Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jan 2002

Vol. 5 No. 1

Public Health (Tobacco) Bill, 2001: Committee Stage.

This meeting has been convened for the purposes of consideration by this committee of the Public Health (Tobacco) Bill, 2001. I welcome Deputy Martin, the Minister for Health and Children, and his officials to this meeting. We shall consider the Bill until 6 p.m. with a break from 1 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. for lunch. If we do not conclude the Bill today, we shall resume at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

There is one typographical error I should like to draw to the attention of the committee. Amendment No. 152 is incorrectly listed as an amendment to section 22 of the Bill. It is an amendment to section 23.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, subsection (1), line 26, after "Health" to insert "Protection".

The purpose of the amendment to change the Short Title to "Public Health Protection (Tobacco) Bill, 2001". The Bill should be specific about what it sets out to do. It is not only concerned with regulating the sale of tobacco but also with protecting the health of people and preventing young people from becoming addicted to tobacco.

I am concerned with some sections of the Bill, especially section 46 which deals with the prohibition or restriction on smoking of tobacco products, because they do not address issues the committee dealt with on two occasions and in two separate reports, the first written by Deputy Shatter and the second written by me on behalf of the committee, where the committee unanimously recommended a ban on smoking in public houses. The first draft of my report suggested that there be places in public houses where the ban would apply but the all-party committee did not consider it went far enough.

According to statistics supplied by the Department of Health and Children, 7,000 deaths each year are directly attributable to smoking. The rate of lung cancer has increased from 9.7% 30 years ago to over 20% at present, even though it is the most preventable of disease. Even more worrying, according to statistics in the United States, indirect smoking is the third biggest killer, ahead of road traffic accidents and behind direct smoking and alcohol. Based on a comparable population, it can be speculated that up to 900 deaths per year in this country can be attributable to indirect smoking. People attending pubs who do not smoke end up indirectly smoking the cigarettes of others. At one time it was never thought possible that smoking in cinemas, on the top deck of buses or in the workplace would be banned, yet that has happened.

Tobacco is the greatest cause of the 900 deaths that arise from indirect smoking. In section 46, the Minister proposes to lift all restrictions on the places where smoking is to be banned, yet the list covers most places where there is already a ban on smoking, such as theatres, schools and public service vehicles. Pubs are not mentioned. This allows the Minister to say he can use regulations granted to him under section 43 and impose a ban on pubs at a later time. However, it also allows him to tell those in the pub industry that he will not proceed on that basis. This is no way to enact legislation. We need to set out where the ban is to apply.

This problem is most acute in pubs. Why does the Bill fail to mention that? The Minister should accept the amendment so that we are clear about our intentions.

The proposed amendment adds nothing to the Short Title, which is the Public Health (Tobacco) Bill. The legislation is clearly concerned with the issue of public health and I see no necessity to accept the amendment. Deputy Mitchell referred to the separate issue of regulations banning environmental smoking or smoking in public places. The primary legislation encompassed by this Bill will give any Minister far stronger, indeed absolute, powers to prohibit smoking tobacco in a variety of public places, including those mentioned in the Bill. A place may not be mentioned but it can still come under the remit of the Bill.

To satisfy Deputy Mitchell and to allay all doubt a later amendment in my name mentions the workplace, pubs or licensed premises, and they will be added to the list. Despite that we have included at the end of the list the catch-all phrase "all or part of any other premises or place". Let us not make political points here.

I also have an amendment dealing with that aspect and I hope the Minister's amendment meets my concerns. Nobody who wants to visit a pub for a drink should undergo the risk of becoming infected with cancer as a result of another person smoking. I am entitled to choose not to smoke. Others may do so, provided they act within the law. However, the law should not allow smoking in public houses when it is banned in other places. This is especially the case when the greatest source of secondary smoking is public houses.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3 is an alternative to amendment No. 2 and amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are consequential on amendment No. 32. I therefore propose to take amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 32 together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, subsection (2), lines 32 and 34, to delete all words from and including "subsection (1)” in line 32, down to and including “section” in line 34 and substitute “section 8”.

In its submission, ASH pointed to an irregularity in the way the Bill had been drafted because there was no subsection (1) to section 8. The Minister has proposed an alternative amendment, which is related amendment No. 32. Reference is made to section 8(1), yet there is no such subsection. If this is an error it is a cause of concern.

It is a typographical error which a later amendment in my name will correct.

I am surprised because it is such an obvious error. Anybody checking would see there is no such subsection. In checking legislation such as this, and the Minister is planning to put legislation into the Constitution, it is a reminder, given such an obvious error, that the preparation for such debate may not be 100%. Does the Minister have parliamentary counsel in the Department?

You have not yet. Do you expect to have them?

It is an issue we are pursuing in terms of whether we establish a legislative unit within the Department which is what we want to do. We are working in conjunction with the Attorney General's office and the Department of Finance in progressing that issue.

I support the Minister fully and encourage him to continue his efforts.

The amendments I put forward are drafting amendments which were agreed with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government. These amendments must be considered in conjunction with the amendment to section 8. The purpose of the two amendments is to ensure that existing regulations will not be revoked until such time as we are in a position to replace them with new regulations under this Bill. No provision of the Bill will commence without the Minister making a commencement order and the Department will have to ensure that all the provisions of existing regulations are replicated in new regulations before simultaneously commencing these relevant provisions and revoking the existing regulations. We want to ensure the status quo applies until the new regulations are introduced.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, subsection (2), line 33, to delete "regulations effected by subsection (2)” and substitute “(or different provisions of) regulations effected by subsection (3)”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, subsection (1), after line 36, to insert the following:

" 'Act of 1978' means the Tobacco Products (Control of Advertising, sponsorship and Sales Promotion) Act 1978,".

Amendment agreed to.

We come to amendment No. 5. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are alternatives. Amendment No. 5 is consequential on amendment No. 8 and amendment No. 12 is consequential on amendment No. 5. It is proposed to discuss amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, subsection (1) to delete lines 3 to 21 and substitute the following:

" 'advertisement' includes, in relation to a tobacco product, every commercial communication whose main, secondary or incidental aim or effect is to promote a tobacco brand or to promote tobacco use;".

Such is the great omen here that I am seriously thinking of doing the Lotto this evening there are so many amendments being taken together. The next one groups about 40 amendments together. I do not know how we will follow that. Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12, which are related, are in the names of my colleagues and I.

The definition of "advertisement" is dealt with mainly in amendment No. 5. There is concern that these definitions do not go far enough. A key test for such definitions is whether they would ban the broadcasting of formula one races on Irish television. The Minister needs to deal with this and reassure the committee on the definition and how comprehensive it is. That is the reason I commend amendment No. 5 to the Minister. The deletion of the word "reasonably" in page 6, line 14, of the Bill would be an improvement. Part of the definition reads:

in circumstances where such statement, display or publication may reasonably be regarded as a recommendation of the product to the public,

I do not know why the word "reasonably" is included to qualify it. Should it not read: "in circumstances where such statement, display or publication may be regarded as a recommendation of the product to the public"? Will the Minister explain the reason for this?

Amendment No. 7 has been tabled by Deputy McManus. Amendment No. 8 proposes, in page 6, subsection (1), between lines 21 and 22 to insert:

" 'advertises' means to commission, publish or broadcast an advertisement;".

That would strengthen the intent of the Bill and I ask the Minister to consider accepting that amendment.

Furthermore, in amendment No. 12 I propose in page 6, subsection (1), between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

" 'commercial communication' means any form of communication designed to promote, directly or indirectly, the goods, services or image of a company, organisation or person pursuing a commercial, industrial or craft activity or exercising a regulated profession;".

I mean "commercial communication" in terms of the objectives of the Bill. I ask the Minister to consider these amendments because the definitions seem to give the Minister additional strength which he tells the committee he wants to pursue these matters.

I urge the Minister to accept amendment No. 5 in the names of Deputies Mitchell, Neville and Ring on the definition of "advertisement" and also amendment No. 6 which seeks the deletion of "reasonably" in page 6, subsection (1), line 14. There is a weasel word element to the placing of "reasonably" in this context. The Bill refers to "advertising" as a statement, display or publication which may reasonably be regarded as a recommendation of the product to the public. What does that mean? What is reasonable from the perspective of the tobacco companies is not reasonable from the perspective of the medical profession. In a sense it is a subjective term and yet what are talking about is inserting objective terms into legislation to circumscribe the activities of tobacco companies whose products are, literally, the cause of death and ill health to millions of people across the world. The proposal to delete "reasonably" is a worthwhile one. If legislation is so open to interpretation, it becomes ineffective and becomes a block to court action being taken because courts vary and judges' opinions vary. It becomes an obstacle in itself because of the difficulty of trying to argue a case that is consistently interpreted in the courts and because of human nature being what it is. I urge support for the deletion of the term "reasonably".

My amendment No. 7 highlights a form of influence by tobacco companies which is not sponsorship which already is dealt with, but patronage which is a different form of influence that tobacco companies have used very effectively. The argument put forward very cogently by ASH Ireland is that we need to be aware of how insidiously tobacco companies operate. Tobacco companies can ensure that they have influence in society in ways that are not overt but are clearly effective. Tobacco companies say: "we give out this money, no favours asked and none granted". Tobacco companies are not charitable institutions. By their own articles of incorporation, when they spend money it has to be for the furtherance of the objectives of the company. That is an important point that one should remember. There is an extraordinary situation at present where there is patronage by tobacco companies within educational establishments. The example taken by ASH Ireland is the PJ Carroll Chair of Marketing at UCD, a chair which is there because of the patronage of the tobacco company which happens to have a base in Ireland and employs many people.

Subliminally or otherwise, it reinforces a view that the role of tobacco companies is good, in particular, among young people because the companies are making a contribution to a third level institution. The UCD website even lauds it as something of value. This cuts across the purpose of the Bill. Third level institutions should not take money from tobacco companies. Even if it is legal, it is simply unacceptable. I challenge universities to explain how this kind of relationship and the close dependence on a tobacco company or companies contributes to furthering the aim of university which is, I presume, to educate people for life.

This omission needs to be dealt with effectively by the Minister. He has made many statements about dealing with the tobacco companies and public health problems caused by tobacco. It is deeply disturbing that it is primarily young people who are taking up smoking in huge numbers and that levels of smoking here are almost the highest in Europe. This is an opportunity to challenge and reduce one aspect of the influence and power of tobacco companies.

I will deal first with amendment No. 5 tabled by Deputy Gay Mitchell. It contains a definition of "advertisement" which includes television and commercial communications. I am strongly advised that these are included in our definition. The definition in the amendment is very broad in so far as it includes, in relation to tobacco product, every form of recommendation of the product to the public. Sections 2 (1) details the nature of the kind of advertisements covered in the definition where it says:

(a) (i) a statement of the name of a manufacturer or importer of a tobacco product, the name of any brand or tobacco product, or

(ii) a statement of any trade description or designation, or a display or other publication of a trademark, emblem, marketing image or logo, by reference to which the product is marketed or sold, in circumstances where such statement, display or publication may reasonably be regarded as a recommendation of the product to the public.

and

(b) A statement of the properties of the product on a label, container, wrapper or package used for the product or in a leaflet, circular, pamphlet or brochure issued to the public or given to a purchaser of the product,

As the phrase "every form of recommendation of the product to the public" is meant to encompass every form of communication, we did not define specific forms of communication of which there are a variety. I am satisfied the definition of advertisement is all-encompassing and strong enough.

Parliamentary counsel strongly advises against the deletion of the word "reasonably" which is a standard legal term used in legislation of this kind. Were a dispute to arise in this area, it would be a matter for the courts to arbitrate or take a decision.

There are two ways of looking at the issue. The tobacco industry may also take a very negative view of the definition because it will means that a person who reasonably regards something as an advertisement is entitled to take action.

That is my point. It can mean anything one likes.

This term is used time and again in legislation. It is a standard defence in the legislative context. I will return to the parliamentary counsel to see if it can be strengthened and will convey to him the Deputy's opinion with a view to getting legal advice on changing it.

Perhaps the Minister could also ask for a definition.

I will introduce amendment No. 213 when we reach section 36 which deals with the promotion of sponsorship. It states:

"36.-(1) It shall be an offence for a person to give financial or other assistance, or cause financial or other assistance to be given, to or for the benefit of a person, or for or in relation to an event or activity, in consideration of the-

(a) use, display or advertising by the person, or at the event or activity concerned,

(b) association with the person, event or activity, or

(c) promotion, of a tobacco product, the name of a tobacco manufacturer or importer, the name of a brand of tobacco product or a trademark, emblem, marketing image or logo used in the marketing of a tobacco product.

(2) It shall be an offence for a person to receive financial or other assistance to which subsection (1) applies.”.

I agree very strongly with the statement of Deputy McManus that third level education institutions should not accept any form of assistance from a tobacco company. However, according to legal advice, our definition of sponsorship now covers what would be termed "open patronage". As a result, the parliamentary counsel is of the view that we do not need a separate definition of patronage.

There is another issue. If no written agreement exists, how will one legally enforce the legislation in the case, for example, of an individual who genuinely wishes to give a grant to an individual or institution such as a castle without drawing attention or publicity to it? I will assume the role of devil's advocate. Will we debar such a person from making a contribution to charity? I am slightly worried about the position of Newman House and Birr Castle, particularly the former. I want to be absolutely sure that the legislation covers circumstances in which a chair is named after a person. In this case it is clearly covered by the definition of sponsorship, because the person receives something in response to making acontribution. I propose to move amendmentNo. 214 and re-examine the issue before Report Stage.

