Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Chuala muid ó Donald Trump aréir go mbeidh sé ag cur taraifí i bhfeidhm ar fud an domhain. Is polasaí gan tuiscint é sin a ndéanfaidh earraí níos costasaí do mhuintir na Stát Aontaithe agus a mbeidh impleachtaí aige sa Stát seo agus ar fud na hEorpa fosta. Last night, we were subjected to US trade aggression. To add insult to injury, we had to watch the US play the victim. Trump talked about prying open markets and breaking down barriers. He wants unfettered access to every market, and the EU is front and centre in that agenda. What Trump calls reciprocal tariffs are no such thing. I watched him as he waved the US trade estimates report, a US document that clearly sets out that the average EU tariff is 5% on US goods. Fact and reality took a back seat last night when he went on to claim that the EU has tariffs of 39% on US products. What Trump did was an act of self-sabotage that will heap higher costs on US consumers. That is what tariffs do, especially blanket tariffs. We need to be careful not to step into the same space, risking jobs and higher prices for workers and families. We need to protect people struggling with a cost-of-living crisis from higher prices. Working people cannot be expected to pick up the tab from this mess that Trump has created.

This morning, I raised with the Minister for Finance the need for a very early assessment of the impact of these tariffs on particular sectors. That is what we need in order to make sure that the supports at State and EU level are in place. We need to see urgency in contingency planning, making sure supports for industries and workers are ready to go, if and when they are needed. We also need to actively look at how we de-risk the economy and mitigate the impact of these tariffs. The fact that pharma has not been hit with these tariffs buys us some time, but the reality is that we do not know how much time we have.

There are serious issues with regard to the all-Ireland economy now we have two different tariff rates on this small island of ours and, potentially, two different responses to those rates. I have been in contact with my party colleague the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland. I ask that those in government work hand in glove and in lock step with their counterparts in the Assembly. The first step in this regard would be to convene the North-South Ministerial Council without delay. I ask that this be done.

Yesterday, Deputy McDonald asked the Taoiseach to convene a meeting of the party leaders. I repeat that request and ask that such a meeting should take place without delay. We need to have a laser focus on things we can control. There are certain things we cannot control. We need to make sure our voice is heard in Europe. We also need to protect the all-Ireland economy and ramp up badly needed investment. We have been saying for years that we have allowed our competitiveness to slip. Businesses big and small have been telling us about the issues that are affecting us. We need investment in housing, infrastructure, energy, transport and childcare.

This is a time for cool heads. We need to take a breath and look at the reality of all options that are on the table. We also need clarity on the direction of travel of the Government. What position is the Government going to take at European Council meetings? Does it support counter-tariffs? The ESRI and the Department of Finance have told us that counter-tariffs will have a negative impact on jobs and will result in job losses and higher prices for Irish consumers. What is the Government's position on non-tariff measures? There has been speculation that tech could be in firing line. This would have a significant impact on Irish jobs. What contingency plans are in place? Is the Government looking at supports for particular sectors that will be impacted as a result of what has happened? Will it convene meetings of the various party leaders and of North-South Ministerial Council as soon as possible?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I begin by paying tribute to Mick O'Dwyer. It is with tremendous sadness that we learnt of the passing of one of Ireland's greatest GAA icons. His contribution to Irish sport and community life was extraordinary, particularly in his native county of Kerry, although we do like to claim a bit of him with the great joy he brought us in Wicklow and many other counties. I think of him and his family on his passing, and all of the GAA family as well. May he rest in peace.

I thank Deputy Doherty for the range of questions he posed. I agree with him that tariffs are bad. They are bad for Ireland, bad for Europe, bad for the US economy, bad for consumers, bad for growth and bad for jobs. The actions of the US President last night are deeply regrettable. It seemed clear, particularly in recent days, that President Trump was determined to have this moment - what I describe as a moment of chaos - in terms of the announcement of tariffs. This the biggest change in terms of trading approaches in probably a century. He has had that moment, and what now needs to happen is negotiation. If I am to try to find some glimmer of hope in a very dark and grim situation, it is that there were references to negotiation by the US President, the US Secretary of Commerce, with whom I spoke last week, and the US Secretary of the Treasury and in the executive orders signed by the US President. That is what needs to happen. There needs to be calm, measured and strategic consideration. This is the approach Ireland will take.

