I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, to the Chamber.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I want to raise the persistent neglect of horses in urban areas, in particular in Dublin. Earlier this month, we saw the tragic death of Anne, a pregnant horse who collapsed on the N4 near Ballyfermot following an illegal sulky race on Dollymount Strand. Anne was brutally beaten by her owners after collapsing from exhaustion, and abandoned and left to die on the side of the road. The images were horrific.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. The abuse of horses is a regular occurrence on our streets. Owners say they love their horses, but when we see the conditions they are living in we have to wonder whether that is true. We hear urban horse owners say they love their horses, but there does not seem to be much evidence of that. Other urban horse owners know who the perpetrators of the treatment and death of Anne in Ballyfermot are, but have not made that known to the Garda. They talk about urban horses, but there is no action or evidence they are committed to them.

Young children use small ponies like bicycles and playgrounds and show zero respect for them. People ride sulkies down the wrong side of the road during rush hour traffic, narrowly avoiding buses and cars and terrifying people around them. Horses are left tied to poles during the height of the summer with no water, and many have died from dehydration and neglect. There are illegal and unregulated stables across the city, with horses crowded into completely inadequate shelters in abandoned buildings or empty lots, exposed to the elements and often living in their own filth.

It is absolutely disgraceful how horses are being treated by their owners and supposed guardians. The State has completely failed to stand up for their welfare. The Garda has constantly said it does not have the resources to address these issues and gardaí can only stand idly by as animal cruelty takes place on a massive scale. We desperately need Garda units in each division, dedicated to ending animal cruelty and abuse so that incidents such as what happened to Anne and her foal are taken seriously and investigated properly.

We also need new legislation and better enforcement around sulky racing and horse carriages on public roads, banning them where it is dangerous. It is astounding to me that the current law governing the topic is the Dublin Carriage Act 1853. The effort to draw up new legislation to deal with this area was suspended as a response to Covid and has never been resumed. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have a shameful legacy when it comes to animal welfare and the complete neglect of the welfare of horses is just one example of this.

We urgently need an overhaul of our legislation on animal welfare and safety. I urge the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and his colleagues in the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration and Department of Transport to finally take this issue off the back burner and begin working towards ending the systemic abuse of animals in Ireland.

I thank the Senator for raising this important matter. As he referenced, the programme for Government contains a commitment to prioritise equine welfare and to build on existing inspectorate supports across the country, ensuring a consistent approach to dealing with horse welfare. The welfare of equines is protected by legislation. However, I must emphasise that primary responsibility for protecting the welfare of equines rests with the owner or keeper. As the Senator has identified, in some cases owners or keepers show scant regard for the welfare of their animals.

I am fully committed to supporting sustainable initiatives in line with the programme for Government and Ireland's animal welfare strategy 2021 to 2025, which is currently in the process of being renewed by the Department. To encourage the good care and welfare of horses throughout the country, over €2 million has been spent by the Department on urban horse projects to help address the issue of their care and welfare, with €170,000 allocated for these projects in 2026. The projects have proven very successful and work specifically on equine welfare in marginalised communities. I accept there are still unscrupulous individuals who have no regard for a horse or its welfare.

The projects provide education for young people in responsible horse ownership, including compliance with legal requirements and the proper and appropriate care of equines, with the objective of achieving higher standards for any horses they may come in contact with.

It is part of an education process that is trying to inculcate at a younger age an understanding of the needs of the animal and how they might be in a position to better care for their welfare as they progress through life.

Regarding the welfare of equines living in urban areas, the Control of Horses Act 1996 was introduced to provide for the control of horses and to make provision for the licensing of horses in urban and other areas where horses cause a danger or nuisance to people or property. The Act is currently under review within the Department. The operation of the Act comes under the remit of local authorities. Under the Act, local authorities may take a range of actions, including the prohibition of horses in certain areas, issuing of licences and the seizure of horses in contravention of the Act. These powers can be used in respect of straying horses, which includes horses put on land without the owner’s permission, and that includes public land. Local authorities may also prosecute offenders under this Act. Our Department provides financial support to help local authorities with the cost of these seizures.