What number is the Minister's amendment?

I apologise, it is amendment No. 213 which deals with the prohibition of sponsorship. The parliamentary counsel is absolutely satisfied that it deals with all forms of open patronage, in other words, it would cover the case of Newman House or the award of a chair. The question is whether it can be further extended to cover circumstances in which no written agreement exists between the donor and the recipient of money to associate with a brand or, for example, to name a castle after the donor. According to legal advice, these circumstances cannot be covered by legislation.

I appreciate the legal position and look forward to hearing the Minister's views following his consultations. The difficulty with getting rid of practices such as publicly naming a chair after a donor is that tobacco companies, all of which have an interest in promoting themselves, may make a private donation. The nub of the issue is that the position may get worse if we do not know a donation is being given. A record of donations must be held somewhere to ensure money is not channelled into an institution which in some way returns the favour. Otherwise tobacco companies would feel free to continue giving money to educational establishments, even though they are banned from doing so overtly. We need to examine this matter very closely because these companies have a huge vested interest in getting young people hooked. Because they have to maintain demand and the older smokers at one end are dying, they go after the young blood at the other end.

I will consider that point.

Is the Minister moving amendment No. 213?

Not now. I quoted it because it is relevant to the debate.

It covers some of the concerns. Can I take it from the Minister's response that he will talk to the parliamentary draftsman to make sure the concerns are covered?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 8, inclusive, not moved.

Amendments Nos. 9, 30, 31, 33 to 36, inclusive, 38 to 41, inclusive, 43, 44, 46, 48 to 50 inclusive, 52, 54, 55, 57 to 62, inclusive, 64 to 109, inclusive, 112 to 129, inclusive, 131 to 136, inclusive, 138 to 150, inclusive, 152, 154, 156, 157, 159 to 161, inclusive, 163 to 185, inclusive, 187, 188, 193 to 201, inclusive, 210, 212, 215, 217, 218, 220 to 222, inclusive, 224 to 227, inclusive, 229 to 236, inclusive, 246, 249, 251 to 253, inclusive, 255, 256, 258, 259, 287, 293, 295 to 298, inclusive, 301 and 302 can be taken together. Amendment No. 9 is consequential on amendment No. 33 and amendment No. 34 is an alternative to amendment No. 33. The aforementioned amendments are to be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 22 and 23 and substitute the following:

" 'OTC' means the Office of Tobacco Control established under section 9;”.

A very long list of amendments has been listed here. Most of them are in my name and follow from amendment No. 9 but I do not understand why two amendments - amendments Nos. 187 and 301 - are included. All my amendments deal with the name of the agency and, therefore, have implications right through the Bill in about 50 different sections. Is it a mistake or is there a purpose for including these amendments? Amendment No. 187 proposes to delete the word "brought" and substitute the word "subject". Amendment No. 301 proposes to insert "to" before the word "the".

We will take amendments Nos. 187 and 301 separately.

On the other amendments, they are all consequential and there are about 50 or more amendments which follow on from this one. This section deals with the Office of Tobacco Control and the proposals for the Tobacco Control Agency. It has been put to me that there is not much benefit in making this change. I am very struck by the cost involved as well as the other implications. Dublin Corporation, which has been known by that name or as "the corpo" by all and sundry, has now been renamed Dublin City Council at the behest of a Minister from County Meath and a Secretary General of a Department from I do not know where. These traditions, which we have had down through the years, are just cast to one side. We have four councils in Dublin and, to make matters worse, they want two Gaelic football teams.

This is not only an issue of cost but one of the status of the agency. It has been put to me that as the Office of Tobacco Control has already been established with its name linked to all the regulating bodies, it seems an unnecessary waste of time and money to rename the office as the Tobacco Control Agency. Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, the Tobacco Control Agency should be the Office of Tobacco Control. That name is known and people identify with it. This, and subsequent mention of the Tobacco Control Agency, needs to be amended by the amendments I propose.

It has been suggested that the title Tobacco Control Agency gives more gravitas to the body. However, other regulatory bodies recently established, for example, the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, do not suffer because of the title nor does the Office of the Director of Traffic in Dublin Corporation which has a lot of powers. I do not know why we are renaming this body. We have a body with a name that is known. An agency does not seem to have the same power. An authority and an office have power, for example, the Office of the Attorney General and the office of a Minister. An agency seems to be a lesser animal altogether. I do not know the purpose of this change and I suggest that the Minister might consider these amendments.

I support the amendments. The Office of Tobacco Control is the current name. What we are doing now is setting out the role of that office in legislation and giving it a statutory base. It does not appear to make any sense to mess around with a title that has already become familiar, at least to some, and which will become increasingly familiar to all. The Office of Tobacco Control describes exactly what we are talking about. It is what is described in the Bill in that it is an office for tobacco control.

A tobacco control agency is something else. If one talks about a person being an agent, they are an agent for some other body or person. A tobacco control agency links this body, as I read it, to the Minister for Health and Children. If that was the purpose of the change of name, one would need to ask, why. Surely, the whole point of this office is that it has substance to it and a strength in both its purpose as defined in statute but also in the impression it gives. As names go, it might seem that we are quibbling in arguing whether it should be the Tobacco Control Agency or the Office of Tobacco Control. I prefer the name Office of Tobacco Control because it is more accurate.

If the body was being set up now, I do not necessarily think amendments would have been tabled to fiddle around with the name "agency", but the office is already in place. What is the purpose of the change? It seems to be change for the sake of change. However, quite apart from the cost involved, people will ask on who's behalf is it an agent. That is an unnecessary dimension to the role of this office. The title Office of Tobacco Control has a good authoritative ring to it and we should not try to minimise that kind of impression which the current title portrays.

I do not have any great hang-up about this. I have asked this question on a few occasions. Again, the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government suggested the change.

The parliamentary draftsman. It is interesting to get the views. We could go on about semantics forever but its view is that "office" does not carry the same weight here as "agency". The term office can have the implication of a sub-unit of a Department. Recent titles given to statutory bodies include "agency", "board", "authority" and "commission", although Deputy Mitchell has mentioned a few others with the title "office". In Part II of the Bill, we use language such as "to hold office" and "officer". Such language is used quite liberally throughout the legislation. Therefore, the argument from the draftsman, which is reasonable, is that by avoiding the word "office" we lessen the scope for confusion or ambiguity.

On the other hand, I see the point that we are upsetting the apple cart, so to speak, in terms of the work the Office of Tobacco Control, which I established on an interim basis, is currently doing in regard to its profile, logos and so on. I have come to the committee with an open mind on this. The genuine view was the title Office of Tobacco Control may not be as strong as Tobacco Control Agency in terms of public image, profile and so on. The Deputies opposite have a different view that the title Tobacco Control Agency might have a lesser profile than Office of Tobacco Control.

Although it will be a major headache for us, if the Deputies withdraw the amendments, we will resubmit all the consequential amendments just to make sure they are correct. The reason there are so many amendments is that the title arises so frequently in the Bill. We will bring forward all those amendments tabled and all the consequential amendments on Report Stage to make sure they are all legally correct. That is the only proviso I would put in.

I do not need to resubmit them on Report Stage.

The Minister's office will take care of that. I am happy to withdraw them on that basis.

Thank you, Minister.

I thank the Minister. That is a sensible approach.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

" 'authorised officer' means a person appointed under section 47;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 11 in the names of Deputies Gay Mitchell, Neville and Ring is related to amendment No. 17 and they may be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

" 'brands' means any wording, names, trademarks, images or other signs, figurative or otherwise, that constitute all or part of the recognisable identity of a product;".

The amendment concerns definitions, about which I have already spoken. It has to do with brands and——

The definition of advertisements in the Bill is very broad in terms of what it embraces. Furthermore, section 33(2) provides for prohibition of the sale of products bearing a tobacco product brand. We have had some representations against that section. The position of Deputy Gay Mitchell is covered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 31 to 33 and substitute the following:

" 'health board' means-

(a) a board established under section 4 of the Act of 1970, or

(b) an Area Health Board established by section 14 of the Health (Eastern Regional Health Authority) Act 1999;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 14 is consequential on amendment No. 209. I propose that they be taken together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"specialist tobacconist" means a retail outlet specialising wholly or mainly in the sale of tobacco products other than cigarettes;".

There seems to be a specific issue concerning specialist shops selling cigars. A similar legislative provision in Britain affected tobacconists who were selling cigars rather than cigarettes. Many people smoke a cigar on very rare occasions, when somebody is getting married or at a christening or whatever. Specialist shops would go out of existence if this legislation applied to them. In such shops, cigars are likely to be sold singly because of the high cost.

I have been asked to raise this. I do not support many of the arguments put forward by retailers who sell cigarettes, but in this instance there is an issue relating to long-standing shops that provide specifically for cigars. They will be directly affected by the legislation because of the nature of the product. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this matter.

I am aware of the problem. To my knowledge, there are two or three of these shops in the country that specialise in cigars as opposed to cigarettes. This Bill prohibits in-store advertising or the advertising of cigarettes in any form - in other words, the window displays of these specialist cigar shops will have to cease as well as all forms of profiling of their specialist product. I have been mulling over how one could come to terms with this issue because the one danger is that the tobacco industry is probably one of the most innovative industries around. It would not be beyond its wisdom to exploit any loopholes that exist. Yesterday I was discussing with my officials the option of tabling an amendment on Report Stage which would give a Minister power to bring in regulations that would confine exclusions to maybe one, two or three. Therefore, any attempt at exploitation in terms of new outlets etc. would be thwarted. That would be a mechanism to deal with an extraordinary case, not normal retail circumstances. It might prevent subsequent exploitation. I will return to the matter on Report Stage.

I am grateful for that. I find myself in the unusual position of having to argue the point, but I think it is a fair point. I am glad the Minister is taking it on board. I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 15 is consequential on amendment No. 213, amendment No. 16 is an alternative and amendment No. 214 is related. Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 213 and 214 may be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 43 and 44, and in page 7, to delete lines 1 to 10.

These amendments are drafting amendments, which we have agreed with the office of the Parliamentary Counsel. The definition of sponsorship has been moved from section 2, which is an interpretation section, and incorporated in section 36. I read out that amendment earlier, which pertains to the prohibition of sponsorship as it is the only section in which the term is used. This amendment also strengthens the definition of tobacco product sponsorship and it broadens the associated offence to prohibit sponsorship in consideration of the promotion of a tobacco product. This definition is closer to that in the proposed EU directive relating to the advertising of sponsorship of tobacco products. It is in that context that I have moved the amendment.

How does that affect my amendment? Amendment No. 16 is in my name.

It deals with the Deputy's amendment.

It meets the objective?

It does, yes. We are saying it shall be an offence for a person to give financial or other assistance or cause financial or other assistance to be given, to or for the benefit of a person, or for or in relation to an event or activity, in consideration of (a) the use, display or advertising by the person, or at the event or activity concerned, or (b) association with the person, event or activity, or (c) promotions of a tobacco product, the name of a tobacco manufacturer or importer, the name of a brand of tobacco product or a trademark, emblem, marketing image or logo used in the marketing of a tobacco product. Second, it shall be an offence for a person to receive financial or other assistance to which subsection (1) applies.

That satisfies me. I will withdraw amendments Nos. 16 and 214, because the latter deals with the same issue.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 15, after "smoked" to insert ", sucked or chewed".

This is self-explanatory. There are forms of tobacco intake other than smoking and these should be spelled out in the Bill. I know there are other products that could be excluded or could fall outside of the strictures of this Bill because they are not specified. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.

This matter is covered in the section with the definition of smoking in page 6, which includes the sniffing, chewing or sucking of such a product.

My apologies.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 17, after "1977," to insert "(inserted by section 86(1) of the Finance Act 1997),".

What has that to do with that section?

The Finance Act, 1997, addresses excise duty on tobacco products. The 1997 Finance Act supersedes the 1977 Finance Act.

It is just an updating of the same Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 21 is cognate to amendment No. 20 and they may be taken together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 7, subsection (2)(c), line 31, after “enactment” to insert “or regulations”.

These drafting amendments must be considered in conjunction with the amendment to section 8. The purpose of the two amendments is to ensure that existing regulations will not be revoked. Until such time as we are in a position to replace it with a new regulation on the Bill, no provision of the Bill will commence.

Will the Minister repeat that?

I think we dealt with that already.

We are taking amendments Nos. 20 and 21 together.

They are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 20 requires that "or regulations" be inserted after "enactment", line 31, page 7. Amendment No. 21 states:

In page 7, subsection (2)(c), line 32, after “enactment” to insert “or those regulations, as the case may be,”.

The amendment basically seeks to insert the word "regulations".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 7, subsection (2)(c), line 32, after “enactment” to insert “or those regulations, as the case may be,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 22 is a drafting amendment in the names of the Minister and Deputy McManus.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 7, subsection (3), line 36, to delete "1999" and substitute "2001".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

On this section, what will be the provision for accountability to Parliament on the part of this office of tobacco control? Who will be the Accounting Officer for the Committee of Public Accounts? What will be the provision in terms of powers for this committee, for example, to require the chief executive of the office to appear and give evidence?