The Deputy asked a very direct question about counter-tariffs. I think he will agree that this was not the EU's idea. It was not Ireland's idea. We do not want to get into an escalatory tariff situation. I share that view. However, we have already had three hits by the US in this regard. We had an impact to the tune of €25 billion to €26 billion as a result of US measures relating steel and aluminium. There has also been an impact amounting to around €75 billion in terms of the decisions the US made regarding cars. The latter will have an affect on the prices that people across Europe will pay for cars. We do not yet have the quantity involved, but the impact of the announcements last night will probably amount to hundreds of billions. At some point, the EU, which has shown significant restraint, is going to have to say "Well, hang on a second, if you're not willing to negotiate and get round the table, there is going to have to be a response". The comments by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, earlier were balanced and restrained. The message is very clear - we want to talk, negotiate and find a way forward. The question is whether the US is willing to do that. The coming days will show that. The meeting of trade ministers in Luxembourg, which I will attend on Monday, will be an opportunity for the 27 member states of the EU to come together.

We will be carrying out early assessments of impact. Some of this has already happened. I have convened a meeting of the Government's trade forum for tomorrow. This involves business representative bodies and it will provide an opportunity to take stock.

On competitiveness and controlling what we can control, I have asked the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, to bring forward proposals to the Cabinet committee on the economy, which I chair, next Thursday in terms of what we can accelerate in the programme for Government around our economy, competitiveness and productivity.

In the context of party leaders and briefings, I have provided briefings. Deputy Doherty attended such a briefing on behalf of his party last week. I would be very happy to do that again tomorrow. In the context of whether there is a need for other forums or structures, we have to have a free flow of information. I am very clear on that. I want to do that and am very happy to make all information available so we can have informed debate, discussion and decisions.

Regarding the all-island economy, I came off a call ten minutes ago with the Deputy's colleague the Minister for the Economy in Northern Ireland, Caoimhe Archibald. I acknowledge the good job she is doing in trying to work her way through this. We met yesterday with the deputy First Minister and the Minister Archibald via video conference. We agreed to keep in very close contact because a differential is likely to exist from 9 April next.

The Deputy asked about non-tariff measures, which I think is the anti-coercion instrument. My view is that this would be the nuclear option and that we should seek to de-escalate rather than arrive at that destination.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that the North-South Ministerial Council is awaiting confirmation from the Government. This is important because there will be cross-cutting in terms of agriculture, finance, the economy and jobs. We need the type of all-Ireland approach that we saw during the Brexit negotiations in a very clear and effective way.

I agree with the Tánaiste's points about Trump and about the fact that Europe did not bring this upon itself. I am glad Europe has not gone with immediate counter-tariffs, but we need to be very careful in the context of the impact of any countermeasures. We know that countermeasures will increase prices for Irish consumers.

That is something that should not be tolerated in these circumstances. It will risk jobs and the public finances. The real question is: will counter measures bring Trump to the negotiation table? We need cool heads, negotiation and calm. During the first Trump Presidency, there were counter-measures and it did not result in his tariffs being reduced.

Is there discussion on non-tariff measures at an EU level? Is that in the sight lines of Europe? There is a big impact and a big risk for Ireland if it focuses on tariffs.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think I saw a comment from a spokesperson for the French Government today making some reference to that. I do not dismiss that but in the nearly daily conversations I have had with the trade Commissioner and those I have had with nearly a dozen European counterparts, the overwhelming majority view is to try to find a way to bring people around the table. The Deputy's question is valid. What gets the US Administration around the table? That is a judgement call that we have to work through together in the days and weeks ahead. I would make the point that the EU cannot not respond. There is only so much one can sit back and watch happen in terms of the impact on the European economy but any measures we take must be about trying to get to that negotiating table. I genuinely share that view.

