I can assist the Minister as I see the reference now. Section 21(1)(b) states: "the removal of the organ for the purpose of transplantation is solely for the therapeutic benefit of the recipient and there is no other alternative therapeutic method of comparable effectiveness". It seems that this provision envisages only a one-to-one donation. That is my reading of the wording.

That is the pairing arrangement where there is a donor and a recipient. What I am saying is that we should future-proof the legislation to allow for a swapping arrangement where there may be more than two people involved.

I will not take up the time of the Dáil on this. I ask the Minister to send me a note because that is not my reading of it. It would seem to be quite explicit based on the existing wording. If there is a different interpretation, I would be interested in seeing it in writing.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 27, line 33, after “recipient” to insert “or recipients in the case of an approved State sharing scheme,”. This amendment is quite explicit so I will press it and amendment No. 15.

I move amendment No. 15: In page 29, line 9, after “recipient” to insert “or recipients in the case of an approved State sharing scheme,”.

When the Minister explained the core of this a minute ago, he said that we must get the message across that we are all regarded as having opted in but the other part of that needs to be spelt out as well because it is the assumption of people being considered to have opted in that is of concern to some people. The other side of the new measure is that ultimately the family of the person concerned can opt out. The final decision is theirs. We need to keep on saying that. When we talk about opting in, we should say t…

No. I would prefer two years but I am not pressing it. I accept the Minister's amendment, which is welcome.

I welcome these amendments, which are extremely important. It is an area that is extremely emotive and that can be traumatic for the family of the deceased individual, particularly where that individual is a baby or young child. It is important that there is regulation in this area. Sometimes people working in this area can view human tissue as something for research purposes and can overlook the fact that this is a part of an individual who is deceased and who was a loved and valued individual. To that extent, we …

I join with others in commending and thanking everybody involved in the production of this legislation, which is very weighty. There is no doubt about that, and a huge amount of work went into it. I also acknowledge the contribution of the Irish Kidney Association and indeed other groups and individuals that have assisted in improving the initial draft of this legislation. I welcome the fact that we are moving to a new opt-out system and that legal certainty is being brought to it. I welcome the Minister's commitme…

I understand the intent of this, and I agree with the intent but I am concerned about the timescale involved in this. I do not think we have 24 months. The whole issue of vaping among young people has really escalated in the last year or two, and particularly in the last six months. This issue is now coming up at residents' association and community meetings. I am sure everybody is hearing that. It is coming up, first of all, from an environmental perspective. We know that where opinion polling has been done on thi…

I move amendment No. 2: In page 10, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “ PART 2 REGULATION OF NICOTINE INHALING PRODUCTS 11. (1) The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, notify the European Commission under Article 24(3) of Directive 2014/40/EU of his intention to regulate each of the following: (a) the sale of disposable nicotine inhaling products; (b) the flavouring of nicotine inhaling products; (c) the packaging of nicotine inhaling products; (d) the advertising of nicotine i…

I do not deny that what the Minister has done in this Bill is welcome, insofar as it goes, but it does not even half do the job. This is primarily about banning the sale of vapes to those aged under 18 years. We all hope that will work, but there are so many other aspects to this. Those aspects have been pointed out by many different organisations and by the health committee. They were pointed out to the Minister 16 or 17 months ago, as I said, yet he did not take them on board. He is now saying he is going to do i…

Does the Minister accept that the deficit in this year's health funding was identified in the early months of this year by a number of people in the HSE and the Department? We have seen that those concerns about the risk were very well founded. Does the Minister accept the fact that there was a problem with the allocation made this year and that this will have a clear knock-on effect in 2024?

The Minister says that control of the budget is a matter for the Minister for Health, which is true, but the issue is the size of the allocation which is, in effect, determined by the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. It is the quantum of the allocation that we are talking about and it is the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform which decides that. Just in the past week, Mr. Bernard Gloster made it very clear that two signific…

Over the past couple of years, a major reform programme, Sláintecare, has been under way in the Department of Health. That involves a movement to a new, lower cost model of care. We have heard from the chief executive of the HSE, the Minister for Health and the Secretary General of the Department of Health that there is real progress being made. We would all agree that progress is being made on moving to that new model of care, which is a lower cost model. That does not happen without incurring a cost. You do not c…

There is an element of parallel models while you are moving to the new one. However, there was clearly momentum with the progress being made. That is now going to be slowed down. Can the Minister stand over this badly needed reform of the health service being slowed down as a result of the allocation from his Department, because that is what all of the senior people in health claim is happening?

Did the Minister use the term "find ways"?

My question was on the need to continue that reform.

Absolutely but they need to be funded.

It was a straight question and it would be good to get a straight answer.