It will be similar to that of chief executive officers of the health boards.

Which means that they do not have any accountability.

That is not very enlightening. We cannot ask questions——

They are subject to the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The health boards have to come before the Committee of Public Accounts on a regular basis.

As a former chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts who brought about that change, I ask the Minister to make provision on Report Stage for the chief executive to be required to appear before other Oireachtas committees, but specifically the Committee on Health and Children. If a chief executive is requested to appear here I am sure he or she will do so, but there should be a provision for accountability on the part of these offices. I am not referring to this particular office; it is a general provision about which we need to be careful. I will come back to this matter because there is a later provision which concerns me.

Is it annual reporting?

I cannot think of it now, but I made a note to deal with it. Perhaps the Minister would consider that question between now and Report Stage.

I support Deputy Mitchell on this matter. I tabled amendment No. 45 which was ruled out of order because it implied a potential charge on the Exchequer, but it covers the point about accountability and is as much to do with ensuring that the work of this office is given as high a profile as possible. If, for example, the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children decides to call in the chief executive officers of the health boards, they come in and spend an hour making a presentation or answering questions, but it is very much on an ad hoc basis. If there is an actual structure whereby the link between the Oireachtas and the work being done on the ground is enshrined in some way, by regulation or in the legislation, it heightens and improves the work being done on the ground. It is not acceptable to say it is the same as a health board chief executive officer. The chief executive officers of health boards may appear before the Committee of Public Accounts, but that is a different matter. It is to do with giving status and ongoing importance to the work being done. That is what Deputy Mitchell and I are talking about primarily.

I do not have a difficulty with the central point made by the Deputies, and we will come back to it on Report Stage. There is a provision in a later section for an annual report to the Oireachtas, but what the Deputies suggest could be devised by way of a more formal statutory link to the Committee on Health and Children although that might be a problem because future Parliaments may——

We could use the term "or the relevant committee as designated by the Dáil", or something like that.

Exactly, and I do not have a difficulty with that. To be fair to this office, this is the one office that will be beating down the door to tell us about its work——

It will be a great help to the Minister because he will be on this side of the House after the election.

——but that does not lessen the point made about the advisability of a formal structure. The whole raison d’être of this office is to try to get the entire political community on board in terms of tobacco generally, so it would be something that it would perhaps——

We will come back to it on Report Stage.

On that point, people may have that desire but it can be a frustrated desire because the system is not in place to deliver on it. The inspector of mental hospitals produced annual reports over the years, and all Governments disregarded their contents even though there was accountability in that regard. In this instance, it is important that we do more.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.

Amendment Nos. 23, 25, 27, 28 and 162 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 8, subsection (1), line 7, to delete "£1,500 (€1,900)" and substitute "€1,900".

These are drafting amendments which were agreed with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to remove the punt figures.

I see the Minister is rounding upwards.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 24 is in the name of the Minister and amendment No. 26 is consequential. It is proposed to discuss Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 8, subsection (2), line 9, after "43,” to insert “44,”.

Again, this is a drafting error which we are correcting. The amendment relocates the reference to section 44 in the correct section. These drafting amendments ensure that a person guilty of an offence under section 44 on the prohibition on sale of tobacco products to persons under 18 years of age shall only be tried summarily.

I hope there are not as many mistakes in the abortion legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 8, subsection (2), line 11, to delete "£1,500 (€1,900)" and substitute "€1,900".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 8, subsection (3), line 14, to delete ", 44”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 8, subsection (3)(a), lines 15 and 16, to delete “£1,500 (€1,900)” and substitute “€1,900”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 8, subsection (3)(b), lines 18 and 19, to delete “£100,000 (€125,000)” and substitute “€125,000”.

We are rounding up the £100,000 to €125,000. Some of the people involved are very wealthy and they would not bat an eyelid at having to pay €125,000. In future, will these amounts be index linked?

No, not specifically in the primary legislation. They will be subject to review.

The difficulty is that in ten years' time, this fine will be pocket money to some of these guys. However, it is the best we can do at the moment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 8, subsection (4), lines 24 and 25, to delete "subsection (2)(a), (4)(a), (5)(a) or (7)(a), as may be appropriate” and substitute “subsection (3)(a)”.

This amendment is to correct a typing error.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

On the section in regard to the serving of documents, presumably under the law "person" is a company or agency, is that right?

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

Amendment No. 32 has been discussed with amendment No. 2.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 9, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

"8.-(1) The following enactments are hereby repealed, namely-

(a) the Act of 1978, and

(b) the Act of 1988.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), regulations made under the Act of 1978 or the Act of 1988 that are in force immediately before the commencement of that subsection shall, subject to subsection (3), remain in force after such commencement.

(3) The following regulations are hereby revoked, namely-

(a) the Tobacco Products (Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and Sales Promotion) Regulations 1991 (S.I. No. 226 of 1991); and

(b) the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Regulations 1995 (S.I. No. 359 of 1995).”.

Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of the existing section 8, therefore the existing section 8 will not stand part of the Bill.

This is a repeal.

The Chair has gone a little ahead of me.

The Minister is repealing the Tobacco Products (Control of Advertising, Sponsorship and Sales Promotion) Act, 1978 and the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Act, 1988. Will the Minister assure the committee that in repealing the Bills, he is not weakening the provisions, but strengthening them? Can he further assure the committee that there are no sections of the Acts about which we need to be concerned?

Yes, absolutely.

Does the committee agree that the existing section 8 does not stand part of the Bill?

Section 8 will stand part of the Bill, as it repeals the 1978 and 1988 Acts.

The section will stand, as amended by the Minister.

It is still there.

I have been told that the section should not stand.

Section 8, as amended, should stand.

Section 8, as amended, should stand, so that the Acts can be repealed.

The Minister's amendment comes before section 8.

What will we do? Can we move on?

The Chair is right.

Yes, the new section goes before section 8.

The new section will go after section 7.

There will be a new section 8.

The numbers will be all wrong.

The Minister does not need to worry, as we can explain this to him.

We did not do the numbers.

There will be a new section 8, as acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of section 8 of the Bill.

It does, yes.

There will be a new section 8.

There will be a problem as we will go from section 7 to section 9 if we delete section 8.

There is a new section.

There is a new section 8.

We have to delete section 8 and replace it with a new section 8.

The amendment reads: "In page 9, before section 8, to insert the following new section".

It is a new section.

If we look at the amendment, we will see that it says: "In page 9, before section 8, to insert the following new section".

I know, but this is——

The new section will become the new section 8 and the old section 8 will be gone.

It does not say that it will be section 8, but that is fine.

Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendments Nos. 33 to 36, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 9, subsection (2), line 31, after "Minister" to insert "and the Minister for Finance".

The line it is proposed to amend currently reads "and may be sued, in its corporate name and, with the consent of the Minister". If the amendment is accepted, the consent of the Minister for Finance will also be required. The amendment is fine.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 38 to 41, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 9, lines 38 and 39, to delete subsection (4).

What is the reason for that?

Why is the Minister deleting that?

It is elsewhere in the Bill.

The Minister proposes to delete "the Agency shall have all such powers as are necessary for or incidental to the performance of its functions under this Act".

Yes, as it is included in section 10(2) of the Bill.

Will the agency have ancillary powers?

Yes, under section 10(2).

Section 9(4), which the Minister proposes to withdraw, says that "the Agency shall have all such powers as are necessary for or incidental to the performance of its functions under this Act", whereas section 10(2) says that "the Agency shall have all such powers as are necessary or expedient for the performance of its functions". Is the Minister happy that the wording of section 10(2) incorporates the full intent of section 9(4)?

The legal advice from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel is that section 10(2) includes the full meaning of section 9(4).

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 43 not moved.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendment No. 44 not moved.

Amendment No. 45, in the name of Deputy McManus, is out of order.

I find it extraordinary that my amendment should be ruled out of order, as it states that the role of the office would be to "enforce the provisions of this Act and to conduct such investigations as considered appropriate for that purpose and otherwise to promote compliance with the provisions of this Act", to "assist such bodies as deemed appropriate by the Agency as are involved in promoting a tobacco free society" and to "provide to a committee of either or both Houses of the Oireachtas an annual report on progress towards a tobacco free society". Surely the Tobacco Control Agency should work in the manner I have outlined and I find it startling that my amendment has been ruled out of order on the grounds that it might incur expenditure to the State. Is the Minister saying this work will not be done by the agency?

Amendment No. 51, in my name, has similarly been ruled out of order on the same grounds. It is similar to that put down by Deputy McManus and I support her concerns. My amendment relates to an issue raised earlier, as it provides that there should be an annual report to the Joint Committee on Health and Children on progress towards a tobacco free society. The Chair has ruled that this amendment is out of order as it would lead to a charge on the Exchequer. I understand the procedure for dealing with Money Bills and that Standing Orders have to deal with the constitutional implications of such bills, but I ask the Minister to take into account my concerns and the concerns of Deputy McManus in relation to annual reporting to the joint committee, notwithstanding the fact that these amendments have been ruled out of order.

I had no role in establishing the precedent that led to amendments being ruled out of order. Section 25 states that "the agency shall not later than 3 months after the end of each financial year prepare and submit to the Minister a report on its activities in the immediately preceding financial year and the Minister shall, as soon as may be, cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas". In an earlier exchange, the point was made that we may need an even stronger element of reporting to a relevant sub-committee of the House that deals with these issues. I have undertaken to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage.

Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 10, subsection (1)(e), line 14, to delete “to”.

How many amendments have there been in order to correct drafting errors?

I have not been counting.

There were more errors in the drafting of this Bill than there were in the recent opinion poll.

I will not debate that issue with Deputy Mitchell at this time.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 48 to 52 not moved.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 11.

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 11, subsection (1), line 10, after "may," to insert "with the consent of the Minister for Finance and".

This is a drafting amendment to provide for the consent of the Minister for Finance in relation to any leasing commitments entered into by the Tobacco Control Agency.

Does this arise from the Minister's commitment to recruit another 1,000 consultants and the fact that the Minister for Finance was not so eager?

They are always worried about what we do. It is a standard provision for agencies.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 11, lines 19 and 20, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:

"(3) (a) The Minister may, by order, amend or revoke an order under this section (including an order under this subsection).

(b) An order under this subsection shall be made in the like manner, and its making shall be subject to the like consent and consultations (if any) as the order that it is amending or revoking.”.

This is a drafting amendment which clarifies the procedure to be followed in making one order to revoke another.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Amendments Nos. 57 to 62, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 11, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) Members of the OTC shall not have any direct or indirect interest in the tobacco industry and the members shall make a written declaration to that effect to the Minister.".

I would be concerned that this issue is spelt out clearly from the outset and that there would be a clear and definite ethical divide between members of the authority and anyone who is in any way beholden to the tobacco industry. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Section 18 provides for disclosure by members of the agency of certain interests at the meeting of the agency. Section 18(1) states:

Where at a meeting of the Agency any of the following matters arises, namely-

(a) an arrangement to which the Agency is a party or a proposed such arrangement, or . . . then, any member of the Agency present at the meeting who otherwise than in his or her capacity as such a member has an interest in the matter shall-

(i) at the meeting disclose to the Agency the fact of such interest and the nature thereof,

(ii) neither influence nor seek to influence a decision to be made in relation to the matter,

The Deputy's point is that members should not have any involvement with the tobacco industry.

Someone who has an involvement with the industry could make a declaration.

I will examine this issue before Report Stage.

The amendment will be resubmitted on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

I do not know whether the Minister will have enough people left in Cork to appoint to this agency. However, I continually raise the point that there has to be some transparency in the appointment of people to these offices and agencies. This has not been the case in the past.

This agency will deal with a sensitive issue. I hope we end up calling it an "office" as the Minister has indicated he will consider. However, in the past I raised the manner in which the blood transfusion board was appointed. I am concerned that we should not simply appoint people because they are in a Minister's bailiwick or have contact with a Minister. This is an important office and, from the beginning, it is important that the board members should be independent, representative and committed.

We are getting to the stage where Oireachtas committees should ratify appointments to boards to ensure that appointees are reasonably representative of the public and do not have vested interests. Appointing people from particular geographic locations to boards is not on. This is not some sort of honours system. If we want such a system then we should introduce it and give people the equivalent of an OBE or whatever. However, State boards should not be used for this purpose. I am concerned at the manner in which the Minister has been using such appointments. I have raised this issue many times with him.

I strongly rebut that suggestion. I stand over all appointments I have made to boards in terms of the quality of the appointees and their qualifications. The Deputy can criticise particular appointments, but he should also acknowledge that, in terms of this office, I accepted every recommendation made to me. I did not add one person. The chairman, Dr. Michael Boland, is well respected. He is the president of WONCA and is a significant figure in the Irish College of General Practitioners, in the education of GPs and so on.

Another appointee, Dr. Jane Wilde, is a director of the Institute of Public Health, Eileen O'Sullivan is director of teaching practice, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, Tony Christie is principal environmental health officer with the Southern Health Board, Donal O'Shea is regional chief executive officer of the ERHA, Dr. Pat Doorley is director of public health with the Midland Health Board and Noel Usher and Chris Fitzgerald are principal officers in the Department of Health and Children. Those are eight members and the Bill will give the Minister authority to appoint 12 members. Appointees should come from the areas of public health. We can broaden it out a little.

