Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Likewise, I think this should have been separate legislation. It is very important legislation. Many of us participated in the committee that looked at repealing the eighth amendment of the Constitution, as did the Minister. The recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly dealt with this issue quite substantially. One thing that we know substantially reduces crisis pregnancies is the provision of contraception.

I wish to make similar points to Deputy Cullinane regarding amendment No. 6. One provision that is really very confusing, and on which I want the Minister to answer a few specific questions, is subsection 6 of the proposed new section 67E in this amendment, which explicitly states, "In making regulations under subsection (5), the Minister shall not prescribe an age under the age of 17 years." The Minister said that to change this would require a legislative amendment. Therefore, somebody in the House would have to introduce a Bill to amend that some time in future. Otherwise, it ties the Minister and future Ministers for Health into precluding anybody under the age of 17 from having access to free contraception.

I checked the ancillary recommendations of the Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, one of which explicitly states that it is recommended that all people shall have access to free contraception. The upper age limit of 26 and above is an element on which I reckon the Minister will talk about costs. That does not mean it protects people who may have had enough children and want to control the size of families but find doing so very expensive, which contraception and visits to doctors are. This is a very worrying detail, however. The reason I say it is worrying is because there is a good report by the HSE to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention, although he probably knows about it, entitled, Information Summary about Teenage Pregnancy in Ireland 2000-2020. A number of factors are leading to a decline in teenage pregnancies. It is great to see that crisis pregnancies and pregnancies in general among teenagers are reducing. The report goes through a list of examples as to why this is the case, including schemes to reduce student disengagement with education, schemes to support young people at risk of early school leaving, the introduction of better sexual and relationship education in the curriculum, the development of a well-being policy and so on. It finishes with increased access to contraception and information.

Obviously, we welcome the reduction in crisis pregnancies, in particular, and pregnancies in general among teenagers. The Minister is putting a barrier in their way, however. I would like the Minister to be able to answer why this clause was included. I was shocked when I saw it in the Bill. Why did he have to include that? He is not just saying that the age of consent might be the legal thing or whatever but he is actually precluding changes to this for future Ministers for Health without a Bill going forward. The decline in teenage birth rates is very significant; it is 73% over that 20-year period I talked about. Teenage births as a share of the total births have declined even further, emphasising the reduction in this cohort.

Surely, we want to see this continue. If we want to see it continue, whether anyone in this House or the rest of the world likes it or not, and this is shown by more evidence from the Irish Family Planning Association, IFPA, we cannot deny the reality that studies on behaviour among school-aged teenagers show that approximately one in five girls and one in four boys aged 15 to 17 report having had sexual intercourse. The more we can do to help them to understand sexual relationships and protect themselves in those sexual relationships, the better. Specifically precluding them is actually baffling to many of us. Young people in care are also identified as a particularly vulnerable group and report early sexual initiation from their peers. All this puts younger people at risk. I believe it flies in the face of all the progressive measures in which we wish to engage. That is pointed out very well by the HSE report. If the Minister includes that clause, it will make it difficult to reach the most vulnerable in our society who are under the age of 17 and help them to avail of free contraception.

I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions. First, will he please explain to us why he specifically put that clause into this legislation? Instead of addressing a gap that exists for that group, he is now closing down access to it even further. There needs to be a rationale for this amendment. What proposals does the Minister intend to bring forward to resolve the legal uncertainty with respect to the age of sexual consent and access to sexual and reproductive health services? What is the timeframe for addressing this extremely serious exclusion of this vulnerable cohort from the free contraception scheme? If the Minister had left it out we would not have a problem, but he specifically included it. I ask him to please address those questions.

See this speech in context