going ahead. I want to see change to the legislation, I want to see a commitment to Cork, I want to see investment, I want that homeless hub opened and I want a sense of urgency around here. This is costing people's lives in my city every single year. It is not good enough.”
“Yesterday at the committee, we talked about the integrated health hub for homeless people in Cork city. This hub needs to be established and we need the capital investment for it. This is the prime location to have a safe injection facility in Cork city. What we need here now is not to miss an opportunity. We are establishing a new centre there. We can co-locate these services but the Department needs to do the planning and design now and needs to get this right. We need to think beyond just injection. Right across Europe, we have drug consumption rooms. Crack cocaine is on the increase. I met Cork Simon earlier this week and they said that in Cork city lots of people are smoking crack cocaine.”
“That will not be possible with a mobile unit. Eddie Mullins from Merchants Quay Ireland has said that that would be ineffective. We need to listen to the experts. Cork needs a dedicated centre, not a mobile unit.”
“With respect, I asked about the facility in Cork. The facility in Dublin has been a success. That is why we want to see one rolled out for Cork. We know from research published by UCC that there are 859 problem drug users in Cork city. Thirty-five people die every single year in my city from problem drug use. This is a crisis, it is urgent and it needs interventions. We cannot wait for pilots and reviews. We need to act now on this. A mobile unit will not be effective. We know from the centre in Dublin that people go in, they spend 15 minutes injecting and then they have aftercare for 30 minutes. You cannot have that in a van moving around a city. What is crucial is the intervention with the person, that 30 minutes afterwards, that time to build a relationship and to provide them with other care or other interventions.”
“My question is about safe injection facilities. Last month I asked a parliamentary question about establishing a safe injection facility in Cork city. I was told it would not be considered until the 18-month pilot in Dublin was concluded. For the one in Dublin, it took nine years between Cabinet approval and setting it up. We cannot have the same level of delay in Cork city. We need a health-led approach to drugs and we need to start considering and planning a safe injection facility for Cork city. Failure to act here will cost lives.”
“Equally, it is important to ensure that patients can exercise their rights to restrict access to their healthcare data. This is provided for in the Bill, as mentioned, but some people will need additional support in exercising those rights. With this in mind, I am of the view that it is reasonable to assess these issues within two years of the enactment of this legislation. We cannot allow some people to be left behind as we digitalise our health services. We have to bring people with us to ensure that public trust in the entire system is not undermined.”
“Digital literacy, access to technology and language barriers present challenges for some groups, such as, for example, older people, lower income households or migrant groups. The inability of certain groups to access their health data in line with legislation should be a real cause for concern. In 2021, the ESRI recommended the development of specific supports for vulnerable populations in order to address barriers to understanding ehealth, such as lower digital literacy and language competency. I accept that these supports may not be set down in legislation, but that does not minimise their importance. The Sláintecare 2025+ plan identifies health literacy as an issue and refers to developing a health literacy toolkit. That is very welcome, but I encourage the Minister to ensure there is a similar focus on digital health literacy.”
“I move amendment No. 5: “Review of accessibility of health data 7. The Minister shall, within two years of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining - (a) the steps taken to assist persons with lower digital literacy or connectivity issues to access their health data and exercise their right to restrict access to information, in accordance with the legislation, and (b) the specific supports made available to vulnerable populations to address barriers to understanding and utilising digital health.”. This amendment relates to the review of the accessibility of the data. While the digitalisation of our health service is essential, it does risk deepening the digital divide.”
“I accept that the secondary use of data will be dealt with in future legislation, but all of these issues are interlinked. If we do not put these reviews on a statutory footing from day one, then I am not convinced they will happen. For those reasons, I am of the view that a review of data collection usage and storage needs to happen within 18 months.”
“We need to be sure the safeguards put in place are working effectively and that we identify areas for improvement early because the opportunities for breaches will increase as we digitise, particularly as new systems are implemented. As we all know, healthcare data is a prime target for a cyber attack. We should not discount the impact on AI on future healthcare provision either. I also have a concern regarding the level of preparedness in respect of the secondary use of data. Such use is vital for scientific research, policymaking and the development of treatments, but the State is poorly prepared to utilise it. In 2023, a pan-European steering committee stated that Ireland's infrastructure for secondary use of data will need to be built almost entirely from scratch and will be managed by people who are not yet on the payroll.”