The use of sulkies on public roads, which is the issue the Senator also specifically raised, as with the use of all vehicles, including animal-drawn vehicles, is covered by the relevant provisions of the Roads and Road Traffic Acts. Policy in connection with this legislation would be a matter for the Minister for Transport. I am not passing the buck and will certainly raise the Senator’s concerns with the Minister for Transport, Deputy O’Brien. The drivers of all vehicles used on public roads, including horse-drawn carriages, are required to comply with road traffic legislation and to behave in a safe manner, paying due care to other road users. The enforcement of such road traffic legislation is, as the Senator has identified, a matter for An Garda Síochána. I will certainly pass on his comments about this to the Garda. Of course, it is a resource issue, but it is for the Commissioner to allocate resources based on perceived risk and needs.

We are committed to the continued robust enforcement of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, which provides a modern framework for regulating and applying standards in the area of animal health and welfare. Under the Act, people in possession of a protected animal, including horses, must ensure the animal is kept and treated in a manner which safeguards their health and welfare. Failure to do this is considered an offence under the Act. In this regard, our Department and the authorised officers appointed under the Act, including An Garda Síochána, customs agents, local authorities and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, NSPCA, undertake appropriate enforcement action where breaches or shortcomings are identified.

In December 2025, the Department provided funding of almost €6.5 million to 94 animal welfare charities throughout the country under the animal welfare grants programme. Of that figure, just over €4 million was awarded to charities involved in the care and welfare of horses.

I thank the Minister of State, and I know he is as horrified as anybody else when he sees the way horses are treated. Sulky racing is a hazard not just for the public, but clearly for the horses that are treated abysmally. It is horrendous, and that poor horse on the N4 is just one of many that were treated brutally. We hear many people talking about how they love their horses, but we do not see much evidence of that from many people who are their guardians.

Clearly, legislation needs to be overhauled. We need to move on from the Dublin Carriage Act 1853. The Minister of State mentioned the money going to welfare services and rescues. If horses were to be seized and taken, there would not be any places for them. There needs to be an investment in all animal rescues. Dogs and horses are treated abysmally and the resources for the rescues that are picking up the pieces of Government failure are not sufficient. They are at their wits' end now and the pressure on volunteers working in these rescues is incredible.

I ask that the legislation be overhauled and that sulky racing be addressed as a matter of urgency.

I concur with the Senator regarding the volunteers involved in the various rescue efforts out there. I thank them sincerely for the work they do, and there is some financial support there.

I take the Senator's point regarding legislation, but you can have all the legislative provisions you want,and there is a considerable amount, but there is not an operational campaign or capacity to address it. Listening to what he has said and thinking as we are discussing the matter, there is certainly room for a co-ordinated approach to addressing this issue. The legislative provisions are there in respect of sulky racing, but it is about addressing it when it happens. I see it in my own constituency, where, on Sunday mornings or at times when there is less traffic on the road, a small cohort of people will carry on. That needs to be targeted. In the first instance, a useful tool to address this might be for some section of the local authority to act as a co-ordinator, identified with local councillors, etc., to try to bring the policing component in and the funding structure for services that cater for poorly treated or badly maintained animals. There is solid legislation to address this, but it is in putting that legislation into operation that there seems to be a gap. That might be something some of the Senator's colleagues on the local authority might try to bring together with some effort in that area. I am sure the Government will support that.

Fanfaidh muid leis an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Moynihan.

Tá brón orm ach níl an tAire Stáit, an Teachta Moynihan, anseo go fóill. Mar sin, leanfaidh muid ar aghaidh leis an Ní i dtosach suíonna in ainm an tSeanadóra McCarthy. We will come back to Commencement matter No. 2 when the Minister of State arrives.

I thank the Minister of State for being here to take this Commencement matter.

I wish to raise an issue that sits at the very intersection between mental healthcare, child protection and the rights of co-parents. It is an issue where there is ambiguity in the legislation, and it has already had devastating consequences. Before I begin, I wish to mention two guests of mine in the Public Gallery. One is Councillor Gayle Ralph and the other is Mr. Andrew McGinley. Many in this House will know Andrew's story. His children Conor, Darragh and Carla were tragically taken from him in circumstances that shook the nation. Andrew has shown extraordinary courage in channelling his grief into advocacy, seeking answers and reforms so that no other family experiences exactly what he has endured. I welcome him here today and I thank him for his continued commitment to child safety and clarity of legislation.

The matter I wish to address today is rooted in the simple but vital principle that when clinical decisions about a patient have implications for the patient's children or the co-parent, the co-parent must have the right to be fully informed, fully advised and fully supported.

