I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Alan Dillon. I acknowledge his endurance this afternoon after taking eight Topical Issue matters in advance of this debate. I also thank Edel O'Shea, a constituent of mine, who worked with me on this Bill. I thank the Irish Cancer Society, which as many of us in this Chamber will know has always been fantastic with providing data and detail on all things related to cancer services, cancer treatment and cancer screening in this country. This Bill is simple. It would stop workers having to take annual leave for hospital appointments for national screening programmes. Better still, it would encourage those workers particularly who are in insecure or low-paid employment, giving them protections to take part in and take up national cancer screening programmes. It would be a Bill for people who cannot afford to take a day or some time off, whether that be due to insecure work or fear of missing out on any part of their much-needed pay cheque. Ultimately, it is about equity for people so that nobody suffers from developing cancer just because they could not afford to take some time off to catch and detect it early. There are four national screening programmes: BreastCheck; CervicalCheck; BowelScreen; and Diabetic RetinaScreen. BowelScreen is a home check so the practicalities of this Bill would not apply to it but it would apply to the other three. This is not to say that we are failing in terms of take up. BreastCheck, for example, exceeds the 70% take-up target, which is the standard for screening programmes. There has also been a 36% increase in the number of women who will be completing mammograms this year, and an 18% increase in the number of women who will have cervical screening tests. These are all massively positive and this Bill is not about criticising the Government about the take up of the screening schemes, it is just an opportunity to work together, to work better and to continue to strive for improved take up. As we know, we can always do more. Important research was conducted for the HSE by Sophie Mulcahy Symmons at the end of 2023 on the take up of national screening programmes. The research indicated, among other things, that people and workers in lower socioeconomic groups are less likely to take up a national screening programme appointment. The majority of people in lower socioeconomic groups are likely to be in vulnerable, insecure or low-paid work. We know that these types of jobs come with fewer safeguards, fewer entitlements and fewer protections. The take up of trade union membership and trade union cover in these areas is also lower. With this Bill we believe there are no losers. There would be no way to take advantage of the day's leave without having to take part in a screening programme. Safeguards and protections would be included. We do not believe this type of leave would be manipulated or used for any other reasons. As the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, will know, on a purely financial level it is more cost effective for the State if a cancer diagnosis is caught early and if treatment can be administered as early as possible. It is important to acknowledge in the financial costings for businesses, in that people are not going to be going to a screening every year. This is a facilitator for the year when someone does go to a screening. As the Minister of State can appreciate from representations in his own constituency, some screening checks involve a geographic distance. For those of us in Dublin or in major centres, the distance can be quite short and workers may only need a short period off in a morning or afternoon. People who live in more remote parts of the country may need to take a full day off work to take part in a screening programme. This should be seen as an investment for each employer to ensure their employees are getting checked through the national programmes as early as possible. If there is an anomaly or, God forbid, someone does receive a cancer diagnosis through the screening, we know that early detection means earlier treatment and the earlier the treatment the less invasive it is and the healthier people can remain. This means they can remain in work for longer and continue to be able to engage in other parts of their lives. We believe this makes sense. It is something that would not have too much of a cost impact on employers or on the Exchequer. In fact, it would be an investment. We also believe that morally, and from a leadership point of view, it is the right thing to do. It sends the right message that as a State we are placing positive health policy front and centre and that we support people to take part in these programmes to safeguard their health and their ability to be able to continue in the workforce and with their lives. The Irish Cancer Society estimates that approximately 40,000 people get cancer in Ireland each year and approximately 30% of all deaths per year are from cancer. We know through our own history of screening programmes, and unfortunately the scandals that have brought screening programmes to the fore of people's minds, that the earlier people get checked the greater their chance of survival. We are now in a situation where we have increased trust in our screening programmes and the trajectory of these programmes and their take up is going in the right direction. Trust has been hard won and it is a credit to organisations like the Irish Cancer Society, the clinicians, the practitioners and the people who run these schemes that we are trending in the right direction after so much hardship and tragedy. We do, however, have an opportunity to progress more. We must do everything we can to reduce every barrier in people's way to ensure they can take up these screening programmes. We believe this is a truly common-sense measure. It is a pro-health measure and the type of measure the Government often claims the Opposition does not offer. We believe it is constructive. We have just had this year's Daffodil Day where the right to be forgotten was supported by this Government in what is a really good piece of legislation. It is the Government taking a really positive step. This Bill, either in its current form or through an amendment, would be a win for the Government. I will work with the Ministers for Health and enterprise, and with the Minister of State currently in the Chamber, to get this through. In 12 months, on Daffodil Day 2027, perhaps this Bill or the core principles of it will be something we can celebrate going into Government.

Sentiment score: 0.03

I am deeply disappointed by the response. We believe the Organisation of Working Time Act is the correct legislative mechanism for this. What makes this different from carer's leave, maternity leave or paternity leave is that this is a short period of leave of no more than a day, sometimes a morning. This is not extended leave. This is not leave for weeks or months. The Minister of State feels differently. That is very disappointing. We all agree with the Minister of State "increasing access into the national screening service can be done more sustainably". We have acknowledged the need for an improvement in this regard. Everyone is supportive of that across the House in terms of access to these programmes. We define within this legislation that it is the HSE national screening programmes. There are four of them. They are tightly defined. It is an evidence-based approach. I referred to the Sophie Mulcahy Symmons research which we are basing this on. We are talking about workers in retail, service workers and workers in insecure low-paid employment. This legislation is not for self-employed people. It is not for retired people. It is for workers in low-paid and insecure employment. If it were applied, it would have a marginal to low impact, but it would have an impact. It would increase the number of people availing of screening. Through word of mouth, it would create a culture of doing so among workers where there is a low density of trade union representation. This word of mouth element would ensure workers know their entitlements in terms of being able to take a few hours off to take part in these screening programmes. I am aghast that the Government is opposing this Bill on Second Stage and not allowing it to go through for further discussion. There is a constituency out there listening to the debate on this Bill about this potential entitlement who will be disappointed and will make that known to their local Government representatives. I am disappointed the Minister of State did not respond to Deputy Sheehan's question about whether it could be done through the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. I thank Deputies Guirke and Sheehan for contributing to this debate. I am disappointed with the Government's response to this. While it is not unexpected for the Government to oppose Opposition legislation, I am surprised - and not just because it is my legislation - that the Government is opposing this Bill.

Sentiment score: -0.06