I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(a) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1): “(1A) The Minister shall, not later than 12 months after the coming into operation of this subsection, and every year thereafter, prepare and lay before each House of the Oireachtas a report on progress towards making contraception services available without charge to all women which shall include— (a) the number of women who availed of contraception services in the preceding year, by reference to age, (b) an assessment of the case for prescribing a further age or class or classes of ages under subsection (5), (c) an assessment of the case for making available under this section the contraception services referred to in subsections (1) and (4) by reference to an age that is under the age of 17 years, (d) an assessment of the barriers to accessing contraception services experienced by women who are unable to readily demonstrate that they are ordinarily resident in the State or to furnish a personal public service number, including women who are undocumented, women who are applicants for international protection, women experiencing homelessness and women who have experienced domestic, sexual or gender-based violence, and the measures taken or proposed to be taken to remove those barriers, and (e) the implementation of such commitments relating to contraception as are contained in any strategy or action plan relating to sexual health published by the Minister and for the time being in force.”,”. Amendment No. 1 seeks to ensure a report is prepared not later than 12 months after the coming into operation of the subsection and every year thereafter. It is effectively a report on the performance, of the provisions that we are currently legislating for. Last week, I warmly welcomed this Bill and talked about the huge benefit it will have for women. I also wanted to highlight that there were significant issues with access to our health services for certain women. A National Women's Council survey found that there are barriers particularly for women who do not have a PPS number, disabled women, Traveller women and LGBTQ+ women. There are cultural prejudices that they do not need contraception and of course geographical barriers. My call is to maintain data on the number of women who are availing of the services, understanding the profile of who is actually accessing the services and also understanding the barriers as set out in that survey and indeed those that we have picked up anecdotally. Many of us who have an interest in women's health have come to understand that in terms of dealing with any marginalised group. I appeal to the Minister to make sure that we have proper data collection to ensure that we get the most out of this legislation. Pointing to something else, we know there is a big gap in the uptake of the medical card and we have to understand why. The big issue we are trying to highlight here is that while it is fantastic that the legislation will provide for access to contraception via our pharmacies, we need to make sure that we look at who else should be able to access it. Effectively amendment No. 2 does not change anything but it gives the Minister the power to legislate to lower the age of access to the contraception scheme. It does two things. The scheme currently covers those aged 17 to 36. We in the Labour Party have spoken about the need to increase that upper age. We know that the Minister can do that by ministerial regulation. We know that women are fertile far beyond their 36th year. If they are able to access services such as termination services regardless of age, we do not see why there should be an age applied. It would cost relatively little. It would cost €5 million per year to increase the age threshold with regard to contraception services. We believe the Minister can do that by ministerial regulation. However, section 67E of the Health Act 1970 precludes the Minister from legislating for access to contraception services for those under the age of 17. The age of medical consent is 16 and we believe that the contraception scheme should be standardised to 16. Effectively we want to empower the Minister to be able to reduce the age to 16 for the contraception scheme.

Sentiment score: 0.17

I thank the Minister. I feel very strongly that in bringing forward amendment No. 2, and I have listened carefully to the Minister's response, that judgment should not be passed on why a 16-year-old girl might present to a pharmacy seeking contraception. It would be very worrying if the message were to go out that we are trying to control or dissuade behaviours. The history of our State has been trying to control and dissuade behaviours when we know that behaviours are happening. The intent behind this amendment in particular is for vulnerable girls out there who are in a situation where they do not have a supportive family environment but perhaps are being exploited in some other context and need access. I hear what the Minister is saying about child protection but at the end of the day we need to look at the health separate to child protection. It is part of child protection but it also has to be considered separately because it is an immediate need for a young woman who legally remains a child but who may be involved in sexual behaviour at the age of 16. Of course, we know there are other girls who access contraception not because of needing it for the original use but for other health conditions. We need to be very mindful that we want to create a health service that can afford access to those who are in difficult situations. The vast majority of those under the age of 18 will be going with the consent or knowledge of their parents, but there are definitely females out there, particularly in marginalised communities, who need to access contraception and who do not have the means to be making a doctor's appointment. We believe being able to access it through the caring environment of a pharmacy would be really appropriate. I ask the Minister to reconsider amendment No. 2. As I say, it does not change anything. It merely empowers the Minister to make a decision armed with greater research and evidence at a future date to legislate to lower the age. It is to standardise with the age of consent of 16 and it is important that the Minister should have that power because she is currently precluded from it as we read the 1970 Act.

Sentiment score: 0.06

I move amendment No. 2: In page 3, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(b) in subsection (6), by the substitution of “16 years” for “17 years”,”.

Sentiment score: -0.15