No clinician should have the authority automatically to make decisions in isolation where the outcomes may directly impact the safety, welfare and rights of children and the other parent. Yet, this is precisely what happened in the McGinley case. Clinicians in this case made a decision to discharge a patient whom they regarded as suicidal, a patient who had explicitly stated she did not want to be around her children and did not want to go back home. This decision was made without informing her husband of her true diagnosis, disclosing the suicidal ideation and providing him with the necessary information to protect his own children. It is not a failure of compassion or of professionalism. It is a clear failure of the law and its clarity. It is a failure of the framework legislation regarding how clinicians are governed when it comes to balancing patient confidentiality with child protection and co-parental rights.

Two Acts are central here. One is the Children First Act 2015 and the other is the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. Both are very strong in principle. The Children First Act 2015 makes the welfare of the child paramount. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 protects the autonomy of individuals, while recognising that decision-making requires safeguards. When these Acts intersect in real clinical settings, this is where the situation becomes blurred. Clinicians have repeatedly expressed uncertainty about their obligations in this area. Some believe that confidentiality prevents them from involving a co-parent. Others are unsure whether the mandatory threshold for reporting has been met. In the absence of explicit statutory direction, decisions then vary widely. The problem is that this can be catastrophic, as we know in the case of Andrew McGinley's family.

Ambiguity in this area is not only a technical oversight but a safeguarding concern. It leaves clinicians exposed and also leaves co-parents uninformed. Children are then unprotected. What is needed now is clarity in the legislation that will ensure clinicians have a clear statutory obligation to consider the best interests of the child whenever a parent's mental health or decision-making capacity is in question. Clarity that ensures the involvement of the co-parent cannot be optional. It has to be an integral part of the process. Clarity that aligns clinical practice with the spirit of both Acts is essential.

I ask the Minister of State to indicate whether the current legislation adequately provides this clarity for clinicians. If not, as the evidence suggests, I ask her to commit to amending the legislation or issuing statutory guidance to remove any doubt. We owe it to families across this country to ensure the system is designed to protect children. It cannot fail them again. We owe it also to the memory of Conor, Darragh and Carla to ensure that lessons are not only learned but acted upon.

I thank the Senator for raising this important matter. Hello to Mr. McGinley. I am thinking of him at this time. It is not easy, but it is important that we raise this issue. As the Senator knows, I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Butler, who cannot be here today. She sends her apologies.

I understand that clarification on the question was sought from the Senator and it has been confirmed that it is relates to medical confidentiality and clinical regulation in relation to a person’s mental healthcare. With regard to family involvement in a person’s healthcare, including mental healthcare, the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health, Deputy Mary Butler, is fully supportive of the involvement of family members in the care and treatment of an individual, where consent is granted. Health outcomes tend to be better when a person has a support network of family members around them. People should be encouraged to involve their family members throughout their treatment journeys.

Where there is a need to do so, procedures are in place to allow clinicians to breach patient confidentiality in limited circumstances. This is true of clinicians operating in all areas of healthcare, including mental health. Medical Council guidelines also allow for clinicians to breach patient confidentiality where the clinician believes the person or another person to be at risk of harm. While the prediction of risk is never easy, this pathway remains available to clinicians. The decision to breach confidentiality or not, and whom to inform, is a decision of the treating clinician. Any review of Medical Council guidelines must be led by the Medical Council and informed by clinical practice.

Patient confidentiality is a cornerstone of medical ethics, particularly when it comes to consent. Where consent is concerned, mental health treatment is treated no differently to any other health area. It is at the discretion of the individual as to what and how much information they allow a doctor or service to disclose to their family members.

Sharing the Vision, Ireland’s national mental health policy, underpins the support for family involvement and, indeed, the support of family and loved ones is explicitly mentioned in two of the four service delivery principles, and referenced throughout the policy. Sharing the Vision clearly states there is a role for family, carers and supporters in a person's care and treatment and addresses the need for access to advocacy and care in the community.

As the Senator is aware, the new Mental Health Bill will also support the involvement of family members and loved ones, with the consent of the individual concerned, by explicitly stating that people accessing inpatient services may nominate a family member or other person with whom they can consult throughout their treatment and whom they can nominate to receive certain information about their care and treatment. However, as stated earlier, a pathway is already available to clinicians to breach a person's confidentiality where they believe the person could be a risk of harm to themselves or others.

I will highlight the matter raised by the Senator to the Minister of State, Deputy Butler.

