Sinéad Gibney
Dublin Rathdown · Social Democrats · Ireland
“Unfortunately, those are still not entirely clear. Although the Windsor Framework did look to enshrine that policy of no diminution of rights and the non-divergence of rights on either side of the Border, that has not been clear in how it is going to play out.”
“I want to raise one specific sector. Within my portfolio, the culture sector is a good example of where we could see a much better offering in the joining together of the two economic activities. For example, we have a very vibrant production sector for film and television.”
“The other word that is important to bring into any economic discussion and fiscal discussion around a united Ireland is "holistic" because, unfortunately at times, I see the Government looking at the economy as a discrete part of society and neglecting things that fall outside of economic discussion, economic imperatives, and policymaking…”
“There are ways that we can see how our governance of this jurisdiction can be improved simply by the opportunities that will be presented by opening up constitutional change and the discussions that we are all going to have about how we govern ourselves right now and how we may govern an entire island of Ireland.”
“When the Minister of State referred to office roles in Brussels, was he describing roles in NATO headquarters? The international forces the Minister of State is describing are exactly like the coalition that invaded Iraq.”
“I look forward to coming back to the topic of the triple lock in a few questions' time. I have read with extreme concern the reports over the past week on the lack of support provided by the Department of Defence to Women of Honour, whose members are participating in the Defence Forces tribunal.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,287 lines we hold for Sinéad Gibney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 26.
“In the final episode, Erin from "Derry Girls" said: No matter how scary it is, we have to move on, and we have to grow up because things ... well, they might just change for the better. So we have to be brave. And if our dreams get broken along the way ... we have to make new ones from the pieces.”
“I want to raise one specific sector. Within my portfolio, the culture sector is a good example of where we could see a much better offering in the joining together of the two economic activities. For example, we have a very vibrant production sector for film and television. It is an increasingly growing sector in Northern Ireland, with a lot of investment going into it at the moment. A total of £72 million is being invested in Studio Ulster, which is a recently established virtual production facility. Surely there is an economic loss in how there are very few cross-Border offerings. There are very few ways in which both of those sectors work together to attract investment to the country. That is an example of where we can see the immediate economic benefit of working together. I wish to finish in the words of one of those productions.”
“Unfortunately, those are still not entirely clear. Although the Windsor Framework did look to enshrine that policy of no diminution of rights and the non-divergence of rights on either side of the Border, that has not been clear in how it is going to play out. Unfortunately, that is where we might see issues around stability and peace coming under threat in the coming years. Looking at the economy through the lens of rights and equality is a helpful way to start talking about the fiscal implications of a united Ireland. These figures that we talk about on a large scale have to be located in the lives of people, in particular those who live on the Border and those 30,000 who cross the Border daily. What is going to be different for their lives in a united Ireland? What is going to be different for the lives of everybody on this island?”
“The other word that is important to bring into any economic discussion and fiscal discussion around a united Ireland is "holistic" because, unfortunately at times, I see the Government looking at the economy as a discrete part of society and neglecting things that fall outside of economic discussion, economic imperatives, and policymaking. If we look at Brexit, for example, while I acknowledge the strong work of the Civil Service in the preparedness that it did for Brexit and appreciate that it was a positive thing, there was far too much focus on trade in Brexit discussions and Brexit preparedness. Unfortunately, there was not enough on rights and equality. That is something within my previous role that we did a lot work on by looking at how the rights and equality implications of Brexit were going to play out.”
“There are ways that we can see how our governance of this jurisdiction can be improved simply by the opportunities that will be presented by opening up constitutional change and the discussions that we are all going to have about how we govern ourselves right now and how we may govern an entire island of Ireland. That is a hugely important opportunity for us as a political force here in the Republic. We see it as an opportunity to promote social democracy as a governing methodology for a united Ireland. That is something that we will always be putting forward within this debate. It is also an opportunity for us to look at how we can improve the lives of everybody on this island, including all of the new communities that we now have within our population. That opportunity is something that is important.”
“As many have said already this afternoon, one the ways that we best need to approach any discussions of the fiscal implications of a united Ireland is to reframe it away from cost and to opportunity, or at least balance better the discussions that we have around what a cost it might be to this jurisdiction to become one Ireland. We also need to look at the opportunities because they are many. It is not just the immediate economic opportunities that seem to be quite apparent in terms of two parts becoming greater than the sum of their parts in various of our economic sectors - I will get to a specific example of that in a moment - but it is the opportunity that is presented to us while we approach constitutional change on a broader basis.”