“However, it is important to note the process of transforming our health service from paper files to digital files comes not just with benefits but also with risks. Privacy and security risks are unavoidable but the majority can be prevented by having the right safeguards in place. I accept that safeguards are being put in place via the Bill but ehealth represents a big change for our health service that will undoubtedly have teething problems. Significant and meaningful ongoing engagement with the Data Protection Commissioner will be crucial and more tangible action is needed given the sensitivity of the data concerned. This is why I believe it is essential a review is carried out early and that it is put on a statutory footing.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 9, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “Review of data protection compliance 7. The Minister shall, within 18 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas evaluating compliance with relevant data protection legislation and regulations in the collection, usage, and storage of patient health data.”. This is long overdue and much needed legislation that will provide for a legal basis for electronic health records and patient information sharing. More generally, it represents a critical step towards digitising our health services and this is crucially important. Digitisation is an area the health committee is quite interested in and one we will engage with the Department on and engage on during a public session.”
“I support those calls in relation to the voluntary hospitals and the requirement the right information systems are put in place and that we have robust systems and the same systems across all of our hospitals and all of our health services. We are dealing with very large sums of public money. I believe €5 billion goes into voluntary hospitals. We need to ensure there are levels of accountability and transparency there. That is required so I support the calls from others around that and support the Minister's work in that area. If we require additional amendments to this Bill to require voluntary hospitals put these systems in place, does the Minister intend to bring forward more amendments in that regard?”
“How could this have happened? How many children and parents in continuous contact with CHI have been forgotten? Why were these children failed? Who is to blame and who will be held to account?”
“That cannot be delayed too long. There are also concerns about the lack of accountability and transparency. The Minister said in July regarding referrals to the Medical Council that her Department had written to the HSE to clarify the matter and the HSE had contacted CHI. Will the Minister update us on those referrals to the Medical Council? What is possible in relation to those cases? We need greater accountability. Legislation for accountability is crucial. That is a part of the Sláintecare reforms that was never done. It should be done. My thoughts are with the families and children affected. As time goes on, they have more questions than answers. Harvey Morrison's parents are an example of this. They want to know why Harvey was removed from the surgical waiting list. Was it a clinical error or a clerical error?”
“There are 233 on CHI's spinal waiting list and 139 on the active list, up from 112 in January, and 45 waiting longer than six months, up from 37 in January. Just five children are listed for surgery abroad. In total, only 19 children have availed of surgeries abroad. I want to know why this is so low. The Minister said it is a source of frustration but we need more than that. We need to know why it is not happening and every mechanism and tool at our disposal needs to be used to ensure these children get the surgeries they desperately need. They cannot be left waiting months and sometimes much longer. The children affected by unnecessary hip surgeries cannot be forgotten. It is welcome that the multidisciplinary team meetings moved ahead. However, there are concerns about the delay with the external review panel.”
“Úna Keightley, cofounder of the spina bifida and hydrocephalus paediatric advocacy group said CHI is not an entity that values transparency, that it functions on a reactive basis to political, media and advocacy measures and that it does not follow any rules in terms of giving parents the information about their children. It knows parents have nowhere else to bring their children. I have seen this in terms of some of the parliamentary questions I have submitted to CHI. It refused to answer questions saying it was almost too busy to answer my questions. I sent them back and we had to push back on that. That is not acceptable. We need greater transparency and accountability from CHI. We must not forget those children who remain on waiting lists for these services.”
“The 2017 Dickson review into paediatric neurology services remains unpublished, with CHI rejecting its findings. We also have the audit into the waiting lists and equity of access the Minister mentioned. We have here evidence of over a decade of failure and findings that need to be implemented. We cannot have this inquiry stop this reform. All these recommendations need to be implemented and lessons need to be learned. That work needs to continue. We also need continued reform of the culture within CHI. We know from parents and advocates about the issues around transparency and the culture in the organisation.”
“In 2025, an independent audit revealed nearly 80% of hip surgeries on children at Cappagh and nearly 60% on those in Temple Street were not clinically indicated, meaning potentially hundreds of children underwent unnecessary surgeries. In the same year, HIQA published a report into the use of unauthorised springs in spinal surgeries on children with scoliosis. It found there was no evidence of ethical approval and identified issues with culture, governance and internal communications. A report compiled in 2021, which CHI refused to publish in full, was leaked and uncovered bullying and a workplace culture with the potential to put patients at risk. We also know there are outstanding reports. There is the Nagayam review into spinal surgery at CHI commissioned in 2023.”