I thank the Minister of State. She stated there is family engagement and it is a matter of discretion, etc. My fear is that the family in this situation was engaged with but the co-parent was not. It seems the greatest concern of the family, rightly, was their family member. However, it seems the children were missed. The co-parent, who has the responsibility for and interest in the children, was not informed. That is a big gap. Nobody engaged with him. We have to question, then, who is there for the children in this regard.

The Minister of State mentioned discretion. Andrew McGinley is sitting in the Public Gallery, and they were his children too. Why does one parent, who is being treated for mental health issues, have the right to make all the decisions while the other co-parent is not involved? The Finnish model is one area to look at in this regard.

I welcome the Minister of State's willingness to bring this issue to the Minister of State, Deputy Butler. I urge that this be done fairly swiftly. The greatest tribute we can offer Conor, Darragh and Carla is not sympathy alone but reform in this area, so that no other parent will have to sit in the Public Gallery, having lost his or her children to tragic circumstances.

I thank the Senator again, and Mr. McGinley in the Public Gallery. I assure the House that the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health is aware of the importance of family members being involved to the greatest extent possible in a person's care and treatment. People should also be encouraged, though, to involve their family members throughout their treatment. This is something the Minister of State is also working on.

Confidentiality is the cornerstone of medical ethics and is central to building a relationship between a clinician and a person under their care. Confidentiality applies equally across all the different health sectors and there are limited circumstances in which it may be breached. Chapter 29.2 of the Medical Council's Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners relates to disclosure to protect other individuals and in the public interest. It states:

There can be a public interest in disclosing information where the benefits to another individual or society outweigh the duty of confidentiality. This may occur in exceptional circumstances to protect individuals or society from risks of serious harm, such as from serious communicable diseases or serious crime.

Rather than read the rest of this statement, I will go back to the Minister of State and highlight that the Senator is seeking certain reforms to the system. He can be assured I will do so as soon as possible.

I thank the Minister of State for coming. It would have been much better to have the Minister from the relevant Department here because of the nature of this Commencement matter. It is pretty disappointing that the Minister is not here. Commencement matters should not be selected if the Minister in question is not available. The whole value of this was to be able to speak to someone from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Actually, I am not sure if there is much point in doing this, but anyway we are here now.

It is important that the Senator be informed if the relevant Minister is not going to be present.

I would have withdrawn this Commencement matter and submitted it at a more appropriate time with the Minister in question.

I suggest that the Senator should proceed.

The European Convention on Human Rights has played a crucial role in bringing peace to this island. It is the cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement and it is about an external mutual framework which has provided much-needed trust for communities emerging from conflict. The Irish Government has historically emphasised that any weakening of the ECHR poses a risk to the Good Friday Agreement. Irish governments have rightly been critical of the long-running campaign in Britain regarding the dilution of and withdrawing from the framework. Both the Tory and Reform parties have committed to pulling out of the ECHR and even the Labour government is debating withdrawing from certain elements of it.

Last September the Tánaiste said the ECHR's guarantees cannot be negotiated despite what some politicians might claim. Sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious. Protecting fundamental rights protects everyone. This is a sentiment I firmly agree with. However, in December last year Ireland signed the joint statement to the conference of ministers of justice at the Council of Europe which has served to blur Ireland position on the ECHR and indicates a deeply worrying shift in Irish policy. The Minister for foreign affairs has often spoken on the importance of international law and human rights, and Ireland's key role in upholding them and setting a strong example for the rest of the world. In January she said, "Accountability is important and it is absolutely imperative that the international courts are permitted to function". The Minister for justice has spoken of the need for an international human rights system. I also welcome those sentiments.

Let us not forget that Ireland has used the ECHR instruments. Both of the interstate cases Ireland has taken against the UK over the torture of the hooded men in the North in the early 1970s and the current case against the Tories' cruel legacy Act were done on the grounds of the Article 3 protections. In 2014, Ireland sought to revise the hooded men case to ensure that the threshold for torture was not undermined. Any attempts to change Article 3 provisions will damage global standards against torture and inhumane and degrading treatment for everyone.

The Good Friday Agreement relies on the ECHR and underpins peace on this island. This is why the joint statement by Ireland is so concerning for many, including IHREC and the ICCL. Even more confusing is that Ireland was once seen as a strong opponent of the Danish initiative last year but that changed in December. The joint statement seems utterly inconsistent with the previous position of the Government.