“As this is my last speaking opportunity, I thank the Ceann Comhairle and everybody who sits in that Chair, and also the staff of the Oireachtas who make our jobs so possible and sometimes so pleasant. I thank the Government for facilitating this debate. Like others, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the fiscal implications of a united Ireland. This topic is probably the one that makes me feel most privileged to be a politician and a national representative at this moment in Ireland's history. The historic nature of these discussions should not be lost on any of us because it is such an opportunity. Over the next couple of decades as we discuss these things and see the evolution of the debate and the reality outside of the debate, we will have opportunities presented to us.”
“What is true is that the Government wishes to pivot from peacekeeping towards the deployment of troops for regional interests. That is the actual truth. Once we start to pick that apart, it is clear the public does not agree with the Government. In poll after poll, members of the public do not agree with it. Councils throughout the country do not agree and have voted to protect the triple lock. The Government's backbenchers are revolting; they too do not agree.”
“When the Minister of State referred to office roles in Brussels, was he describing roles in NATO headquarters? The international forces the Minister of State is describing are exactly like the coalition that invaded Iraq. It was clarified at the defence committee that, should the triple lock not have been in place, we would have been in a position to deploy troops to Iraq. I again go back to the point that the Government's whole argument on this is dependent on the fact that it continues to maintain it supports neutrality. Once we cut that out from underneath its argument, everything else collapses. I maintain that is indeed the position. What the Minister of State is describing about the triple lock being this big bad beast that is preventing the Government from doing everything is just not true.”
“Any time we raise these as suggestions, they are batted off as being too hard or too complex but the Government has not made the effort. At a time when international law is so precarious and the United Nations is under so much pressure, this is not the approach we need. What we need is collaboration, co-operation and an upholding of the global order.”
“I am curious as to why the Minister has chosen not to take this question. In her earlier exchange with Deputy Ó Laoghaire, she said that she welcomed debate. For continuity, I intended to pick up on some of the things the Minister said, so it is a shame that we are chopping and changing. The triple lock and the UN constitute international law in action. That it is what we are looking at. It is not, as the Minister of State has reduced it to, a veto. That is not what is happening here. Throughout this debate, the Department and the Government have displayed a lack of appetite to reform the Security Council or to get General Assembly approval. They have tried nothing and yet they are all out of ideas. The uniting for peace resolution has been used in the past.”
“I will build on the Minister's conversations with Deputy Ó Laoghaire and ask about the status of her plans to abolish the triple lock, the timelines and so forth as regards the legislation that is intended to be discussed later this year.”
“If help is not being made readily available, if it is not easy to access, and if survivors are saying it does not meet their needs, action must be taken. Those participating in the Defence Forces tribunal are doing so in the interests of justice and truth and to ensure that this level of abuse never happens again. We all benefit from the maximum possible participation. I am concerned, on foot of these reports from participants, that we are allowing a situation where people feel they must stay silent to protect their own mental health. We need to do everything we can to avoid that.”
“I am glad to hear that intention. I request that the Minister keep my office up to date on how her office is dealing with this. I am aware that some of these supports are in place, but, as was reported a few days ago, several people who have gone through this have said that, while giving evidence, the only assistance offered to them if they became distressed was the opportunity to pause proceedings and have a glass of water. While an employee assistance programme like Inspire, which the Minister referred to, is good to have, it is not an adequate support for someone who is testifying on their abuse. The answer to someone testifying about their abuse for hours and needing support should not be to ring a number and have to retell their entire story.”
“It is appalling to me that, instead of any active referral or support, many have described receiving a list of numbers and emails for various charities, one of which does not even provide clinical mental health services. That is absolutely unacceptable. I commend the courage of Women of Honour. I commend the courage of those who are testifying. We know that, for survivors of abuse, recounting what has happened to them can be extremely retraumatising. We need to be able to support survivors throughout that.”
“I appreciate that the Minister has taken the time to listen to victims and survivors, and I appreciate her respect and admiration. I share her respect and admiration for the very difficult thing these women are doing. I completely understand that the tribunal is beyond the scope of the Minister's remit and this House. However, psychological and pastoral support for those giving testimony has been provided by the Department to a limited degree and it should continue to provide it. When survivors of abuse are saying the support is not adequate, it is vital that they are listened to and appropriate action is taken. When the supports are not in place, we limit participation in what is an incredibly important process.”