“In response, the then Minister for Health, Simon Harris, promised no child with scoliosis would wait longer than four months for surgery. In 2023, the ombudsman published a report into CHI's care of Ivy, a child with scoliosis. It found numerous failings of governance and communication within CHI. Ivy had been waiting for spinal surgery for five years, during which time the curve of her spine went from 30 ° to 135 ° . The same year saw the Boston review, which found infection rates at CHI were way above international norms. In 2024, a follow-up report into Ivy's case was published and revealed that surgery had been delayed so long that Ivy was no longer operable.”
“The public inquiry must be fully human rights compliant, based on what is the best practice in other jurisdictions such as those identified by Inclusion Ireland in that report. Hopefully, that can be looked into. When the Minister was talking about the issues in CHI, she referred to some of the reports published in the past two years. We have reports in this area going back to 2013. There was a report into the services for children with spina bifida that found major deficiencies in services at national and local levels, including limited co-ordination services. That report made recommendations for service improvements that were never implemented. In 2017, the Ombudsman for Children's report found serious and ongoing violations of the rights of children waiting for scoliosis treatment.”
“There is a real challenge here to get a public inquiry that meets the needs of the families and parents, gets them the answers, does not get stuck in legalistic disputes with huge costs and runs for ages. We need to learn from the lessons of the past in this regard. In particular, we need to learn from the Grace case and that commission of investigation. Inclusion Ireland published a damning report into that inquiry last month, stating: "From the outset the design and approach of the Commission sidelined and devalued many of those most affected by the issues it was considering." That cannot happen here. We cannot have the voices of the children and the families sidelined.”
“I too welcome the establishment of a statutory public inquiry and the decision by Cabinet to appoint a facilitator on the matter. This public inquiry must have the power of compellability to establish facts. It must be independent and the voices of the children, their parents and families must be at the centre of this. Crucially, these families must get the answers to the long list of questions they have. Public interest must be at the heart of this and nothing else. It must not be rushed, but it cannot go on forever either. Having looked at some examples of tribunals and commissions of inquiry, I have yet to find one where the State has got it right. There are real challenges in setting this up and getting one that is fit for purpose.”
“In his reply, I want the Minister of State to tell me if a new library will be built on Grand Parade as promised by my constituency colleague and Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin.”
“I would like the Taoiseach and the Minister to take responsibility for the delivery of the projects they announce. It happens time and again in my city, where they come and announce projects, turn the sod on them and then they do not get delivered. I mentioned that we had it with the events centre. In 2016, just in advance of the general election, the Taoiseach and Tánaiste of the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government at the time came to Cork, turned the sod on that project on a nearby street, and it is still a vacant, empty site. There is a new bridge there too, but it is a bridge to nowhere. People in Cork are absolutely sick of this. They want to see the delivery of the projects.”
“It should be a library that is fit for purpose. The Minister of State mentioned the other elements of the redevelopment of the Grand Parade and they are very welcome. The upgrade of Bishop Lucey Park is very welcome, but this is a smaller element of this project. It accounts for about €7 million of the overall funding. The Taoiseach announced funding of €50 million in Cork. It is not referenced here. I think it is €46 million. When the Taoiseach came to Cork, though, he announced funding of €50 million. What is interesting is that when the press releases go out, they often have the names of the Taoiseach and the Minister on them. When it comes to responsibility, however, it is a case of it not being them but Cork City Council that is responsible.”
“I thank the Minister of State very much. I am concerned at the response because what we see is a passing of the buck. It goes from the Government to the council. The council says it does not have enough money to complete the project, so it goes back to the Government. We never get a full answer about when the library is going to be built. Is it going to be a new-build library? Are we going to get the construction of a new building and not have this shoved into an existing building that does not meet the needs of a library and is not the promised new-build library? This is what people in Cork want to know. Will we get the library that has been promised, the new-build library, and not this project shoved into an existing building on a nearby street? It should stay on the Grand Parade, at the heart of our city.”
“In 2023, 882,031 items were borrowed from libraries in Cork city but we do not have a library that is fit for purpose and meets the needs of the city. Approximately €43 million or more is sitting there that was announced by the Taoiseach. It is not being used to build this library and I know want to know why.”
“I refer to a place where people could borrow tools, games and music instruments for their children. This is more sustainable and cost effective. People want a library that is open late where they can share stories and ideas, a melting pot for our diverse city. They want it to be a cathedral of learning, a place open to all. In a city that is very commercial, it is one of the few places that is free to use and open to a diverse array of citizens right across the city. If we look around Ireland at all the places where new public libraries have been built, really good results and use have been achieved. For example, the numbers using the library in Dún Laoghaire have doubled since the refurbishment, going to, on average, 1,300 per day. We know from research that Cork city has the highest library use per capita in the country.”