The point on the North-South Ministerial Council sounds sensible to me but I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with anybody in government. Certainly, regular structured dialogue, North-South, east and west will be essential.

The Deputy referred to pharma earlier. We should not lull ourselves into a false sense of security here. This is just the start. President Trump has been clear he wants sector-specific actions on pharma. That is why it is really important that we work at an EU level. Yes, we have a large pharma industry here but we are not alone. There is about a dozen EU countries with a pharma industry. We have made that point to the Commission. The fact that next Tuesday, President von der Leyen will convene a strategic dialogue with the pharma industry is an important step but we should not fool ourselves that there are not further plans in relation to sector-specific plans in relation to pharma.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last night Donald Trump took aim at every traditional ally of the United States with a blunt and destructive economic weapon. The tariffs his administration has imposed worldwide risk plunging us all into a global recession. In his Rose Garden address, Donald Trump exhibited zero economic rationale for pursuing such an approach but perhaps proved why he is one of very few people in the history of the planet that ended up bankrupting a casino.

The President accused states, both friends and foe, essentially of fiscal grand larceny with no basis for these claims. The great deceiver that he is stated his tariffs were reciprocal, claiming the EU charging VAT justifies his tariffs. He even claims that these are discounted tariffs based on a made up 39% rate he claims the EU applies to the United States. Again, there is no basis to these claims.

There is a new reality coming to bear in the world and the United States, unfortunately, can no longer be trusted as an economy ally. In responding to this change in our relationship, the European Union needs to be measured but resolute. We need to be strategic in how we respond to these announcements with negotiations first but at the same time we cannot allow Trump to run roughshod over global markets without standing up to him. We need to react with urgency and not panic.

There is no doubt that Donald Trump is displaying traits of a wannabe strong man who sees an opportunity to damage democracies around the world. With only 25% of global citizens now living under liberal democracies compared with 50% in 2004, it is more important than ever that we take a stand against any attempt to weaken other democracies. We must resist the rise of the autocrat. We now need to play our role as a member of the EU to bring the US to the negotiating table but to do that we will have to stand firm with our allies and our allies will have to stand firm with us.

In this House, our focus must be on helping workers in Irish firms preparing for the threat of job displacement in vulnerable sectors. We in Labour, with a policy led by my colleague, Deputy Nash, want to see a new short-term wage subsidy scheme such as the German kurzarbeit model which would keep workers in their jobs in order to retain skills and employment in exposed parts of the economy during what will be a tumultuous period. We have been calling for this since the pandemic and the money to fund this scheme can be found in the Social Insurance Fund and the National Training Fund both of which are in substantial surplus. We also need to diversify our economy and we need to continue to invest in our infrastructure. We need to learn from the lessons of the past because if we are not careful, we will lose the ability to grow our economy through haemorrhaging our skilled people and economic attractiveness through underinvestment in public transport and housing infrastructure.

The Tánaiste has already hosted briefings and has said he will host more. I welcome that and I hope that they will continue. Will he confirm if the Government is considering a short-term wage subsidy scheme model or any other Ireland-specific model which will help keep workers in their jobs?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I share the Deputy’s view of some of what we heard in the press conference in the Rose Garden, and that is what it was. One must then work through the legal detail. We are already seeing that things, which were announced as coming in at midnight last night, are not coming in until 5 or 9 April, so there is a fair bit of teasing through beyond the headline announcements. Certainly, the European Union does not impose tariffs of anything like 39% on the United States. The European Union, of which we are proudly a member - the Deputy did not do so but we should not refer to it as being a distinct part - has been very clear that we want talks not tariffs. That is the approach we have been taking almost daily.

There was a view that President Trump was determined to have that Rose Garden moment before getting to the talks. We think that is regrettable. He has had that moment and now can we get on with the talking? That is the approach we should take. I agree with the Deputy and think he put it well when he said measured but resolute. There is a moment where we have to show President Trump that we are a very big economic block. There are 450 million of us and the economic relationship between the EU and the US is worth €1.6 trillion a year. It does not matter what anybody’s politics is; that is not a relationship that can be sniffed at. It matters. It matters to people who voted for him in terms of their jobs, well-being and the prices of their consumer goods. The moment has happened. He has had the big bang moment with the little charts and he has gone through all the tariffs. Now it is about calm, mature, and measured engagement.