“I look forward to coming back to the topic of the triple lock in a few questions' time. I have read with extreme concern the reports over the past week on the lack of support provided by the Department of Defence to Women of Honour, whose members are participating in the Defence Forces tribunal. I absolutely understand that it is important to guarantee the independence of the tribunal and I also understand that limited supports are in place, but it is vital that we listen when victims of abuse within our Defence Forces tell us that what is in place is inadequate, especially when, in testifying, they are reliving some of the most difficult moments of their lives. Will the Department commit to providing additional, one-to-one, customised support for those testifying in the tribunal?”
“What we are hearing is that they were not informed until late in the process that this was not a merger but in fact a selling off of assets. They were led to believe that transfer of employment would be available to them, and that there would be pathways by which they would be able to access new teaching roles in SETU after the merger. Instead, they have been faced with a very different reality in the last number of weeks. That is what we are asking for - that the Minister will engage and step in, regardless of the college's private status.”
“The staff are asking the Government to guarantee enhanced redundancy protections through the ring-fencing of five weeks redundancy arrangements for affected employees. The Department should lead immediately to establish and oversee a formal working group involving SETU, Carlow College, staff representatives and SIPTU to examine opportunities for redeployment and integration into SETU and other alternatives that minimise compulsory redundancies. If Ministers genuinely believe in stakeholder engagement, now is the time to demonstrate it. The Minister of State mentioned multiple times that the students and staff of Carlow College have been at the forefront of her thinking and that of the Minister's, Deputy Lawless. Unfortunately, that is not the message we are getting.”
“I finished my last contribution by pointing out that there should not be any hierarchy within our educational offerings in this country. I appreciate that it is not State funded, but that does not make it any less of an experience for those students who are studying there and for those teachers who, as I said multiple times, have offered decades of service to teaching in their region and community. I would have thought it all the more reason in this instance, when it is a private college where the staff do not necessarily have the same level of workers' protections as they might enjoy in the public sector, for the Department to step in. What we are looking for once again is security for staff.”
“Instead we have a voluntarist system, which I believe does not protect workers adequately, particularly in situations like this. I will also point out that we do not want to see any differential treatment between staff, for example, in one of the more established universities versus staff in this kind of a university. Carlow College serves many of the disadvantaged communities within the area. It provides crucial educational opportunities to people in these communities. We want to make sure that they get the same treatment and the same recognition for their many years of service as any other third level employee.”
“I am keen to hear an outline from the Minister of State's Department on what it will do to ensure that pathways to staff redeployment or transfer into SETU can still be facilitated and that proposed redundancy packages are adequate and fair, especially in light of the decades of service many of these staff members have given to Carlow College. As employment spokesperson for my party, I have to say that again and again we are coming across issues where workers are having to face uncertainty in a framework that does not protect workers' rights strongly enough. It is that simple. They have to ask - there is no expectation that they have certain rights within this situation - that those minimal redundancy offers are going to be met and their representative bodies will be recognised.”
“This is disputed, particularly as this is not the simple sale of a campus but the merging of one educational institution with another. It is clear to me that this situation has been poorly handled by all involved and it is the staff and students who now face the consequences of this. The needs and asks of the staff and students are clear. First, they want the Department to oversee a working group involving the Department, SETU, Carlow College and staff representatives, including trade unions. This would be to examine the options that could preserve employment for them. They are also asking for the Government to guarantee enhanced redundancy protections through the ring-fencing of five weeks' redundancy arrangements for affected employees.”
“This has caused enormous distress among staff, many of whom have devoted decades of service to Carlow College and who have spoken to my colleague, Senator Stephenson, who has done a huge amount of work on this. A protest was held last weekend by staff and students of the college who are feeling incredibly let down and distressed by this change of circumstances. They need transparency, accountability and honesty from every party involved - the Department of further and higher education, Carlow College and South East Technological University. Vague platitudes of informal arrangements or opportunities for continued employment do not reassure these workers who now have zero security. It is my understanding that the Department for higher education has decided that the transfer of undertakings regulations do not apply in this situation.”
“In recent months the staff of Carlow College have faced the sudden loss of their jobs as the college is closed and acquired by South East Technological University. The workers were led to believe that the future arrangements and merger involving SETU would involve the transfer of employment. It now appears that this is no longer the case, and this has caused huge uncertainty for all involved. We have heard from the Department that there was consultation and engagement on the closing of Carlow College and the transfer of its assets to SETU, instead of a merger, which was what the staff and students of the college were led to believe was happening. Staff did not find out that their jobs were gone and this continuity not guaranteed until the announcement in May.”