I will watch this closely. I have no difficulty acknowledging that, by and large, those appointed by the Minister to the blood transfusion board were people of quality. However, there are similar people in Donegal, Clare, Louth, Dublin and the midlands. They do not all have to come from one region.

Absolutely.

Boards should not be used in a way which undermines the independence and quality of agencies.

I do not disagree with the Deputy's principles, but my performance compares favourably with that of his predecessors.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Amendments Nos. 64 to 67, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

We include the provisions of this section in many Bills, but why should a member of the agency or office cease to qualify for the office if he or she makes a composition or arrangement with creditors? If someone is declared bankrupt, does that affect his or her ability to implement a proper tobacco health proposal? If someone makes a composition or arrangement with creditors, does that affect his or her ability to do the job? A good, decent, hard working person could get into difficulties and have to come to some arrangement with his or her creditors, but does that mean he or she is not fit to sit on this health promotion body? We are too quick to throw in such provisions. We usually insert a provision banning Members of the Oireachtas - I have fallen into that from time to time. However, is this provision necessary? I could understand such a provision in the case of someone who has been convicted, imprisoned or been involved with fraud, but I have doubts about it in the context of someone who comes to a composition or arrangement with creditors.

This is a standard procedure which is included in all legislation. Section 13(1) stipulates that the Minister "may" remove someone from office. Presumably the Minister has some discretion.

That is not the case because section 13(3) states, "A member of the Agency shall cease to be qualified for office."

This is standard procedure across all legislation. The rationale behind it is that in certain circumstances people may be compromised by the extent of their debt or the degree to which they have reached settlements. Presumably that is the thinking behind the provision. It is included in all legislation across all office holders.

The Bill requires people to make declarations and to be accountable. I believe in all of that. However, as a result of 11 September or whatever, and without any malpractice, a very good person may have to come to some arrangement with his or her creditors. When such a person is on his or her knees through no fault of his or her own, we come along and deliver another kick and state that he or she is not a qualified or suitable person to be a member of the board when he or she may be very suitable.

The Minister is suggesting that we have always inserted this provision and so we should continue to do so. Fine Gael has always included this provision, but as legislators we should question this approach.

I take the Deputy's point.

Will the Minister question this approach?

I will refer the matter to the legal advisers.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 68 to 72, inclusive, not moved.
Section 14 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 not moved.
Section 15 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 75 to 83, inclusive, not moved.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendments Nos. 84 to 91, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

This, again, is a provision in relation to membership of either House of the Oireachtas or of the European Parliament. We are excluding these, so we should also exclude any other assembly, for example the Northern Ireland Assembly. A Sinn Féin member of the assembly could be qualified to be appointed to this board where a Member of the Dáil or the Seanad could not be. If we include this provision I would like account to be taken of that point. Perhaps the Minister could address that on Report Stage.

As a general point, I have published Private Members' Bills containing this provision and some members of my own Front Bench have given me a hard time. I have been thinking about it and it is a reasonable criticism. Take, for example, the Red Cross, of which Deputy David Andrews is chairman. There is no reason why he should not be; there is no conflict of interest that I am aware of and everything is declared and above board. However, I do not think that Members of the Seanad or the Dáil would have time to serve on this board. I question the ritual of constantly putting in amendments of this kind. Because they have been in one Bill, they continue to be included. When I am sitting on that side considering some future Bill, I expect I will see the amendment again and be questioned on it. Do we really need to exclude Members? If we are going to exclude them, could we exclude members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and other assemblies?

I will think about it. However, it is a broader political issue. It has a complementary role to that of the Oireachtas. The tendency has been to take public representatives off most bodies, including local authorities. That is the spirit in which it happens. To change that, we need to take a fundamental look at the roles of public representatives and particularly Oireachtas Members.

Also, there is a possible conflict of interest if a person drafts legislation and is also a member of a body affected by the legislation. That puts one in a difficult position and it would be untenable. A person could be involved in the drafting of the legislation or even be on the hearing committee, could know all the members of the committee and yet be a member of an agency which opposes certain issues.

It is a general point and we should not spend any more time on it. However, when we look at reform of the Oireachtas this should be considered.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1.03 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.
Amendments Nos. 92 to 101, inclusive, not moved.
Section 18 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 102 to 109, inclusive, not moved.
Section 19 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 110:

In page 14, before section 20, to insert the following new section:

"20.-The Freedom of Information Act, 1997 shall apply to the Agency and to the Council established under section 22.”.

This is self-explanatory. Will the Minster allow this to be included in the legislation? It could be allowed by way of regulation, but it would be better if the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, applied to the office/agency and the council established under section 22. The Freedom of Information Act, 1997, is one of the most progressive items of legislation that has been enacted and, where possible, we should try to ensure that we include developments within it.

I do not have any difficulty with the concept of the agency itself being subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997. My advice, and I agree with it, is that the Act is the appropriate vehicle for bringing particular bodies within its remit by way——

Is the Minister saying it is not the appropriate way?

The Freedom of Information Act, 1997, is the appropriate vehicle to bring this body or bodies under its remit by means of amending the Schedule of that Act.

Can it not be done this wayor does the Minister prefer to do it the otherway?

I prefer to do it the other way.

It could be done this way.

It would introduce a new precedent in terms of legislation. The extension of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997, to universities was done under the primary legislation that was enacted. Perhaps this had to do with the fact that it is part of a process where there is consultation with the FOI office regarding its capacity and so on in terms of preparing bodies for coming under the remit of the FOI legislation. Since the Act was passed it has been extended to other bodies over time.

Presumably that is a procedure that comes through the House or can the Minister do it?

The Minister can do it.

Who is the Minister responsible for the freedom of information legislation?

The Minister for Finance.

Do I understand the Minister will put that forward to him?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 20.

I move amendment No. 111:

In page 14, lines 42 to 46, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:

"(1) A person shall not disclose confidential information obtained by him or her while performing functions as-

(a) a member or member of the staff of, or an adviser or consultant to, the Agency, or

(b) a member of a committee established under section 21, unless he or she is duly authorised by the Agency to so do.”.

This is a drafting amendment that was agreed with the parliamentary counsel. It simply presents the same provisions in a clearer way. These are standard provisions in legislation.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 112 to 115, inclusive, not moved.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 116 to 122, inclusive, not moved.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Amendments Nos. 123 to 129, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 130:

In page 15, subsection (3)(a), line 36, after "Minister" to insert "(which number shall include at least one person nominated by ASH Ireland)".

This is a recognition that ASH Ireland has had a very significant influence in regard to raising awareness of the dangers of tobacco and setting out an agenda to tackle its menace. ASH persisted with that objective in a way that provided a very informed resource. Even in terms of amendments to this Bill, it has been able to make a valuable input.

Any legislation before us is always flawed but the number of mistakes and errors in this Bill is remarkably high. It shows the importance of an organisation such as ASH Ireland with its professionalism in terms of putting forward the case. Unfortunately, its point that a significant increase in the price of cigarettes could act as a deterrent to young people smoking was not listened to by the Government. If we can incorporate that kind of expertise and have a direct linkage in terms of representation, it can only do good.

At times the Oireachtas seems to see itself as having a monopoly on wisdom. I do not intend to go down Deputy Mitchell's road regarding Government appointees, etc, but when a body, such as ASH Ireland, has a track record we should not disregard the potential in terms of giving it a direct input to a new office being established as a decision-making body. If we want to become a tobacco free society we could benefit from its very strong representation from the medical profession who must cope with all the bad effects of tobacco addiction.

We never intended to specify organisations in the primary legislation. It is not normally the case. I have met ASH Ireland and I cannot recall that it made that point to me. I have great regard for ASH Ireland and its work in raising awareness on the tobacco issue. It would be very unusual to name a particular organisation. If it changed its name a few years from now, that would involve having to amend the primary Bill.

I accept the Minister's point.

I will look at it again before Report Stage but there are also other organisations to be considered. The Tobacco Free Council is meant to involve a wide range of organisations and groups which are on-side in relation to the tobacco issue in promoting the idea of a tobacco free society. I am wary of appearing to exclude some other body. For example, the Irish Cancer Society might also like to be nominated. We have an excellent relationship with ASH Ireland and many of its proposals are now coming through in various forms. However, as I have outlined, it is not appropriate to name specific organisations in the Bill.

I will withdraw the amendment for the moment but I may come back to it on Report Stage. The matter of the title can be dealt with very easily, not necessarily in the wording which I have put forward. Allowance could be made for a change of name in future. It is important to have direct involvement with the key organisations. Having one person from ASH Ireland does not exclude other key organisations. We need to work in a unified fashion, rather than having organisations working in a fragmented way and lobbying the Government, the Opposition or the agency in a way that is probably not the most efficient to deal with a highly organised and efficient industry.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 131 to 136, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 137:

In page 16, subsection (6), line 4, after "allowances" to insert "for expenses".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 138 to 150, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 151:

In page 16, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:

"(12) The OTC shall ensure that the Tobacco Free Council has sufficient funds in order to carry out its work.".

There is little point in setting up a tobacco council and giving it the powers it is being given if, at the same time, we do not ensure that it is properly resourced. Otherwise, it could become an ineffective body. While I note the Minister's intent that the Tobacco Free Council would be sufficiently resourced, we should make specific provision for that. The amendment is self explanatory.

It would be in the interest of the Office for Tobacco Control to ensure that the Tobacco Free Council has sufficient resources but I do not propose to put that into the primary legislation. The Tobacco Free Council flows from the work of the Office for Tobacco Control - it is part of its functions and objectives. The Council is, to a certain extent, an arm of the OTC, in terms of its core objective on the utilisation of various organisations and groups of people who can influence public opinion. I do not consider it necessary to include this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 152 not moved.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 not moved.

I move amendment No. 155:

In page 16, lines 49 to 51, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:

"(3) In this section 'cash flow statement' means, in relation to an accounting period, an account showing the derivation of all moneys received by the Agency during that period and the purposes to which they were applied.".

This amendment follows a recommendation from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General as to the manner in which one defines the term "cash flow statement".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 156 not moved.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
Amendment No. 157 not moved.

I move amendment No. 158:

In page 17, lines 6 to 8, to delete subsection (2).

On the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel, subsection 25 (2) is being deleted because there is already a similar provision in section 10 (1) (l).

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 159 not moved.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 not moved.

I move amendment No. 162:

In page 17, line 14, to delete "£200,000 (€250,000)" and substitute "€250,000".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 not moved.
Section 27 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 165 to 173, inclusive, not moved.
Section 28 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 174 to 179, inclusive, not moved.
Section 29 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 180 to 182, inclusive, not moved.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Amendments Nos. 183 to 186 not moved.

I move amendment No. 187:

In page 18, subsection (2), line 26, to delete "brought" and substitute "subject".

This is simply a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 188 not moved.

Amendment No. 189 is in the names of the Minister for Health and Children and Deputy McManus. Amendments Nos. 190 to 192, inclusive, are related and they may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 189:

In page 18, subsection (3), line 34, to delete "1991" and substitute "2001".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 190:

In page 18, subsection (3), lines 34 and 35, to delete "Worker Protection (Regular Part-Time Employees) Act, 1991" and substitute "Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 191:

In page 18, subsection (3), line 37, to delete "1991" and substitute "2001".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 192:

In page 18, subsection (3), line 38, to delete "1993" and substitute "2001".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 193 to 201, inclusive, not moved.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.

Amendment No. 202 is in the name of Deputies Gay Mitchell, Neville and Ring. Amendments Nos. 203 and 204 are related and they may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 202:

In page 19, subsection (1), lines 37 and 38, to delete "advertises a tobacco product shall be guilty of an offence" and substitute "directly or indirectly advertises a tobacco product shall be guilty of an offence, unless otherwise exempt".

In relation to the prohibition of advertising of tobacco products, in section 33, it is proposed, after "advertises" in line 37, to insert "or causes the advertisement of". This would be an improvement to the Bill.

Similarly, amendment No. 204 states:

In page 19, subsection (2), lines 39 and 40, to delete "by retail or otherwise supply" and substitute "or cause to be sold, by retail, or otherwise supply or cause to be supplied,".

In my opinion, that wording is stronger than what is used in the section. I apologise, I referred to amendment No. 204 instead of amendmentNo. 203.

The election has not taken place yet.

Amendment No. 203 proposes that after "advertises" we insert ", or causes the advertisement of,". In my opinion that would strengthen the provisions of the Bill. Obviously, I support amendment No. 204.

Amendments Nos. 203 and 204, in essence, meet what Deputies Mitchell, Neville and Ring are attempting to do in amendment No. 202. Amendment No. 203 is designed to strengthen controls of tobacco product advertising and broaden the associated offence. The amended text will read: "a person who advertises or causes the advertisement of a tobacco product shall be guilty of an offence". That means that all persons and companies - the manufacturer, importer, advertising agency, publisher, etc. - associated with the advertisement of a tobacco product will be guilty of an offence. A number of groups, including ASH, made recommendations on this front.