I agree with the Deputy about the European unity piece. I am struck by the strength of European unity. I think it is for a couple of reasons. For one thing, we value our European membership, the European Union matters to all of us, but it is also because President Trump has decided to target so many different areas. Slovakia and Germany have big car industries. That has been one impact. Steel and aluminium have had a disproportionate impact on others. Of course there were the EU-wide measures yesterday and potential further measures on pharma. What is very clear is that different countries may feel a moment of pressure at different times but all of us across the European Union are badly impacted as is the US by a high tariff protectionist attitude to trade.

I agree that protecting jobs has to be our number 1 job collectively. Of course, it does. The Government will keep an open mind and will engage constructively on supports that may be required in the time ahead. I have heard colleagues make that point, including the Minister for enterprise today. Our State agencies, Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland, are at the trade forum and will be there again tomorrow as are business representative groups. We will always engage. We have a proud track record across successive governments of supporting Irish business but the first thing we must do is to try to mitigate and not accept this as the final outcome but take up the opportunity to negotiate, to try to negotiate down and to try to get to a better place. That has to be the first priority because that mitigation will do more to protect jobs, growth, investment and our economy than any single support scheme we may be able to put in place.

Those briefings will continue on an as required and regular basis.

Duncan Smith (Dublin Fingal East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It might be somewhat optimistic to think last night was a moment and now we can move on to negotiations. My fear is we will have more moments like this from the President of the United States. EU unity is easier on trade because it is the raison d’être of the EU. It is essentially a trade agreement between European states from which peace and prosperity will flow. Therefore, unity is strong and we should ensure that continues, without doubt. However, we can do things in Ireland, such as a short-term work wage subsidy scheme, the work for which has to be done now. The potential impact of these tariffs will emerge in the weeks, months and years ahead but we have to do the work now. Will the Tánaiste confirm if the Government is considering a short-term work wage subsidy scheme? Both ICTU and IBEC have previously called for such a support. Will supports such as those put in place during Brexit, such as a credit guarantee scheme or a new marketing fund, be considered? Will the Tánaiste confirm if there will be a comprehensive assessment of the companies impacted and, as best we can, the potential number of jobs that could be impacted?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very clear that there will be many moments - I think the Deputy is right about that – and there will be sector-specific moments to come. The point I was making was that in my engagement with the US Commerce Secretary and others it was very clear that the US was not mandated to engage or negotiate until after this liberation day as they bizarrely described it. That has happened and now we need to get on with the engagement and negotiation. The European Commission and the European Union needs to make judgment calls as to what is required to get into that meaningful process of engagement.

On looking at sectors and impacts, that work is already under way. On the impact on jobs, we have done some modelling. The ESRI has done some modelling, which has been produced. The main impact from a sustained period of tariffs in the first instance seems to be a slowdown in new job growth and employment growth. That is not good either, of course, but working to retain the jobs we have will be the absolute priority. I do not want to give a knee-jerk response to any specific scheme. We have a meeting of the labour-employer economic forum, LEEF, tomorrow. We will have a meeting of the Government trade forum. We are happy to engage and share insights and work with the Deputy on supports that may be required for the time ahead. The priority today and for the coming days is to mitigate the impact of the tariffs and get it to a better place.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the release of the draft I.S. 465 for public consultation last Monday. For a long time, homeowners affected by defective concrete have been calling for the recognition of science. The standard now recognises that pyrrhotite oxidation causes internal sulfate attack, creating deterioration in Donegal homes. It is incredible that the freeze-thaw action potential damage mechanism has been retained in the revised draft document. This despite international research, scientists, the Department of housing and the GSI-commissioned research clearly ruling the presence of mica causing freeze-thaw does not exist in Donegal homes.