If the Minister for foreign affairs were here today, I would be asking her: what is the Government's position in the lead-up to the Moldova summit in May? What is her Department doing in the run-up to these negotiations? What position is Ireland taking on the CDDH? What will Ireland's approach be for the political declaration? The Secretary General has set out a very clear approach; will Ireland be aligning with that? Nothing in the political declaration should weaken the ECHR but some of the language being thrown around would pose significant risk to the integrity of the court and the convention. Will Ireland advocate for the protection of Article 3 and Article 8 and ensure that no measures are taken to weaken those articles? Have the Minister or her officials met IHREC, as the leading national human rights institution, to address its concerns regarding the joint statement and its recommendations on the political declaration? Has the Department responded in any way to the public submissions that IHREC has made? Critically, was an assessment made before the joint statement was signed as to the extent to which the joint statement would risk undermining Article 3 protections that have been so central to the Good Friday Agreement and the interstate cases that Ireland has taken against the UK, including the current case?

Ireland's credibility as a defender of international law is at stake. I hope we can get some much-needed clarity to allay the profound concern that many people in the human rights space have.

I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for foreign affairs and also justice as well. I take the point the Senator made at the outset. I will relay those points back through the system.

I want to underline Ireland’s long-standing and continued support for the European Convention on Human Rights and the role of the European Court of Human Rights as essential elements of the architecture of the rule of law in Europe. As a founding member of the Council of Europe, Ireland fully supports the Council’s essential role in promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law across Europe. We continue to advocate for and fully respect the independence and integrity of the court.

At the same time, as the Senator will be aware, there have been growing concerns among member states of the Council of Europe about ensuring a fair and effective migration system, while fully respecting the integrity of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the universality of human rights. Consequently, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe convened an informal conference of ministers of justice of the Council of Europe on 10 December to address these concerns. During this meeting, the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, reaffirmed Ireland’s support for the European Convention on Human Rights and for the European Court of Human Rights as vital components of the architecture of human rights protection and the rule of law right across Europe.

On the same day as the informal meeting of justice ministers, 27 member states, including Ireland, aligned with a joint statement that was delivered to the informal meeting of justice ministers. The joint statement reflects the concerns shared by many member states regarding the challenges arising in relation to migration and seeks to ensure that the convention is understood and applied in a way that protects fundamental rights, while at the same time recognising the contemporary challenges posed by the management of migration.

The significance of the convention as a core safeguard of the Good Friday Agreement is well recognised by the Government and by the current British government. We are unwavering in our determination to maintain that support.

As the Tánaiste said in Oxford in September of last year, “The ECHR’s guarantees cannot be negotiated away”. I can confirm that this unwavering determination to maintain the convention as a safeguard of the Good Friday Agreement was to the fore in the decision-making process around Ireland joining the December joint statement. In that regard, the joint statement notes the commitment of the signatories to international law and the European Convention of Human Rights as a cornerstone of this international order and reaffirms our commitment to the convention and our support for the work and independence of the European Court of Human Rights.

We remain committed to maintaining and upholding the convention, including on the island of Ireland where it is a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement, and respecting the vital work of the court in its efforts to uphold fundamental rights across Europe.

Ireland's decision to align with this joint statement was taken after careful consideration. The Government believes that it is important to acknowledge that the member states of the Council of Europe, including Ireland, are interested in ensuring a fair and effective migration system, while fully respecting the integrity of the convention, including the universality of human rights.

On foot of that informal conference of ministers of justice of the Council of Europe, the member states have agreed to work towards the adoption of a political declaration addressing contemporary migration challenges in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, while ensuring full respect for the convention. This process is now being taken forward by the steering committee on human rights at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. We are following these developments extremely carefully. Ireland is actively engaged in discussions within the Council of Europe on the preparation of elements of this political declaration.

I ask the Minister of State to outline specifically and to be clear on whether Ireland will advocate for the protection of all elements of Article 3 and Article 8. We cannot pick and choose fundamental rights; they are fundamental. The Minister of State has said the Government is unwavering. There was wavering in December; the joint statement represented wavering. The Minister's comments in his speech in December regarding the need for clarity about inhumane and degrading treatment are concerning. Case law from the ECHR makes it clear that Article 3 is a non-derogable right. The court's case has established an incredibly high threshold for treatment to be considered inhumane and degrading. To amend the threshold via the proposed political declaration threatens the judicial independence of the court and erodes rights protections.