Amendment No. 204 is, again, a drafting amendment which will strengthen the controls of brand stretching and broaden the associated offence. The amended text will read:

(2) It shall be an offence for a person to sell or cause to be sold by retail or otherwise supply or cause to be supplied to a member of the public a product (other than a tobacco product) that bears-

(a) the name of the manufacturer of a tobacco product, or the name of any brand of tobacco product, or

This amendment means that all persons associated with the sale or supply of that which is considered an example of tobacco product brand stretching will be guilty of an offence. In my opinion, amendments Nos. 203 and 204 cover what the Deputies are seeking to achieve in amendment No. 202.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 203:

In page 19, subsection (1), line 37, after "advertises" to insert ", or causes the advertisement of,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 204:

In page 19, subsection (2), lines 39 and 40, to delete "by retail or otherwise supply" and substitute "or cause to be sold, by retail, or otherwise supply or cause to be supplied,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 205:

In page 19, subsection (2)(a), line 43, after “product” to insert “where the marketing imagery lacks clear distinction from the tobacco product”.

Representations have been made to me to the effect that the section, as worded, could cause difficulties for companies that use marketing imagery for a particular product which is clear and distinct from that applying to a tobacco product. It was put to me that there is a company with a particular brand name, which also applies to a cigarette. However, the brand name covers more than tobacco products - it refers to a host of other products. It was suggested to me that unintentional difficulties could be caused for this company and others in the advertising of their other products, particularly where they have no intention whatsoever of advertising tobacco products.

There is a group called "Marlboro Entertainment and Promotions" - I was not contacted by it, I am merely taking the name from a list I was given - and I understand that it is involved in organising events and has nothing to do with Marlboro cigarettes. Similarly, however, there is a brand called "Camel" which is part of a wider group and it applies, among other things, to a particular colour. I have been informed that in trying to cover every aspect in terms of preventing companies from advertising by the back door we may be in danger of making it a criminal offence for a normal trading name to be used in an area which is not related to the advertising of tobacco products.

The amendment suggests that it would help if we included after the word "product" the phrase "where the marketing imagery lacks clear distinction from the tobacco product". Amendment No. 206, which deals with the same issue, proposes including the term "in circumstances where the sale of the product may reasonably be regarded as increasing the sale of the tobacco product". That would seem to meet the concerns I have raised.

My general approach to the legislation is to ensure it is extremely tough. I do not want to give an out-clause to anyone at any point in the Bill. However, since bona fide concerns were raised with me about normal trading activities which would be intended to advertise tobacco products, I believe the amendment I have tabled represents a safer approach. I will not go to the wall in respect of these amendments, but perhaps the Minister will give some consideration to them. I do not want to create a loophole which will allow people to escape the clutches of the law. I want the law in this are to be extremely tough. I have put forward two examples, Camel and Marlboro - the latter has nothing to do with the cigarette company and the former is part of the same group but is a different product not related to the tobacco product - in order to highlight this issue.

This is one of the classic marketing techniques used to spread brand names, particularly among certain groups of the population among whose members tobacco companies would wish to increase consumption of their products. Young people purchase many products, such as T-shirts and other items of clothing, and this is an obvious marketing ploy to subtly utilise other fora to get the brand name across.

I take the Deputy's point about genuine cases. Whereas I will reflect on the issue between now and Report Stage, I will not give an undertaking to bring forward an amendment because I am acutely aware of the degree to which anything we do here could be exploited. Perhaps the Deputy could pass on to me any specific cases and we can discuss the matter before Report Stage.

I will deal with amendments Nos. 205, 206 and 207 together. Amendment No. 207 may provide another way to deal with this matter. It suggests that:

The OTC may upon an application in writing exempt a brand, with such conditions attaching as the OTC at its absolute discretion may attach, that includes the name of a tobacco product where it is satisfied that the advertising of the brand is clearly distinct from the tobacco product and cannot reasonably be regarded as increasing, maintaining or supporting the sales of tobacco products.".

By considering all three amendments between now and Report Stage, perhaps the Minister might discover a reasonable approach to take to this matter. I would rather take a belt and braces approach than leave ourselves vulnerable, but a reasonable case has been put forward. I offer the three amendments for consideration and I will not press them to a vote. Will the Minister deal with this matter on Report Stage?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 not moved.

I move amendment No. 208:

In page 19, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) It shall be an offence to broadcast entertainment or sporting events in which tobacco advertisements are publicly displayed.".

The Bill could be strengthened by the inclusion of the term "It shall be an offence to broadcast entertainment or sporting events in which tobacco advertisements are publicly displayed.". This may be a difficult item of legislation to enforce. Members are aware that at rugby matches, for example, slogans or logos are painted on the pitch. In addition, at many football matches the advertising hoardings at the side of the pitch appear to change quite regularly when television cameras are fixed on them. We must also take account of the fact that a great deal of subtle advertising takes place. It might be difficult for RTE, for example, to vet every live broadcast it carries from abroad. In that regard, I do not know what will be the rules for broadcasting World Cup matches live later in the year. A general offence should be created in order that we do not reach a stage where advertising of tobacco products is banned and their sale is controlled but where companies will be able, by means of promotional advertising either here or abroad, to circumvent the intent of the Bill.

They will not be able to do it in the context of sporting events in Ireland. Such advertising will be banned as a result of the Act and previous decisions we have taken. No form of advertising will be permitted once this legislation is passed. The televising of sporting events in Ireland is not, therefore, the issue.

The issue really arises in the context of Formula One Grand Prix racing. We have considered that and have had discussions with the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and with the RTE authority. There are varying views on whether the technology exists to blot out images on cars and so on as programmes are being relayed on air. I would be reluctant to include the Deputy's proposal in primary legislation at this stage because I am not totally convinced there is the capacity to implement it. It is in the European context that we are working with other countries to try to deal with the Formula One issue. It is worth noting that the body responsible for racing has declared that the tobacco company concerned will not be sponsoring Formula One racing from 2006 onwards.

In the search for a mechanism or a legal instrument to ban tobacco advertising, I am conscious of the need not to lose the public. There is a balance to be struck in terms of bringing the public along on the anti-tobacco measures being introduced. At a recent conference on tobacco before Christmas experts who had considerable experience in the United States agreed that some of the successes there were mainly on the basis of winning public support for legislative measures. The problem is to come up with a suitable legal instrument. That, as far as I can see, applies only to Formula One racing and international events. The other problem is whether it would be possible to ban Sky Sports from advertising tobacco in Ireland. With the advent of digital television and hundreds of television channels coming into our screens, there is also the problem that domestic legislation banning tobacco advertising here might disadvantage our own broadcasting stations by placing obligations on them which would clearly affect their market share. For example, if the World Cup were sponsored by some tobacco outfit and RTE and TV3 were not allowed to show those matches, everybody would turn to BBC, Sky Sports and other channels, and the net effect would be to turn viewers away from our domestic channels.

These are practical logistical issues. A European directive is one way of dealing with them, although it must be acknowledge that there are different views in Europe. Other member states of the EU are not as pro-active in their anti-tobacco approach as is this country. Some are quite conservative and negative in terms of their support for anti-tobacco measures.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 34.
Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 not moved.

I move amendment No. 211:

In page 20, subsection (1), lines 1 to 5, to delete paragraph (a).

This relates to publications. Will the Minister comment on the possibility that this may raise a legal or constitutional issue. The limited legal advice I have is that it may be unconstitutional to ban foreign publications which would otherwise come within the exemption just because they have a circulation over the limit set out here. That would be discriminatory. We are all very supportive of what the Minister is setting out to do in the Bill. However, it is important to make sure it can stand up to scrutiny and is in line with the Constitution. Will the Minister respond on whether he has considered that?

The regulations introduced in 2000 banned newspaper and magazine advertising of cigarettes. At the time the Office of the Attorney General advised on the constitutionality of the measure. Its practicality was tested in the sense that we facilitated publications with a circulation of less than 3,000. These include specialist magazines in particular areas that are of interest to minority groups. If we do not insert some circulation limit it would open the doors again.

I am happy with that. I mentioned it because it was raised with me.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 212 not moved.
Section 34 agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 213:

In page 21, before section 36, to insert the following new section:

"36.-(1) It shall be an offence for a person to give financial or other assistance, or cause financial or other assistance to be given, to or for the benefit of a person, or for or in relation to an event or activity, in consideration of the-

(a) use, display or advertising by the person, or at the event or activity concerned,

(b) association with the person, event or activity, or

(c) promotion,

of a tobacco product, the name of a tobacco manufacturer or importer, the name of a brand of tobacco product or a trademark, emblem, marketing image or logo used in the marketing of a tobacco product.

(2) It shall be an offence for a person to receive financial or other assistance to which subsection (1) applies.”.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 214 not moved.
SECTION 37.
Amendment No. 215 not moved.

I move amendment No. 216:

In page 21, subsection (1), between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

"(b) The OTC shall, on commencement of this section, cause to be established and maintained a register of all persons who carry on, in whole or in part, the business of manufacturing, importing or distributing tobacco products.”.

This amendment would help to identify potential offenders. We might think we know all the product manufacturers and distributors, but it would be possible for them, for example, to set up overnight a business or subsidiary under another name. Requiring the OTC to maintain a register would mean it would have to track such changes. Giving it a statutory obligation to do so would give the OTC a proactive role which would be beneficial.

The committee is aware that at my request the Attorney General, in consultation with senior counsel, has been considering various issues arising from the possibility of the State taking an action against the tobacco industry. I am currently awaiting advice from the Office of the Attorney General. When we originally examined the idea of licensing of manufacturers and distributors of tobacco products, the legal advice was that such a licensing provision might compromise the State's ability to mount a successful action against the tobacco industry in the future because the manufacturers and distributors could raise the defence that the State had licensed the manufacture and distribution of tobacco products in the knowledge that the products were dangerous and in the knowledge that, as recent international evidence seems to suggest, the industry knew the product was dangerous. For that reason we did not pursue the issue of licensing of manufacturers and distributors of tobacco products. I understand the motivation behind the Deputy's amendment.

The Minister has made a reasonable point. I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 217 and 218 not moved.

I move amendment No. 219:

In page 21, subsection (4), line 28, to delete "business" and substitute "business,".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 220 to 222, inclusive, not moved.

We move on to amendment No. 223. Amendment No. 237 is an alternative and the amendments may be taken together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 223:

In page 22, subsection (6)(d), line 8, after “business” to insert “and the quantities supplied”.

This amendment concerns registration and the records retailers must provide. There are dangers relating to cigarette smuggling as Ash Ireland has pointed out. There seems already to be a sizeable amount of smuggling. While most retailers operate totally within the law and will comply with the law, there is always a chance that some will become involved in taking in additional supplies without recording their origin. It is important that the quantities of tobacco products supplied should be included as a matter of course. There should be an onus on retailers to keep such records to allow the provenance of all tobacco on the premises to be established. That would be very helpful, particularly for the Garda, and would act as a deterrent to any growth in cigarette smuggling.

We have discussed related issues with the Office of Tobacco Control. It would not be practical to ask every shopkeeper on a regular basis to supply the details of the quantities they receive. When shopkeepers apply to go on the register, that is a once-off application. The quantities received by retailers vary over time so I am not sure that quantities should be included here. There is a view that we would be placing an excessive burden on shopkeepers in terms of bureaucracy and form-filling. Imposing a register on shopkeepers is a new development and significant consequences flow from it, including striking-off if offences are committed. We want to strike a balance between new developments that unquestionably place a burden and a new responsibility on shopkeepers, and the practicalities of that.

The other point does not apply to this particular section, subsection (6) of which reads "As soon as practicable after an application under this section . . . the Agency shall, subject to subsection (9), enter in the register - (a) the applicant’s name and the address . . . ”. The applicant is required to provide an address, a number from which it is possible to identify him or her and the names of the persons who supplied him or her with tobacco products in connection with his or her business. This amendment seeks to include a requirement to provide the quantities but that would only apply at the time of application. A business will get quantities of tobacco products regularly, not just at the time of application.

I understand and accept that point.

Generally, the Office of Tobacco Control will have powers to seek discovery of all documentation and to conduct inspections of manufacturers and distributors. However, I will look at the smuggling issue.

I understand that including it at registration makes no sense at all and that this amendment cannot be accepted. However, the Minister should look at it because the office's purpose is to ensure that retailers keep records. Retailers know what supplies they get and keeping a record which they know can be scrutinised by the Office of Tobacco Control would create a certain protection and act as a preventative measure in terms of smuggling. It is important that there be some obligation on the part of retailers.

There are strong views that we are placing a significant burden on retailers. That is an issue that has arisen in relation to quantities. However, the point about smuggling is valid and I will undertake to look at it. Whether smuggling originates at that level is another point.

It seems incredible that a retailer would not know and record the quantities of supplies they receive.

I will look at the matter for Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 224 to 227, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 228:

In page 22, subsection (8), line 34, after "by" to insert "retail".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 229 to 236, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 237:

In page 24, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following subsections:

"(16) A person registered in the register shall maintain a record of, for inspection by the OTC and other agencies in the State responsible for law enforcement, the name and address of suppliers of tobacco products to the registered person, the brand names of tobacco products supplied and the quantities of such products supplied.

(17) It shall be an offence to supply tobacco products to a person who is not registered in the register.".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 238:

In page 24, before section 38, to insert the following new section:

"38.-Section 37 shall apply with any necessary modifications to the registration of tobacco manufacturers and importers.".

It seems odd that the Minister is setting out registration requirements for retailers but that importers and manufacturers are not under the same obligations.