“I understand that communities throughout the country are in need of support and funding to develop and I understand the Minister of State’s Department has to balance these needs nationwide, but inaction on this means wasting a golden opportunity to transform an urban village in a way that will affect thousands of residents, which has the backing of the community and the council and which is desperately needed to guarantee the sustainable development of the community. We are 20 years since Dundrum Village as a shopping centre was established. Although it has been pivotal in providing employment to young people and so on, it has had a detrimental impact on the actual community spirit and the civic centre of the town and village. This has to be addressed and it is a project which we must advance.”
“It seems everyone who needs to be involved is on board to make this project a reality but available funding is not adequate to make this happen for Dundrum village. The new towns and cities regeneration investment fund as currently constituted will not be able to make this civic centre happen. I am asking that the Minister of State work with me and other representatives on the ground to make this happen and address the gaps in our funding streams that have left this vision unrealised.”
“In Dundrum, there is a local family resource centre and local youth services that help some of my most disadvantaged constituents, all of whom need a home. Will the Department consider its funding mechanisms, particularly in advance of the budget, so that we can get projects like this over the line?”
“Imagine Dundrum is a brilliant community organisation. It has repeatedly demonstrated the case for this space and the need for such a space is highlighted in the county development plan and local area plan. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council is supportive of a potential project, but what we need in Dundrum are the resources and structure centrally to make it happen. I appreciate the listing of the funding schemes, but these are not yet getting it over the line, and that is what we need to happen. Many urban villages are facing the same problem of increased populations but decreased community space and unclear paths to establishing new civic space. We need to see greater security of funding and greater investment in our urban villages, so that every community can have the space it needs to thrive.”
“As we see housing developments near many of our village centres, it is imperative that we also undertake projects that facilitate community development for those villages. A civic, cultural and community centre is needed for Dundrum village in my constituency of Rathdown. What is the Department doing to address issues such as this? Will the Department work with local groups such as Imagine Dundrum to see this project delivered?”
“I simply want to read out one of his lyrics to finish my speech tonight because this is what we are trying to protect when we do this. This is a song called "The Wisp Sings", which I encourage everyone to listen to after. Let me sleep I am tired of my grief And I would like you To love me, to love me, to love me This is the night when these woods sigh Come with me There are people who cannot speak Without smiling They would take me from your hand Or they would try, they would try This is the murmur of the land This is the sound of love's marching band And how they hold you like a gun And how I sing you like a song I heard when I was young And buried for a night like this Buried for a night, like this”
“It is the same business model, the same business mindset, that has made us, the user, the product in the case of social media platforms, and it is why we are on this road to enshittification, as people say when talking about the Internet. If nothing is done, it will ultimately leave us with a powerful monopoly, just as we have seen in other areas, that we will not be able to unpick. Unfortunately, this is simply where we are getting to all the time with big tech. The Government does not yet have the political will to tackle that, to essentially hold big tech accountable, to say to it that this is enough, that the harms being wrought on society are enough and that we have to take control back. I was helped today in preparing for this speech by a friend of mine. Shane Culloty is his name. He is an artist called Winter Aid.”
“This stuff is synthetic paddywhackery nonsense with just nonsense lyrics in it. That is what we are seeing. Irish artists in particular are vulnerable to this and we need to make sure we protect them. Ultimately, we come back to the fact that these platforms and big tech have developed a business model that is parasitic. Essentially, it is "launch and iterate", "move fast and break things". In this case, they are saying they will capture the market now and monetise later. That is what is happening. They are not making the money now but they know that, unless they control it, they will not be able to make money in time.”
“Ní raibh sé riamh éasca a bheith ag obair sna healaíona, ach sa lá atá inniu ann ba chóir go mbeadh rudaí ag fáil níos fearr, ní ag dul chun donais. I want to speak specifically to Irish art, which is particularly under attack. Irish music is readily recognisable around the world and, therefore, very vulnerable to imitation. If you go to YouTube right now and search for, for example, "Irish folk music", you will see a lot of AI slop in the results. If you search for that term, you will get a channel called The Spirit of the Tavern. Within that, you will find a composition, if you like, called "Irish Pub Songs". That video has had four times the views in a six-month period as Lankum's most recent single. That is terrifying to me because Lankum is creating beautiful art.”