I have a number of concerns that need to be addressed in due course but time does not allow this today. The table of options, particularly remediation, that featured in the previous document has been omitted in the revised draft I.S. 465. At first glance, this would appear to be a welcome development because it looks like there is only one solution, namely, full demolition. However, further scrutiny reveals a number of references to partial remediation, which is incredibly concerning. For example, on page 28, section 7.3.1.1 on sample selection, point (c) states: "where part(s) of the structure has been identified for potential retention". In page 39, section 8.2 states: "the chartered engineer shall recommend demolition and rebuild of all affected concrete block building elements to the client in the final [engineer's] report".

My question is twofold. Does this mean that every element, that is, rising walls, inner leaf and outer leaf, is considered separately? If one element of the building does not meet the threshold for removal, does this mean the element will be retained or does it mean the entire house will be demolished? It is unclear. In short, the revised version of I.S. 465 is seeking to provide the options for partial fixes to people's homes. The peer research report supplied by Ulster University and the NSAI is very clear. Severe deterioration of all components is inevitable and it is strongly suggested that these concrete blocks be replaced as part of the remediation solution.

The recent revision of I.S. 465 sets out sulfur levels in their tests of construction materials at 0.3% despite the fact that the European standard EN 12620 specifies a limit of less than 1%. That concrete test would equate to 0.2%. Can the Tánaiste explain why the NSAI recommends using a total sulfur level that is in conflict with EU standards?

I understand these questions are very technical but I would be grateful if the Tánaiste could come back to me with clarity. These standards could have very serious consequences for people building their homes in Ireland.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Ward for the question and his advocacy on behalf of his constituents in Donegal. I certainly will engage with him, as will the Government, on some of those technical matters. While I am taking the question, it very much relates to the testing standard that is used to evaluate the impact of defective concrete blocks. I realise this is an issue that is having a very significant impact and it is, as the Deputy has acknowledged, a complex issue as well.

The Government is allocating a significant amount of public money to affected homeowners. We are doing so to try to help enable them to rebuild their homes and get on with their lives. I cannot imagine the absolute misery, fear, pressure and stress - I am sure those words do not even capture it - that people are living with. I want to acknowledge that. We have seen funding increase significantly in 2025, I believe by over 50%, because the scheme is now ramping up. It is designed so that sufficient additional funding will be provided as required. The estimate is that the overall cost of the scheme will be in excess of €2.2 billion. Notwithstanding the challenges that I accept and the legitimate questions the Deputy is asking, over €2.2 billion is a significant commitment by this Oireachtas to those people to try to make progress. Our aim has been to make sure the scheme is designed and delivered in a manner that meets the real needs of homeowners in an efficient and effective way. My understanding is that there are more than 2,000 homeowners at various stages. The grant rates that were set and increased in 2024 are based on expert advice and based at a level to ensure homeowners will get the money they need to put their homes right.

In order to ensure that the grant scheme follows the most up-to-date science, changes were made to the scheme late in 2024 to take account of the most recent research and a forthcoming legislative Bill will make amendments to the grant scheme to allow these changes be implemented by the scheme's administrators.

Specifically on the testing standard, I will not profess to be an expert on the technicalities and I am certainly happy to revert to the Deputy via the Minister with further information. My understanding is that the public consultation on the NSAI standard has now commenced. I believe it commenced as recently as last Monday, 31 March. This is a milestone moment from a decision the Government made back in 2021 and funding provided by the State into the required research for the NSAI to undertake its work on revising the standards. The committees responsible for the research and drafting of the revised standard included officials from the Department. On conclusion of the public consultation period, the NSAI will finalise its review. It is expected to likely publish the revised standard in quarter 3 of this year. To assist in the evaluation of the new research and development underpinning the draft standard, the Minister's expert group has reconvened to provide advice on the implications for the defective concrete block grant scheme administered by the authorities.