This is similar to Deputy Gay Mitchell's earlier amendment. Legally, if we license manufacturers and distributors it could compromise any subsequent action we may take against the tobacco industry.

Even to have them on a register?

In essence, one would be licensing them.

My apologies, I was not listening.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 240 is an alternative to amendment No. 239 and they may be taken together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 239:

In page 24, subsection (1), line 14, after "cigarettes" to insert "or such higher number as may be prescribed by the Minister".

This amendment is proposed to make it possible to increase the size of a packet of cigarettes.

My amendment is similar although the wording is different. It reads, "The Minister may, by regulation, increase the minimum number of cigarettes in a pack." I have no difficulty with which wording the Minister chooses to accept. The amendments do not say "shall" but "may" which gives a future Minister options, and powers that do not apply under this legislation, if some company decides to sell cigarettes in different quantity packs.

I accept the principle of both amendments. I undertake to come back at Report Stage with a composite amendment embracing both. I understand that a certain country has moved to a 25 pack. This would be useful for a future Minister to deal with the price issue, if we cannot beat the consumer price index in another way. It is a good idea.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 240:

In page 24, subsection (1), between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(b) The Minister may, by regulation, increase the minimum number of cigarettes in a pack.”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 241:

In page 24, subsection (4), line 26, before "tobacco" to insert "a".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 242:

In page 24, subsection (5), line 37, to delete "product" and substitute "product,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 243:

In page 24, subsection (5), line 39, to delete "that" and substitute ", that".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment Nos. 244 and 245 are related and may be taken together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 244:

In page 25, subsection (7)(a), line 3, to delete “part payment” and substitute “payment in part”.

What is the difference between "part payment" and "payment in part"?

The draftsman has a view on that although to the layman, it does not seem important.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 245:

In page 25, subsection (8), line 11, to delete "part payment" and substitute "payment in part".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
Section 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Amendment No. 246 not moved.

We move on to amendment No. 247. Amendment No. 248 is an alternative and amendment No. 250 is related. The three amendments may be taken together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 247:

In page 25, subsection (1), lines 31 and 32, to delete "the composition or properties of".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 not moved.

I move amendment No. 250:

In page 25, subsection (1)(c), line 37, to delete “specified.” and substitute the following:

"specified, including information relating to their composition or properties, and to their sale or marketing.".

This amendment gives more powers to the agency in terms of marketing.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 251 to 253, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 254:

In page 26, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:

"(5) The manufacturer or importer of a tobacco product shall make available to the OTC, retailers and consumers of such tobacco products all information that it has at its disposal on the health risks associated with consuming such a product including details of the precise contents of tobacco products. Such information is to be presented in a consumer friendly manner.".

The committee will remember from the second interim report on smoking, upon which I acted as rapporteur, that we indicated that cigarettes could include genetically modified tobacco and reconstructed tobacco - tobacco ash - which produce more ammonia, increasing the amount of nicotine that is released during smoking.

We also heard evidence that nicotine is more addictive than heroin or cocaine and that most smokers did not continue to smoke out of choice but because they are addicted to nicotine. Evidence was also given that the tobacco industry was the first to know that nicotine was addictive - long before the anti-tobacco lobby had similar knowledge.

We have asked for details from the tobacco companies of the precise contents of tobacco products and the veil slipped somewhat in a previous hearing of this committee where information was obtained in that regard. It is time retailers and consumers knew all the risks associated with consuming these addictive products, including their precise contents. There is more than sufficient evidence to indicate that tobacco companies are deliberately putting into their products ingredients that encourage people to become addicted to them. The earlier they can get young people addicted, the better from their view as source of future finance, irrespective of the consequences for the health of young people or others.

It also seems clear from evidence given to the committee that the tobacco manufacturers were aware long before anyone else, of the damage that can be done by tobacco products and of the addictive nature of the content of their products. They deliberately kept the content of their products secret so this issue could not be exposed and dealt with effectively. If retailers, who are members of families and have the same concerns as anyone else, learned about the contents of some of these products, many of them would be happy with the measures we propose, even though they will affect their overall sales. If retailers and consumers knew the contents and it was possible to show children what the manufacturers are putting into cigarettes to get them addicted, we could go some way towards counteracting the effects of cigarettes.

Most children and adults who smoke are affected by advertising and the attractive manner in which these products are portrayed. They do not see the minefield into which they are walking. It is time to require manufacturers and importers to make available to the Office of Tobacco Control the information which is available and to present it in such a consumer-friendly manner that people will understand the import of the information.

I support the amendment. Last year in the British Parliament concern was expressed about additives in tobacco following the publication of a report that maintained that more than 600 additives are used in cigarettes, including cocoa butter and ammonia. We still do not know exactly what additives are used. It is important that such information is made available and accessible, particularly when one considers that the purpose of many of these additives is to sweeten cigarettes and to make them more attractive to younger children.

I agree with putting information about what is in cigarettes into the public domain. I congratulate the Minister on the current advertising campaign, particularly the advertisement showing the aorta being squeezed out. That has a real effect.

We are trying to stop retailers from displaying anything about cigarettes in their shops. This amendment, however, could be used by the tobacco industry to have company names displayed. Rather than the manufacturers presenting information about the product, it should be done by the Health Promotion Agency or through serious targeting similar to that in the current campaign. The information should be available but we should not give the tobacco companies the opportunity to present it because they will present it in a manner that suits them.

There is no disagreement on the desirability and importance of all information relating to the composition of tobacco products being in the public domain and that the State be in a position to get that information from the tobacco manufacturers and distributors.

Section 41 provides that a manufacturer or importer of tobacco products shall provide the agency with such information relating to the composition or properties of tobacco products by class and brand name as the agency may request in writing. Section 42 provides that the agency may request by notice in writing the manufacturer or importer of tobacco products to carry out such tests on their products as the agency may specify. Section 43 provides that the manufacturers or importers of tobacco products, when carrying out such tests on their products as provided for in subsection (2), shall permit persons, as specified in the agency's notice, to attend and observe these tests being carried out. Section 44 provides that the manufacturer or importer of tobacco products, after carrying out such tests on their products provided for in subsection (2) shall, within two weeks of obtaining the test results, submit a statement of these results to the agency in such a form and containing such information as the agency may specify. Section 45 provides that a person who contravenes a requirement under the section will be guilty of an offence.

This section significantly strengthens section 5 of the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Act, 1988, which had certain provisions on securing information but difficulties were experienced under that Act - the manufacturer or importer did not have to come up with information for all individual brands.

Section 41 provides that the agency may publish such information as it gets from the manufacturers and distributors. Sections 39 to 41 cover Deputy Mitchell's amendment. I would prefer the agency commenting on the nature of the information as opposed to asking the tobacco industry to tell us what is damaging to one's health. The approach we have taken in the Bill is to give the agency total powers to seek disclosure, get information from the tobacco companies and then release and publish it.

Is the Minister assuring me that the manufacturer or importer of a tobacco product shall make available to the OTC and to others the information I want made available? If we injure somebody and do so deliberately or recklessly we are guilty of a criminal offence. If we injure somebody's health wilfully or recklessly in such a way that it gives rise to bad health, the shortening of life or the bringing about of a painful death we are guilty of a criminal offence. In a real sense the tobacco companies are behaving in a criminal manner in this regard and their behaviour must be criminalised.

I seek to ensure that sufficient information will be made available in a consumer friendly way to the OTC, retailers and consumers to show that the tobacco companies act deliberately and wilfully in inducing addiction which in turn causes destruction or death. It is a matter of public record that the age of longevity in France is higher than here. Given the increase in the numbers of young women in France who smoke, it can be forecast that in 30 years the death rate among that group will have increased with the result that death rates in France could fall to Irish levels. It is clear that such a trend is the consequence of addiction to this product.

We must criminalise such activities. To be able to provide such a product without demonstrating the contents and to lure people to use them amounts to criminal behaviour and it is time it was classed as such, despite the grand gestures of sponsorship and contributions to European Union and university research which the tobacco companies make. Do those who run these companies realise the criminality of their activities? They will not unless we confront them with it.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Mitchell. Our approach meets the requirements about getting the information and disseminating it to the public. Section 47 gives significant powers to health board or agency enforcement officers to go into any trade, business or activity connected with the manufacture, processing, disposal, exportation, importation, distribution, sale, storage, packaging or labelling of tobacco products.

Will the Minister ask his officials to ensure that the issues I have raised are addressed?

I will do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 41.
Amendments Nos. 255 and 256 not moved.

I move amendment No. 257:

In page 26, lines 15 to 25, to delete subsections (3) to (5)".

Section 41 deals with the publication of certain information. Section 41(1) states: "The Agency may publish such information and such results of tests received under section 40 in such a manner as it considers appropriate." Subsection (2) states: "Where the Agency proposes to publish information or results of tests under subsection (1) it shall, not later than 21 days before so doing, notify the manufacturer or importer concerned, in writing, that is so proposes." The effect of the amendment would be to end the section at that point.

Section 41(3) states:

The High Court may, if of the opinion that the publication of information or the results of tests in accordance with subsection (1) would result in the disclosure of a secret manufacturing process, direct the Agency not to publish such information or results, upon application being made to the High Court in that behalf by the manufacturer or importer concerned.

Subsection (4) states: "An application referred to in subsection (3) may be brought not later than 7 days from the receipt of the notification under subsection (2)", while subsection (5) states: "The Agency shall comply with a direction under subsection (3)."

The Minister did not indicate if a large budget would be afforded to the Office of Tobacco Control. Tobacco companies have huge amounts of money at their disposal. They can afford to retain former EU Commissioners to advise them, recruit very powerful people to their boards and fund research, sponsorships and so on. They would be happy to spend millions of euro on appeals to the High and Supreme Courts. The Office of Tobacco Control would not be in a position to defend itself against that.

There is enough common and other law in place for those who are aggrieved by legislation to appeal to the High Court. However, where legislation seeks to strike a blow at the undesirable and secret activities of the tobacco companies we should not allow them to appeal to the courts over a protracted process that could take a number of years in their attempt to ensure they do not have to make public what they consider to be a secret manufacturing process. It becomes secretive when addictive ingredients are included in products and the tobacco companies do not want people to know about it. The companies can claim they do not want public disclosure to avoid their competitors knowing but that process could go on and on. In view of this, section 41 subsections (3), (4) and (5) should be deleted.

I am sympathetic to the Deputy's concerns. These subsections are included under legal advice. It is connected with the European Union directive on tobacco packaging, which we are currently transposing into Irish law. It relates to the minimum percentages on cigarette packets dealing with health warnings and so on. It also deals with other issues such as trade secrets.

Our legal advice is that if section 41(3) is not included the legislation may be vulnerable to legal challenge in that there may be an inconsistency with the EU directive. It would be better if the law on the EU directive was introduced as that would strengthen our position. On that basis I have inserted the subsection.

According to the executive summary the committee recently adopted, "the subcommittee heard that cigarettes could include genetically modified tobacco and reconstructed tobacco, that is, tobacco ash, within it, which produces more ammonia that in turn increases the amount of nicotine which is released during smoking, nicotine being more addictive than heroin or cocaine, perhaps not as damaging as quickly but certainly more addictive." What manufacturer would want to release that information? Tobacco companies would have teams of lawyers to claim that its release could create difficulties. They would have a team of lawyers to advise a person to claim. This is secret information known by our competitors and other people for whom it could provide difficulties. I have no doubt this was included in legal advice. We are not lawyers and are not meant to be lawyers. We are legislators and are not meant to be bound by lawyers. I recall an eminent lawyer, who was related to the Attorney General of the day, saying to me that the Taoiseach of the day used to thank that close relative for his information and advice but said the Government would take a decision irrespective of the information and advice and that if anybody did not like what was in the law they could challenge it in the courts. We should not anticipate the courts. We should not be bound by a lawyer's advice. If a lawyer wants to be a legislator, let that lawyer run for election.

This is bad legislation. We are giving these people an "out" before we start. They want to keep their information secret. It was by accident we heard of some of the contents. It was not their intention to tell us. They would not come before the committee, at its recent hearings, so that we could examine them on this subject - the secret contents of their product. The Minister proposes to include subsections (3), (4) and (5) of section 41. Under subsection (3) the Agency shall comply with a direction from the court if these people say the disclosure of its secret manufacturing process would result in some adverse affect for the company. If a company is of the opinion that by disclosure of such information it will suffer some trading disadvantage, without going through a trawl of all the laws, I have no doubt there is ample precedent under case and existing common law, even under the Constitution, to take a case to the High Court and let the High Court see whether the legislation stands up. I certainly would not give in to this, it is going much too far. I suggest we thank the lawyer who gave us that information and advice, invite him to run for election and become a legislator and then he can make the decision. I suggest the Minister delete those three subsections.

Does the Deputy want me to delete——

Please accept my apologies as I was not present for the full debate and I hope I do not repeat points that have been made. It is disturbing that there is, in effect, this protection for tobacco companies. Obviously anything they want to describe as "a secret manufacturing process" will become a secret manufacturing process. We do not know what is going into these cigarettes at present. If a test was carried out——

To be clear, that does not affect content. What we are looking at here is a secret manufacturing process. One cannot apply to the High Court and say "we do not want to allow the contents of our product--".

It relates to that.