“In his opening comments, Deputy Ó Snodaigh gave a comprehensive outline of exactly the depth and breadth of the theft currently happening. Similarly, undermining the skills needed to create will push those creators out of existence because creating music, visual art or any other art is skilled work. It takes decades of people honing their craft and they do it because of the passion to do it, not because there is any monetary gain within it. Much of it is unpaid or low paid, but that creates inherent value to our lives and this tech is minimising what little money artists can currently make. Even when the owners of this tech have not monetised it, it is still undermining the years of investment and graft of artists to create something we all benefit from. Ní fheiceann muid riamh leath den obair a chuireann ealaíontóirí isteach ina gceird.”
“They have a near monopoly when it comes to controlling who sees what art and they need to see a commensurate responsibility imposed on them to treat creators fairly, to protect art and to protect artists. AI slop is not something that creates new things from nothing. Its creations are always limited by the input, but that is going unrecognised, unrewarded and, crucially, unpaid. Allowing slop and the theft of art to go unmitigated will lead to no art being made. These generative AI models cannot create something from nothing; they are all dependent on raw material. They are incapable of creativity. If artists cannot survive, these models will also eventually run out of art to steal and we will not just face the dire situation we are currently in, but will be even worse off.”
“That is not settled as it stands, and we will see that evolve over time. I acknowledge that there is one platform that is tackling this, and that is Tidal. From tomorrow, Tidal, which is a music-streaming platform, will no longer pay royalties to 100% AI-generated music. There is no reason Apple, Spotify, YouTube and everybody else should not follow suit, but they will not. We have to legislate for them to do that, and that is the kind of legislation that we can lead in this country. We do not have to wait for Europe; we can do it, and we can have a greater impact as a result of it. It is those systems that are currently benefiting rather than the artists. It is those who control the system where this work is published or who even scrape it from the Internet to feed those AI models.”
“Therefore, if low-effort AI audio slop is compensated equally to human songcraft, songwriters will be squeezed out over time and new songwriters, whose copyright is not used in training data and who are not always represented by some of the organisations I have mentioned, will struggle to get a foothold. That is where we need to understand the difficulty with the copyright model being the sole focus. It will benefit those established artists, some of those who are in the Gallery today, the artists we all know and love, whereas it is the artists starting now, not those who started ten years ago, who will be even further disadvantaged because those platforms will be unable to resist the fact that the AI music they helped make will be cheaper for them. We need to look at questions like whether AI music can be copyrightable.”
“We need to acknowledge the fact that services that provide music to music lovers sit upon troves of music data that they can use to train AI and profit from that. They have a potential interest in AI music becoming more popular and accepted because it forces musicians to compete and, perhaps, accept worse royalty payments in the long term. That is a truth we need to acknowledge. As long as they are in control, they are motivated to essentially elevate AI-generated music above artist-created music because they are a profit-driven entity and that will be cheaper to them.”
“We need to move the focus away from rightsholders and instead look at those who control the system and the benefit they get from that, as opposed to artists. I want to talk a little about how the undermining of the skill of artistry and allowing theft of material will ultimately lead to the cessation of the creation of art. That is the direction of travel we are going in unless we tackle this. I want to speak briefly about how Irish music is particularly vulnerable to all of this. I will then arrive back at the business model, which is the issue we just do not tackle head on. This Government certainly does not tackle it head on. I will start with the point about rightsholders. While that is a crucial part of this debate, we are too focused on copyright and those who hold rights to their own creations.”
“We are not there yet. However, we have the opportunity to do so and to actually hold big tech accountable. I will get through a few points but, ultimately, that is where we get to. It is big tech that is making money. It is the systems that control how music is delivered to our ears that are making money. That is where we need to tackle this. I will get into how we need to be a little less focused on rightsholders as a result of it. That is really part of it for me. Although the legislation and the measures the Minister of State has talked about a lot around the copyright part of this discussion are being looked at at EU level, the EU has chosen to adopt a very light-touch regulatory approach to AI, despite what Government Ministers will say. Unfortunately, I simply do not have faith in that model.”
“The Minister of State and I have talked a lot about the climate impact, the impact on labour displacement, algorithmic decision-making in the public sector, and the case for discrimination. There are so many ways in which AI is disrupting our lives and reaching deep into the lives of every citizen here and globally. This one is crucial. The Minister of State spoke a lot about the AI Act in her opening contribution. It is important to call out that part of this motion calls for adequate legislation, regulations and measures to simply deal with this. The way the AI Bill was handled in the past few weeks has not made me confident that the Government is doing this well. Government spokespeople all talk about how we are world leaders in innovation in AI and governance of AI. That is just not a fact, as far as I am concerned.”