I accept it is complex but it is also important for the reasons the Deputy has stated that we get this right. It has serious implications for homeowners. We will certainly keep in very close contact with the Deputy on this matter.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the concerns is the breach of EU regulations. The recommended total levels of sulfur they are recommending in this new version of I.S. 465 breaches EU regulations for concrete aggregates, namely, EN 12620, which limits the total sulfur level for concrete aggregate to 0.1% if pyrrhotite is present. The NSAI has set a total sulfur limit of 3% for testing defective concrete in this revised document, which is higher than EN 12620's 1%, because the test is for concrete, not raw aggregate. Raw aggregate is the problem. As we take into account additional sulfur contribution, it comes from the cement paste. Page 25 of the revised document states that 5% to 10% of this mass concrete would have total sulfur content of 0.1% where iron sulfides are absent. This is leaving it very vulnerable to needing to be revisited again. The NSAI has also recommended total sulfur levels of a threshold of 3%, despite the fact that anything higher than 2% means concrete aggregate would not comply with an EU standard.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I say sincerely that the fact he and constituents of Donegal have had to get into such a level of technical detail shows the complexity and seriousness of this issue for people in the constituency, and the seriousness with which the Deputy takes it as their representative. I would be happy to set up a technical briefing with officials from the Department of housing. I would also encourage the Deputy, his constituents and all Oireachtas Members from Donegal to fully avail of the consultation that is now open in respect of getting these standards right. The timeline is now clear. The consultation opened on Monday. It is expected that we will be in a position to adopt any revisions in quarter 3 of this year. There would be a number of policy matters to consider if the draft standard was adopted. For example, the scheme design has always had regard to scientific evidence. Decisions regarding the remediation of affected homes have been made in good faith on the basis of the current scientific evidence as set out in the existing version of the I.S 465 standard, which dates from 2018. As drafted, the replacement standard raises the issue as to whether scheme funding would need to be expanded to allow costs related to replacement foundations. There are a number of policy issues that we will have to address. In the first instance, we need to see the outcome of that consultation. I will certainly set up a briefing for the Deputy with officials on the technicalities.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last October, the former Minister for Health, Stephen Donnelly, announced that hormone replacement therapy, HRT, would be made free, which was widely welcomed. However, despite the scheme being scheduled to roll out in January, it has yet to be implemented, leaving women to continue paying for their medication. The Irish Pharmacy Union has highlighted several issues, including insufficient communication from the Department of Health, no IT system for the pharmacists' reimbursement and no fixed date for the scheme's commencement. Additionally, it looks like the scheme excludes GP consultation fees and pharmacy dispensing charges, leading to criticism that the term "free HRT" is misleading.

HRT typically costs a woman between €30 and €70 per month, amounting to as much as €840 annually. The scheme was supposed to alleviate this financial burden for women experiencing menopause. Furthermore, the cost of getting a prescription from a GP for HRT includes a GP visit fee of €50 to €70 and some pharmacies charge a dispensing of €5 to €10.

Pharmacists have contacted me and raised several concerns regarding the free HRT scheme. These concerns underscore the need for clear communication, a robust IT infrastructure and a well-defined implementation plan to ensure the scheme benefits those in need. Pharmacists flagged problems with the scheme from the time it was announced, particularly the misleading name "free HRT", which has caused confusion for patients who thought it would cover all costs, like the free contraception scheme. Patients still have to pay for GP consultations and pharmacy dispensing fees, significantly adding to their costs. Maybe, in hindsight, calling it a free scheme was a bit of a long shot.

Hormone replacement therapy has significant benefits and impacts women's lives. It can alleviate symptoms of menopause such as hot flushes, night sweats and mood swings, improve bone density and enhance overall quality of life. Women undergoing HRT often experience increased energy levels, better skin condition and improved emotional well-being. In Ireland, according to one report, 78% of women report that menopausal symptoms interfere with their daily activities and 31% use HRT to manage these symptoms. These benefits highlight the importance of making HRT accessible and free, as promised.