It does not relate to that. I want to clarify it from the point of view of argument.

That is good to hear, otherwise it would be very worrying. It still is an unnecessary protection for tobacco companies. We have seen how they will take every opportunity to prevent information coming out and will go to extraordinary lengths not to co-operate in terms of people accessing information and finding out the contents, the purposes and the effects of their products. Even though they have known the effects of their products for many years, they have refused to give out information. We are not dealing with people who are used to being responsible and acting responsibly in terms of their production.

I am surprised subsection (5) is included in section 41. Surely if the High Court directs the Agency. The agency does not have to be included in the legislation. Subsection (5) provides that the Agency shall comply with a direction of the High Court. I cannot understand why that subsection is included.

The Minister referred to processes. The sub-committee heard in the evidence received that cigarettes could include genetically modified tobacco and not only that but reconstructed tobacco, tobacco ash, within it. Is reconstructed tobacco, tobacco ash, a process? I think the lawyers would have great fun in the courts with this. We are giving them an opportunity and presenting them with a section on which they can challenge this legislation. We need this information. This is the information which, when exposed, will demonstrate whether or not a crime was committed. That is why we must not prevent that type of information being made available.

The Deputy is correct in saying legislators take action but one has to take action in the light of information and advice provided. In the light of the arguments made I will have another look at this matter because it is not my objective to give anybody an "out" on this issue because the rest of the Bill is quite strong in terms of disclosure and much stronger than previous legislation. It is in tandem with the European directive. The legal advice here was to try to strike a balance which would be reasonable and would not be vulnerable to legal assault. That motivation led to the insertion of subsection (3). One can argue it both ways. In one sense one is facilitating a process, on the other hand, in terms of the overall balance, one is presenting a reasonable legal provision which is less subject to assault particularly in the context of the packaging directive which has not yet been transposed into Irish law. However, that directive has to be transposed into Irish law by September 2002. I will go back to the legal advice on this issue and rehearse the arguments and come back on Report Stage on the amendments.

I am happy enough with that but I will make a closing point. The Minister referred to an EU directive. These people are active at European Union level. I was Minister of State with responsibility for European Affairs in the last Government and I am aware of canvassing and the way these people operate. These are the people who constantly sponsor EU information booklets and research and so on. I would be nervous of any EU directive that is widely drawn. I ask the Minister to ensure the legislation meets the Irish concerns. We have to listen to the advice of lawyers and others, we do not have to accept it. Our judgment is what counts. If the Supreme Court finds that our judgment is wrong we can amend this legislation. I certainly do not want to start with legislation that gives the lawyers of these wealthy well-resourced companies an opportunity to have not one day out but——

I have no difficulty with the Deputy's sentiments. However, I would point out that having been at European Council of Ministers meetings on that directive which led to much argument, particularly on the nicotine content and levels in EU countries vis-à-vis non EU countries, we are mindful of the degree to which they are quite prepared to exploit European legislation. In Europe, unlike in Ireland, there is a much stronger countervailing force in the form of market forces and the Single Market and so on. The public health area does not have the same degree of competency as perhaps it should have in European affairs. We are trying to strike a balance to avoid being caught by them in the longer run. I take the Deputy's point and undertake to look it between now and Report Stage.

I shall resubmit this amendment for Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 258 and 259 not moved.
Section 41 agreed to.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43.

I move amendment No. 260:

In page 27, subsection (1), line 5, to delete "Subject to subsection (2), it” and substitute “It”.

The purpose of this amendment is to delete the introduction to section 43(1) which states: "Subject to subsection (2), it shall be an offence . . . ” The effect of my amendment would be to remove that qualification. It would then read: “It shall be an offence for a person to sell by retail, or cause a tobacco product to be sold by retail, by means of self service”. I raise this question in the context of what has happened recently. Subsection (2) states:

It shall be lawful for tobacco products to be sold by retail, in accordance with regulations made by the Minister, by means of a vending machine on licensed premises or the premises of a registered club by such persons, . . .

People under the age of 18 frequently go to these registered clubs and nightclubs. Equality law has gone mad with the kind assistance of the Equality Authority. Following its recent ruling, which is being disputed, the position is that children are permitted on licensed premises morning, noon and night.

I am glad this court decision is being appealed because it shows that lawyers can get it wrong. If the legal interpretation of the decision is correct, namely, that young people and children can be on licensed premises at any hour provided they are accompanied, why are vending machines allowed on these premises if they enable them to buy packets of cigarettes? I realise and appreciate that the publicans are among the people appealing this daft court decision and I support them. It would be easier to consider this kind of measure if we could be sure that only people over 18 years would be in licensed premises but, as things stand, I have concerns.

The members of a delegation to this committee made a presentation in which they expressed concerns about their livelihood. We have given considerable notice that this legislation is imminent. The Minister's regulations could, for example, require one to purchase a chit at the bar. Because one would not be able to buy cigarettes by inserting money in the machine, there would be some control. The recent court case places these matters at the forefront of our concerns, particularly given the objective of the tobacco companies which is to get young people addicted to their product at the earliest possible age.

That is the purpose of my amendment. Perhaps the Minister will be able to deal with the matter by regulation. Anyone, including young people, can put a coin in a vending machine. The Minister has stated he has been drafting regulations to deal with the matter. I want them to be tight and to contain no loopholes which would allow young people to acquire cigarettes by walking in and out of a public house.

Are we taking the amendments together?

No, just amendment No. 260.

At the time the Bill was being mooted a very simple issue was raised, namely, whether to ban the sale of cigarettes. This is one option. There are two main routes by which cigarettes are sold, via shops or vending machines. The key issue with regard to vending machines was young people's access. They are in the foyers of hotels, airport and train station terminals and, in some places, on the street. They proliferated in all sorts of public places which meant there was no real control over young people's access to cigarettes.

The idea behind the Bill was to try to remove this danger to young people by significantly reducing points at which they have access to vending machines. This approach raises issues of livelihood and fairness. The vending machine operators could possibly raise constitutional questions about shopkeepers being allowed to sell cigarettes while they may not. When we met the vending machine operators they made the point that 90% to 95% of all vending machines are in licensed premises. The issue became one of where and how one facilitates the sale of cigarettes on licensed premises. We then turned to the issue of placing machines adjacent to the bar and compelling people to get a token from the manager or person in charge.

Where is this in the Bill?

It would be introduced by regulation.

It is not in the Bill. My question was whether it will be introduced by regulation.

Yes. One would have to get the token from the bar owner before being able to purchase anything from the machine, which would have to be in sight of the owner and adjacent to or adherent to the bar. The regulation states that the machines will have a locking device and will be located beside, on or behind the bar counter under the direct supervision of staff. I found this a reasonable compromise.

We have not seen the regulations.

I take the Deputy's point.

If the regulation says that——

Many regulations will flow from this Bill.

The purpose of moving the amendment is that we need a regulation which requires a person to ask for a chit or token at the bar and leaves the barman open to prosecution if he gives one to an underage person.

That will be in the regulation. Despite the judgment of the Equality Commission, I do not envisage that bars will be flooded with children late at night. There is a large degree of hype about the matter which was raised again on radio this morning.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 261:

In page 27, subsection (1), line 6, after "sell" to insert "a tobacco product".

Amendment agreed to.

I wish to withdraw amendments Nos. 262, 264 to 266, inclusive, 270 and 271.

Why is the Minister withdrawing the amendments? Will he explain the change of heart?

Their effect would be to extend vending machines to shops and I will not pursue that approach.

Amendment No. 262 not moved.

I move amendment No. 263:

In page 27, lines 8 to 14, to delete subsection (2).

The purpose of the amendment is to deal once and for all with vending machines. The debate has shown that the point at issue is access to vending machines by young people and children. Promotion of cigarettes appears inconsistent with the principle that one should not buy cigarettes by means of self service. While I do not normally agree with Deputy Cooper-Flynn, she made a very strong argument during the meeting with the vending machine operators that the difficulty of controlling sales through vending machines is that they are not person to person transactions.

ASH recommends that they be banned altogether, a recommendation also contained in the interim report of the Oireachtas committee. This is another way of dealing with the matter. It does not mean banning cigarettes, but that one has to go to a shop rather than a vending machine to get cigarettes. I was going to raise the point about vending machines in shops but that has been covered. What is the big argument against simply removing vending machines from the equation and against saying "let us make some real changes here"? I would not have thought there was a huge number of jobs in the vending machine industry. Even if that is an argument, we are affecting jobs created by tobacco companies. Tobacco companies will not flourish and jobs will not be secure into the future. However, I think society would agree that the value of tackling this whole issue of tobacco addiction is so important that there will have to be redeployment of jobs anyway. It seems a sound argument in relation to vending machines. Why is the Minister so attached to maintaining vending machines?

I am not attached to it. I am trying to be fair here in terms of people's livelihoods. I did not want to wipe out people's livelihoods overnight.

Does the Minister mean the publicans?

No, the people who own vending machines, the people who sell cigarettes via vending machines. One could argue, if we are to be that zealous about it, that we should ban the sale of cigarettes from shops. If one wants to take this to its ultimate conclusion, we could completely ban the sale of cigarettes. Why control vending machines in the first place or why seek to eliminate them? The argument put forward originally to the industry and to people generally was that young people could access cigarettes via vending machines. Research in different locations around the country shows that under-age people access cigarettes both in shops and through vending machines, more through shops in some cases and more through vending machines in others. Our purpose is to prevent access among under-age people. People came forward with a formula that vending machines be confined to licensed premises, that they would not be located in places such as stations, public pathways etc. and that they would be activated by staff working in licensed premises - a further control measure, that they would be activated by a token and that they would be subject to inspection and so on. That seemed to be a fair formula. I did not want to wipe out some people's livelihoods overnight and not wipe out those of others.

Any measures which effect better control are welcome and I have no argument with that at all. If it was a case that within five or three years, vending machines would not——

On that point——

The people who make and own vending machines and who make a living out of them would have time to prepare and find alternative things to sell. That would at least deal with the argument. Why should the livelihoods of ordinary factory workers - the people working in Carrolls factory producing cigarettes, the supply of which we are all hell-bent on trying to reduce - be considered less important ? Arrangements are being made to ensure that people who have vending machines from which cigarettes are sold have a future. If this provision were phased in, it could make some sense.

It might be——

There is no logic otherwise.

I should have mentioned that the forthcoming EU directive on which we are currently working with other European countries and which is at a relatively preliminary stage, examines the issue of a possible outright ban on vending machines in two to three years' time. We have put the industry, or the people involved, on notice that this is a possibility. We did not give that much notice at the time of the publication of the Bill. It was only when the Bill was published that people came at us from different directions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 264 to 266, inclusive, not moved.

I move amendment No. 267:

In page 27, subsection (3)(c), line 24, after “paragraph (d)” to insert “and the European Communities (Requirements to Indicate Product Prices) Regulations 2001 (S.I. No. 422 of 2001)”.

This amendment adds a reference to new regulations concerning the indication of prices in retail outlets. People must display prices.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 268:

In page 27, subsection (3), lines 31 to 35, to delete paragraph (d) and substitute the following:

"(d) a sign is displayed at the premises concerned-

(i) in such a manner and form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister,

(ii) informing the public that tobacco products may be sold at those premises to persons who have attained the age of 18 years, and

(iii) providing such other information as may be so prescribed.".

This amendment simply adds the words "providing such other information as may be so prescribed". It is a provision relating to the display of a notice. The Office of Tobacco Control has submitted that we should consider adding its lo-call telephone number to the notice. The new provision would enable us to require this by ministerial regulation.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 269:

In page 27, subsection (3), between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

"(e) a person employed by him or her in connection with the business of selling tobacco products by retail shall not be under the age of 18 years.”.

This amendment provides that a person employed by a registered person in connection with the business of selling tobacco products shall not be under the age of 18 years. This can present practical difficulties and one gets to a stage where the inspector has to question the staff as well as the purchaser. It may create certain difficulties but I tabled the amendment for the purposes of discussion because it seems ridiculous in that if somebody under the age of 18 cannot buy cigarettes, somebody under the age of 18 should not be able to sell cigarettes. I know retailers often find it difficult to get or to keep staff. A lot of kids earn pocket money at weekends or in the evening working in shops but the point needs to be considered. I suppose it would be difficult to implement in every case but we need to give it some consideration. I will be interested to hear the Minister's thinking in relation to it.

I thought about long and hard about this amendment but I simply do not think it passes the practicality test in terms of enforcement. It is an issue for shopkeepers. In provincial and rural areas in a family owned local shop, a 14 year old might be sent down to the shop while someone goes for their tea. It may be a bit over the top and unreasonable to expect someone in that scenario to get somebody over 18 years of age to do that kind of work when all it may mean in some rural villages and locations is three or four people coming into the shop in the afternoon to buy milk, bread and other items. It is from that human, practical approach that I decided not to go with it.

Is there any way we could incorporate the sense of it into the regulations? I see the practical difficulties with it, but there is something wrong with a 12 or 13 year old selling cigarettes to somebody who is 16 or 17 years of age and breaking the law?

He or she could not sell to an underage person.

Suppose the person selling the cigarettes is as young as 12 years of age, are we to prosecute them and say they broke the law?

No, one would prosecute the owner.

If somebody of 17 years of age does not have the good sense not to buy cigarettes, what sort of sense do we expect somebody of 12 years of age to have not to sell them?