“It is important to name all of that because it is the context into which AI has now come and has not just disrupted, but completely annihilated the ability of artists to continue making a viable living in the pursuit of their art and their craft. I want to call out a few more truths before I get into some of the specifics in this debate. I am glad that the Government is not opposing the motion and that it can be the start of a conversation we need to have in the Dáil about how AI is impacting on artists. The AI committee has not yet reached our module on the creative industries and how AI intersects with it. I look forward to that happening by the end of this year or perhaps early next year. AI is coming at us from all directions.”
“"Yet we should never forget that the product of work isn’t only the work—it’s also the worker." That is a quote from the author Robin Sloan, which I think is very apt to tonight's discussion. I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for tabling this motion, his Sinn Féin colleagues and all the work done for artists here in Ireland to protect what is such a treasure within our society. I thank the organisations listed in the motion, the collectives and union organisations that have fought tooth and nail to make sure that artists can survive in a society that does not reward art. It is an anomaly in our society that we remunerate certain pursuits in life but not others. We pay people to pursue corporate goals and aims but we do not pay people to pursue art, yet we all consume and value art. It is that which enriches our society more than anything else.”
“Every reduction in barriers to contraception is welcome, particularly in a country that not long ago banned it completely, but we have a long way to go to ensure everyone has access.”
“National Women's Council research indicated that those in cities, towns and villages were between 35% and 41% likely to use the free contraception scheme while the figure was only 26% in the countryside. The same research found rural women faced extra barriers around fear of judgment, stigma, lack of confidentiality and travel. This gap needs to be addressed. We know pharmacy prescribing and over-the-counter access is key to that. Undocumented women, asylum seekers and those in the international protection system are still excluded, despite being among the most socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and much less likely to be able to afford contraception. The current age limitation also leaves many women out despite the fact that just because you are a certain age does not mean you want to have children.”
“People cannot make informed decisions about their care if they are left without a clear answer as to when the scheme will be rolled out to other age groups. Caithfidh an córas athrú más mian linn freastal ar gach bean a dhéanann an rogha frithghiniúint a úsáid. Má tá baic rompu sa chóras atá againn, caithfear dul i ngleic leo. Barriers to accessing contraception remain and they are primarily shame, stigma and confidentiality. For many people, having to go to their GP and then to the pharmacy creates an insurmountable barrier. For those who lack access to transport, who live at home or who live in situations of coercive control, having to go to the GP triggers a world of questions in their lives that severely impact their right to privacy and their right to access this medication. This is doubly felt in rural areas.”
“We need commitment from Government that the age expansion of the free contraception scheme will happen in the lifetime of this plan. Furthermore, we need to see solid commitments on inclusive and women-centred healthcare to ensure everyone can access medications and care that meet their needs and that we are resourcing practitioners to provide that care. It is welcome that the Government has stated its intention to expand the age range for the free contraception scheme, but we need to know when that will happen. Women are delaying access to contraceptive care right now because they are anticipating being included in a public scheme. They are avoiding availing of long-term contraceptives because of high costs to get them privately and mixed messages about when they will be able to receive that care publicly.”
“We understand that some medicines should only be available by prescription but there is no clinical reason for this to be the case for oral contraceptives. They are safe. They have been thoroughly studied and they are effective. The biggest issue with contraception is access. An additional hurdle of having to go to their GP means that some women simply cannot or will not access oral contraceptives, despite their wants or needs. This Bill is a welcome step to widening access, but we must think much bigger if we truly want contraception to be easily and freely available to all who need it. I also welcome the publication of the third women's health action plan yesterday, but I am concerned we are seeing a repackaging of previous announcements and little detail on the timelines or funding commitments attached to measures.”
“I will make a few key points. While we welcome this Bill, we believe that oral contraceptives should be available prescription free. The action plan does not have enough solid commitments when it comes to contraception, and essentially the barriers still exist and exclusion from the scheme is still an issue for some women. The Social Democrats welcome this Bill, which provides for pharmacists to re-prescribe certain contraceptives. However, we stand firm in the belief that oral contraceptives should be available prescription free. They are some of the safest and most thoroughly researched medications available and we must listen to the World Health Organization, to the Irish Pharmacy Union and to our own Oireachtas health committee, which have all now recommended that they be available over the counter.”