Time and again, we have heard the words "more" ,"mná" and "equality for women" in the Dáil. While I fully support women, I suggest that instead of merely talking about helping them, we should take concrete actions to support them. This scheme was supposed to make life easier for women but, as we know, it is not as straightforward as we were led to believe. For women, the choice between paying essential bills, such as the ESB bill, or covering the ever-increasing cost of food takes precedence over their own health needs. This should not be the case. Given these delays and the financial burden on women, can the Tánaiste provide a clear timeline for implementation of the HRT scheme and detail the steps being taken to resolve these issues?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Collins for raising this important issue. I should say about the comment on mná na hÉireann and the likes, I am very proud of a lot of the work we have done together in this House, often on a cross-party basis, to make progress on women's reproductive health, whether around contraception, repealing the eighth amendment or a number of other important steps. I accept we have much more to do. When I was Minister for Health, we established a new task force on women's health. It has been working through ever since with quite a number of outcomes.

The Deputy is quite right that there is understandable frustration - anger, I would say - from many around the country that this measure has yet to be fully implemented. My colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, is working intensively on this issue. In fact, we discussed it as recently as yesterday. She has had a number of direct meetings with pharmacists and their representative body to try to get this matter over the line. In addition, the Department and the HSE have engaged extensively with the Irish Pharmacy Union on the practical roll-out of the measure.

This measure matters for the reasons the Deputy outlined. When operational, it will cover any HRT medications and products that are reimbursable by the HSE and have been prescribed for the purpose of alleviating the symptoms of menopause. Reimbursement supports for the new HRT measure will be available to participating pharmacies from the date the measure formally commences. The Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, and officials in the Department are actively engaged in the matter. They want to see this introduced as an absolute priority. I would ask everybody involved in this today - representative bodies, the Department, the HSE - to let us all have a bit of give and take in order to get to a point where the scheme can be activated once and for all in a way that supports our pharmacists, whose great work in communities across Ireland I acknowledge, and, crucially, fulfils the policy objective of making sure these HRT measures are funded and available to the women of Ireland.

Progress has been made on women's health over the past number of years. It became clear in the work of the women's health task force that menopause was a neglected aspect of women's health. This led to an increasing focus on providing assistance to those experiencing menopause under the women's health action plan. This has included: a GP clinical lead for women's health, established in 2021 to lead on the improvement of women's health supports in the community; development of a new menopause theory course for GPs and GP trainees via the Irish College of General Practitioners; and development of a quick reference on menopause for GP and practice nurses. The "It's My Time" campaign was launched in partnership with Sport Ireland. It was aimed at encouraging women over 40 to increase physical activity levels, which can also be helpful in managing symptoms of menopause. We saw the launch of the first ever national menopause awareness campaign. A second phase of that campaign is now in place. We have six specialist menopause clinics open for women with complex experiences of menopause requiring specialist care. There is much work we need to do in this area but I hope these are strong signs of our commitment to the area. Delivering free HRT will be the next important step.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Tánaiste. Last October, the women of this country were promised free HRT, with implementation set for January. We are now into April but nowhere nearer a start date. It is incorrect for the Minister for Health to place the blame on the Irish Pharmacy Union. The delays are on the side of the Department of Health. Many people are contacting pharmacists expecting prescribed medication to be free under the assumption the scheme has already been implemented by the Government. It is unfair to blame the pharmacists for this confusion. To be honest and fair to the women of this country, when will this scheme be rolled out and will it be entirely free?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to be very clear, in that I am certainly not, and I hope no one in government is - I have not heard anyone in government doing this, and the Minister for Health certainly is not - blaming pharmacists at all. Pharmacists have an important role to play. In fact, in our programme for Government, we commit to wanting to see an expanded role for pharmacists and a new pharmacy contract. When properly and robustly financially supported, there is huge potential for pharmacists to do more. I know that from calling into them across the country. There is no blame game here at all. What there is is a new Minister in a new Government determined to get this issue over the line.

I asked everybody involved, including the pharmacists, to let us all have a little give and take and try to reach a resolution quickly. There is a lot of active engagement going on. I do not want to say anything disrespectful to that process but I am hopeful that the issue can be brought to a speedy resolution. It is important that it is. I accept it is going on too long. I accept women expected the measure to be in place before now. It needs to be brought to a finality and that is the Minister's priority.