Ireland has wavered. That is why I am asking for confirmation on the exact steps Ireland will take in the run-up to the Moldova declaration. I am not clear if an assessment was made regarding the Good Friday Agreement. I know the Minister of State said the Government upholds it but I am not clear exactly what assessment of risk was taken.

The Minister for justice, when he was asked by my colleague, Deputy Gannon, could not provide any figures for the number of deportations blocked through the ECHR or the European Court of Human Rights. In regard to that migration piece in Article 3 and Article 8, they are fundamental rights and if we chip away at them, we actually do chip away at the whole international system and international law.

I can assure the Senator that the Good Friday Agreement was a very hard-fought and hard-won agreement across the island of Ireland almost 30 years ago. The Senator spoke about an assessment, and when it comes to any international agreement or anything that would undermine or challenge it, all of Government and the entire island is very mindful to ensure nothing undermines the Good Friday Agreement. The commitment from this Government and many previous Governments is that we will not undermine it. It is crucially important to maintain that.

In regard to the substantive issue of the adoption of the political declaration addressing migration, we consider that there is a need for such discussion to take place at the Council of Europe. The view is widely shared by member states. In this regard we believe that discussions on these matters can usefully be guided by the input of experts on human rights, law and migration policy who can contribute to ensuring the continued protection of human rights across Europe. We are ensuring the appropriate legal expertise is drawn upon as the discussions progress. We are also continuing to take all necessary steps to ensure the integrity of our international protection process is maintained at all times. As I explained earlier, we remain completely committed to maintaining and upholding the convention, including on the island of Ireland, where it is the cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement, and respecting the vital work of the court in its efforts to uphold fundamental rights and protection across Europe.

There are a number of other issues I will get clarity on and I will ask the Department to respond directly to the Senator.

I want to make a point for the record. It is nothing to do with the Minister of State but I understand that, under Standing Orders, I am now unable to submit a similar Commencement matter for six months. I would have withdrawn it and waited to have the Department here. It is very frustrating when the Department does not inform us in advance that not one Minister under its brief will be present to answer the questions. I do not think it respects the integrity and role of this House.

I fully support that. I have made the point on numerous occasions that if the line Minister or Minister of State is unable to attend for whatever reason that, at the very least, the Senator would be informed of that. It gives the Senator the option to withdraw the Commencement matter and resubmit it at a time when the Minister can be present. That is a very valid point.

I understand. I hear the point and I will report it back.

I thank the Minister of State.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to discuss my Commencement matter. My question is about the EU safe hearts plan. Under the plan, every country in the EU is supposed to put in place its own cardiovascular plan. We have not had a proper plan since 2019. The last major plan was from 2010-19. While there is a lot of work being done in the area, I believe we should have a modern EU safe hearts programme. It is about blood pressure, stethoscopes, cholesterol, lipids, diabetes, risk, atrial defibrillation, pulse rhythm checks and proactive follow-up with people who are at high risk.

Ireland is facing the EU Presidency and we have a key role to play. We will hold the Presidency from July to December. I would like an update on what the Minister and Department of Health will do in this area. Even in recent times there have been huge risk factors to do with people with cardiovascular disease and there has been a higher uptick in the number people presenting with conditions. Ireland needs to lead the charge in this area of health. We need a safe hearts plan and a cardiovascular disease strategy. What are the timelines for publication and implementation nationwide? When does the Minister of State expect that to happen? It is about early detection and the relatively low-cost interventions that prevent high-risk crises. That is the key thing here. I look forward to the Minister of State's response.

I thank the Senator. As she said, awareness of cardiovascular disease and strokes is important, as is the face, arms, speech and time, FAST, messaging. The main thing is to get to people quickly. I thank Senator Byrne for facilitating the opportunity to discuss this important matter of cardiovascular disease policy. I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, who cannot be here today. Cardiovascular disease encompasses a range of conditions, including heart attack and stroke. It remains a leading cause of death in Ireland and a significant contributor to hospital bed days in our hospitals. Ireland has made progress in tackling cardiovascular disease. Today, cardiovascular disease mortality is about half the level recorded in 1995, but this still accounts for 27.8% of all deaths in Ireland, which is something we are monitoring. The absolute number of cardiovascular disease cases has increased due to the rise in population and Ireland’s ageing demographics.