“They want a world-class library for Cork city, a 21st-century library in the heart of our city. The advantage of building this new library is that it will tackle some of the ongoing dereliction on Grand Parade. This money could be spent in both addressing the vacant and derelict sites in the middle of the city that need to be tackled and building us a library that meets the needs of today and tomorrow. This includes addressing the needs of the arts and culture community, including spaces for film, craft and expanding the music library, including maker spaces, as well as the local study section. It should also include a small theatre space because Cork is lacking a small theatre space in our city. This could be provided in the new public library. There is also a real demand for a library of things, not just a library of books.”
“I have met council officials and the librarian and I have submitted repeated questions but I have not received any information about where this project or the money is at, nor when we are going to get a new library for Cork city. To that end, I held a public meeting last weekend to hear the views of my constituents. There is huge interest and engagement from members of the public. There is a clear demand for a new public library in the middle of Cork city that meets the needs of today and tomorrow. It is really disappointing that, in the four years since that funding was announced, there was no public consultation. It takes public representatives like me to organise engagement with the community to hear their views about what they would like to see in that library. It is really clear what people want.”
“Time and again, we see these announcements of big capital projects that fail to be delivered on. We can talk about the events centre and the dental school in that regard. Again and again, projects are announced that are not delivered on. This is a very large sum of public money. A total of €50 million was promised to be spent. We know that of that €50 million, some €7 million has been spent on upgrading Bishop Lucey Park, which is very welcome, but that leaves approximately €43 million to be spent. There is a huge lack of transparency about this project and the money. It is utterly unacceptable. It is not for the lack of asking questions.”
“I wish to ask the Minister of State about the future of Cork City Library. We have a fantastic library service in Cork city but the building is not fit for purpose. The roof leaks and parts of the library have been closed off to the public. It is not acceptable in this day and age. Even more disappointing is that four years ago, the Taoiseach announced that €50 million would be spent transforming Grand Parade with a new public library, a new central plaza and boardwalk to facilitate cultural and recreational activities. The vision was big, with a planned 7,700 sq. m library capable of facilitating 1 million visitors per year. Four years later, however, our library is nowhere to be seen. It is not acceptable. This is just a pattern of under-delivery for Cork city.”
“Just last week I visited Carrigaline Community School and talked to young people there about this matter. The majority of them want the right to vote and to have their say. At the moment, issues that affect young people are ignored by politicians because those people cannot vote. I refer to issues such as public transport for young people, student fees and housing. Many of the issues that directly affect young people in this country are not discussed on the floor of this Chamber or at local councils because young people do not have the right to vote, and they are not heard by politicians. This has to change now. I urge the Government to reverse its position, to engage with us and to give young people the right to vote in elections.”
“The Austrian experience also that demonstrates 16- and 17-year-olds are ready to participate and want to participate, and are eager to do so. Scotland extended the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds in the independence referendum. More than 100,000 young people came out and voted in that referendum. Following the success of that, the Scottish Government decided to lower the voting age for Scottish parliamentary elections. There is strong evidence in neighbouring countries and right around the world about increasing participation by involving young people in this. In my constituency of Cork South-Central, young people want to be involved and want their views to be heard. I have been travelling around schools in my constituency since the election.”
“Also, allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections would allow them to vote before leaving home or school and establish the lifelong habit of voting. It is very likely that people who are turning 18 today may not get their first chance to vote until they are 21. According to the evidence, at that stage those in this cohort are less likely to continue the habit of voting because their first vote will happen much later. Data from Austria shows that extending voting rights to people after they turn 16 promotes higher turnout for first-time voting and over the course of their lives. Research also shows that for the first two elections one is eligible to vote in establishes that attitude towards voting and the lifelong pattern of voting.”
“This is particularly true given that many 16- and 17-year-olds still live at home with their families, where discussions and debates take place with other family members and where there are also then fewer barriers to them engaging and registering. There is support and encouragement to be part of those discussions. We also know that there is increased turnout when the voting age is reduced. A detailed study on voter ages and habits in Denmark found that 18-year-olds were more likely to cast their first vote than 19-year-olds and that every extra month of age saw a decline in first vote turnout. These results demonstrate that by lowering the voting age we are likely to see a higher turnout in this cohort.”