Work is ongoing to finalise priorities for the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. It is envisaged that prevention, including for cardiovascular health, will be one of the themes of our Presidency programme. The Minister is saying this will be one of the priorities. Irish officials, working closely with EU colleagues, contributed to the development of a new Council conclusion on the improvement of cardiovascular health, adopted on 3 December 2024, marking a strong political commitment to tackling cardiovascular disease across Europe. On 16 December 2025, the European Commission published safe hearts, the EU cardiovascular plan, whish the Senator spoke about. It is a landmark initiative aimed at reducing premature deaths by improving prevention, early detection and treatment, while also driving innovation.

Ireland contributed to the OECD report, the State of Cardiovascular Health in the European Union, which provided an evidence base for the safe hearts plan as well as sharing a call for evidence with relevant stakeholders. Ireland’s active role in shaping these policies reflects our ambition to strengthen cardiovascular health outcomes for our population and contribute to a healthier Europe. On 8 April 2025, the national review of adult specialist cardiac services in Ireland was published. The comprehensive, evidence-based report provides 23 key recommendations on cardiac health policy. Department officials are now working closely with the HSE to progress the implementation of these recommendations. This is a complex, multi-year reform programme that will ensure a comprehensive and deliverable approach in achieving outcomes.

Cardiovascular health was prioritised in budget 2025, which allocated over €9 million in full-year funding to support vital cardiovascular initiatives. Budget 2025 allocated €4 million for full-year costs, and 45 whole-time equivalents, WTEs, to progress cardiac services. To date, 28 of these 45 WTEs have been prioritised. This investment facilitates the initial steps in cardiac services reform and will support the development of a new cardiovascular strategy as committed to in the programme for Government. In the short term, we will deliver enhanced cardiac services and develop the necessary structures to ensure success in the longer term.

With regard to services for stroke, the national stroke strategy was published in 2022 and over €13 million has been allocated to its implementation to date.

The stroke strategy aims to modernise our stroke services in line with Sláintecare and ensure the future readiness of services, given the ageing demographic and the predicted rise in stroke incidence in coming decades. The Government is committed to supporting our population screening programmes, which are a valuable part of our health service, enabling early treatment and care for many people and improving the overall health of our population.

The national screening advisory committee, NSAC, is the independent expert group that considers proposed changes to Ireland's screening programmes. The NSAC assesses the evidence in a robust and transparent manner to ensure that our screening programmes are effective, quality assured and operating to safe standards, and that the benefits of screening outweigh the harms. The NSAC has previously received proposals through its call-for-submission process, calling for the introduction of a screening programme for structural heart disease. After reviewing the submissions received, the NSAC decided not to refer the applications for further consideration by the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, at this time.

In addition to population-based screening programmes, our GP chronic disease management programme is entering its sixth year of operation. This programme includes opportunistic screening for a range of cardiovascular and other risk factors when patients attend their GP with another condition. The programme has expanded its services based on its success to date. For example, familial hypercholesterolemia will be added to the list of risk factors screened this year.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. I am delighted that Ireland will be prioritising it as part of our EU Presidency.

The bottom line here is for a new Irish strategy to commit to screening coverage, rapid referral pathways and targeted outreach, especially in deprived areas, because early detection is the fastest route. The Minister of State referred to that. It leads to fewer deaths, less disability and a healthier workforce. That is what we want to achieve here in Ireland.

I thank the Minister of State. I am looking forward to working with her and hearing an update whenever the Department has the final plan.

Absolutely. The Government welcomes the development of the EU safe hearts plan, which was published in December 2025. The plan offers an opportunity for the EU to strengthen strategies for prevention of cardiovascular disease.

The Senator is correct, in that it is about early detection and prevention, and other diseases have shared common risk factors. We have to be mindful of the latter, too. A flagship initiative, the safe hearts plan, will see the European Commission supporting countries to update or develop national cardiovascular plans in line with EU best practice by 2027, but I will definitely keep the Senator updated. This will support delivery of our programme for Government commitment to develop a national cardiovascular strategy that seeks to address and identify gaps in research, prevention, treatment and access to cardiovascular care.

The safe hearts plan also includes a Council recommendation on the EU-wide standard approach to cardiovascular health checks. This initiative will support national approaches to the development of cardiovascular screening programmes in primary care such as our GP chronic disease management plan.

As Minister of State, I will go back to the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill. I will get the Senator more information on this. It is important that the Senator get dates, times and what the plan is going forward for our EU Presidency. It is important for our country to hold the EU Presidency, and health, as the Senator knows, is so important. I will come back to the Senator when I get more information.