The owner must take all reasonable steps to ensure the law is applied and complied with and that means one does not sell to someone underage. Since we introduced the last health Bill, the number of shops which state in black and white that cigarettes cannot be sold to under 18s has increased. I have noticed a significant change and awareness among shop owners and shopkeepers in terms of the law.

If a 13, 14, 15 or 16 year old sells cigarettes to a person under 18 years of age, who will be prosecuted?

The registered owner of the shop.

The registered owner can be prosecuted. He or she will be responsible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 270 and 271 not moved.
Section 43, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 44.

I move amendment No. 272:

In page 28, lines 7 to 17, to delete subsections (2) and (3) and substitute the following:

"(2) In any proceedings for contravention of subsection (1) of this section it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove that the person in respect of whom the charge is brought produced to him or her evidence of age relating to that person or, if the defendant is charged with permitting another person to sell or deliver tobacco products contrary to subsection (1), to prove that evidence of age related to the person to whom the tobacco product was sold or delivered was produced by that person to that other person.”.

This amendment relates to section 44. My advice is that under sections 44(2) and 44(3), as they stand, retailers can say they took all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that the person to whom they sold the product was at least 18 years of age. It has been suggested that these two sections should be deleted and replaced with an amendment. In recent legislation dealing with the sale of alcohol products, such a defence was removed. These sections could be replaced by something similar to section 14(1)(b) of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2000, which states:

In any proceedings for a contravention of subsection (1) or (2) of the section, it shall be a defence for the defendant to prove that the person in respect of whom the charge is brought produced to him or her an age card relating to that person or, if the defendant is charged with permitting another person to sell or deliver intoxicating liquor contrary to either of those subsections, to prove that an age card relating to the person to whom the intoxicating liquor was sold or delivered was produced by that person to that other person.

I have tried to amend that by substituting "tobacco" for "intoxicating liquor". It is reasonable that there should be a defence, but there would be a consistency between this Bill and the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2000, if we provided similar wording in both as far as that defence is concerned. As it stands, it appears very wide to suggest that the retailer simply took all reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the person to whom he sold the product was at least 18 years of age. If that is good enough for retailers, why is it not good enough for publicans? We have been very specific in this section. We inserted such a section in the Intoxicating Liquor Act and this would be a very similar section in terms of tobacco.

Would that entail an ID scheme for cigarettes separate to the one that operates under the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?

Just as it is in the pubs, it would be a defence to say that a person produced an age card or evidence to suggest his or her name and that he or she was 18 years of age. There is no statutory ID card in existence at present. Yet, this applies under the Intoxicating Liquor Act.

Retailers should have a defence but that defence should be more substantial than the forming of an opinion. They should have to meet some test. That test seems to have been set by the Intoxicating Liquor Act, where the words I am using here were used. It is a tighter formulation, yet it gives a retailer a reasonable defence.

I will examine the matter again. As far back as 1988, it was ordained that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform may, by regulation, provide for the issue of an age card to those who have already attained 18 years of age and are therefore legally entitled to purchase or consume alcohol on a licensed premises. However, for a variety of reasons, no Government chose to introduce any regulations in that regard until 1999. One regulation introduced related to the national voluntary age card scheme. The idea of the national voluntary age card scheme was introduced under the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

This measure, if introduced in the context of this Bill, might necessitate a separate national age card scheme. It would be ridiculous to have another Government Department going down the same route. We are saying the current scheme could be used. If, for example, a person has an ID card identifying the fact that he is aged 18, it can be used as a defence by the shopkeeper if it or any other card was presented to the shopkeeper, proving the person was aged 18. If the shopkeeper accepts that bona fide, that is a reasonable defence. That is not excluded at all by the Bill.

There will be stronger regulation of the tobacco industry and retailers under this Bill. It provides for increased penalties and a firm commitment to enforcement resources in terms of the Office of Tobacco Control and the health boards. Given that, we feel the enforcement measures and penalties are strong enough to ensure compliance. I will look at the issue again in the context of the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. I do not want to set up an alternative age card scheme.

I varied the words. I did not use the age card wording. I used the words "produced to him or her evidence of age". I have teenage children and they tell me that they are regularly asked for ID when they go to places. They and their friends, as a matter of routine, carry with them some sort of ID or else they do not expect to be admitted to a premises. I did not put in the exact wording, although it is almost the same. I substituted "evidence of age" for "age card" because that age card is part of a scheme sponsored by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is not a statutory scheme so it could easily apply here.

It is too loose to have a defence which says: "I took all reasonable steps to satisfy myself that the person to whom I sold the product was at least 18 years of age." Is it reasonable for a retailer to ask a person his age, be told "I am 18" and then sell a packet of cigarettes? Publicans do not get away with that any longer. They have to ask for an age card.

We will look at it for Report Stage.

I want to resubmit the amendment on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 44 agreed to.
Section 45 agreed to.
SECTION 46.

Amendments Nos. 273 to 279, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 275 and 277 are alternatives to amendment No. 276 while amendment No. 284 is consequential on amendment No. 276. Amendments Nos. 273 to 279, inclusive, and amendment No. 284 may be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 273:

In page 28, lines 42 to 48, and in page 29, lines 1 to 16, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:

"(1) It shall be an offence to smoke tobacco products in any public place save for such limited cases as may be provided by regulations made by the Minister, who may also prohibit by regulation the smoking of tobacco products in such other places as may be prescribed.".

Do Deputies want a 15 minute break or to continue?

Perhaps we could take a five minute break when we get through this section.

That is fine.

This amendment sets out the approach that should be taken as opposed to the rather vague approach set out by the Minister. In section 46, the Minister "may, by regulations, prohibit or restrict the smoking of tobacco products" and there is a lengthy list of areas and buildings where smoking may be regulated or prohibited. Many of these places already have bans on smoking so it seems superfluous to include them. There are now proposals to refer to licensed premises but it was certainly noticeable and indicative of the lack of force behind this particular provision that licensed premises were not even mentioned.

It is interesting to note that no concerns have been expressed by publicans. They are more concerned about other issues at the moment, such as individuals accessing services in their pubs, than they are about any perceived danger under this Bill that smoking might be curtailed in their pubs. They are right not to be worried because there appears to be no serious commitment to deal with smoking in places of entertainment - pubs, indoor sporting facilities, etc. The workplace is another area of much concern.

I do not need to elaborate on the issue of passive smoking. Everybody understands the dangers. The approach proposed in the Bill is an enabling provision. There is no commitment whatsoever. The Minister may, at any stage, bring in legislation to address the issue of smoking in pubs or, according to this Bill, he may bring in regulations to do it. It does not mean much when one considers that it does not say there is any onus on the Minister to do so at all in any timeframe. It only suggests it may happen.

The approach in my amendment is very different. It sets the baseline that it will be an offence to smoke tobacco products in any public place, except where it is permitted by regulations. The amendment provides that it will be an offence to create the problem of passive smoking, which affects the health of others, and that exceptions will only be made by regulation by the Minister for Health and Children where he is satisfied that it is justified. That is not to say that smoking in public houses will automatically be banned, but it sets out a baseline that says we recognise that it is a real health issue and that, where exceptions are made, they must be made in a proactive way rather than the other way around.

My amendment seeks to achieve the same objective, but I am concerned about licensed premises in particular. I am disturbed - this was one of the criticisms I made on Second Stage - that the Minister lists a number of places in this section, including buses, theatres, cinemas, schools, etc., but did not refer to the specific place where the problem of passive smoking arises, namely, public houses. Smoking is already banned in many of the other premises mentioned. I do not want to ban somebody from smoking a cigarette while enjoying a pint, if they consider that enjoyment, because I understand the addictive nature of smoking, but I do not want to smoke their cigarette. I consciously took a decision a long time ago not to smoke cigarettes. I did not smoke many, but I enjoyed a cigarette with a drink. Now, with the zeal of the convert, I look at other people smoking and say, "My God, I used to do that". I consciously decided not to smoke because I am aware of the dangers, and neither I nor any other citizen who does not want to smoke should be subject to somebody else's smoke. Anybody who occasionally visits a public house will know that the stench from one's clothes the following morning is appalling because of the extent of the carcinogenic fumes that are circulating in pubs.

The statistics supplied in evidence to this committee suggest that 7,000 people die annually in Ireland from smoking related illnesses. The evidence was that half of all the patients admitted to St. James's Hospital in Dublin were suffering from smoking related illnesses such as strokes, high blood pressure, lung disease, etc. There is an even more alarming aspect to this problem, however, about which people do not know and if they did, they would wonder if it really was the case. The reality is that based on research in the United States, passive smoking probably contributes to approximately 900, or about 12% or13%, of all deaths from cancer each year. Those deaths are the result of inhaling smoke from other people who have been deliberately addicted to smoking by design of the manufacturers of the product. That is extraordinary. We decided that people should be able to go to a cinema without having to watch the film through the haze of somebody else's smoke and that smoking upstairs on buses should be banned, although I understand people try to ignore that rule, but one cannot go to a pub without being subjected to this sort of danger.

I welcome the Minister's amendment which goes some way towards meeting my concerns. When I pressed the Minister on this issue he talked about general powers, but I cannot understand the reason it was not spelled out in the original Bill. My amendment would include, after aircraft, trains, public service vehicles or vehicles used for the carriage of members of the public or for reward, etc., licensed premises in respect of which a licence for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquor has been granted under the licensing Acts. The Bill currently states that the Minister may, by regulations, prohibit or restrict the smoking of cigarettes, but we could include that section and still restrict smoking to some part of the pub. Also, in addition to the preamble under section 46(1) where the Minister, by regulation, may prohibit or restrict the smoking of tobacco products in certain areas, the Minister goes on to refer to "all or part of a licensed premises, registered club or place of work". He appears to be throwing away both the belt and braces in that respect. If he were to just use the words "prohibit or restrict" and put in "licensed premises", the restriction could then be to a part of the premises.

I welcome this measure as a step forward, but it needs to be accompanied not just by regulations but by a requirement that public houses are adequately serviced by proper ventilation systems and by systems that remove the offending smoke from the sections of the pub the Minister intends to exempt, for whatever length of time he intends to do that. Some proactive action must be taken in this regard. I am aware that publicans are a strong lobby group. I raise this issue often and publicans tell me I am very hard on them, but we have to deal with this issue. I am prepared to go along with the Minister's proposal, withdraw my amendment and allow his to stand, but I want regulations, and I want the Office of Tobacco Control to be able to enforce them, that require publicans to invest some of the vast profits they make in proper systems of ventilation and prevention. The Minister may say that would be very expensive for a pub in a rural area which has only one or two customers, but if there are only one or two customers in a pub one will not be subjected to the same degree of smoke. We can make some distinction where pubs are well populated. This issue needs to be tackled effectively.

The Minister appeared to have considerable work done on regulations in another section, but could he tell us about the regulations he is preparing under this section? What is the change involved? What will come out of this and how long will it take?

I will deal with that question, but I want to address the amendment.

Is amendment No. 277 being taken with this amendment because if it is, I might move it before the Minister——

We are taking amendments Nos. 274 to 279.

In amendment No. 277 I propose including all indoor work places - perhaps the Minister's "place of work" deals with that - and a place normally used for outdoor public entertainment. Will the Minister give consideration to that provision?

My position has been consistent and straightforward. The Bill gives enabling powers to me, as Minister, and any Minister in the future. Everybody here knows that primary legislation gives enabling powers to Ministers and the enabling power here in terms of controlling environmental tobacco smoking is very strong. It enables the Minister of the day to restrict smoking in public places and premises almost anywhere. That is the reason we included "all or part of any other premises or place". The Minister is being given power to literally ban or prohibit smoking wherever he or she wishes in the future.

That was put in because we chased the Minister on the issue on Second Stage.

No. That is in the original Bill. It has been included from the outset.

It referred to colleges and schools. It did not refer to pubs.

My understanding is that when the Bill was being drafted, all the provisions of section 2 of the Tobacco (Health Promotion and Protection) Act, 1988, and the regulations that flowed from that were transposed into this section in terms of naming the places and so on. Hence, aircraft, health premises, etc. were named. Deputy McManus's amendment proposes to get around this issue by imposing a ban and leaving it to the Minister to decide on what should be excluded. That would create chaos in terms of——

He might have to exclude Cork, for example.

No. Legislation like this has to be enacted in a proper, structured way. We are examining the possibility of banning cigarette smoking on all forms of public transport. One can smoke in certain carriages on mainline and secondary railways, for example. I intend to propose that there will not be smoking carriages in the future. Similar provisions will be made for all places where people congregate, such as airport terminals, train stations, health premises and hospitals. We may have to consider the position in relation to certain long-stay residential homes.

Smoking is prohibited in cinemas and theatres.

The Deputy should allow me to finish.

Is the Minister saying that there will be no place in hospitals where smoking will be allowed?

We will have to allow authorities to have a separate room or other facility, which is where regulations come in. Many complications and issues arise almost overnight, which is why we need this enabling Bill to give the Minister the power to bring in regulations. The workplace is as important as the pub, as people spend more time in the workplace than elsewhere. Regulations have to make provision for employers to provide a shed or other outside facility for smokers, well away from the workplace. Smoking cannot be allowed on factory floors or in areas where people do their normal work. Deputy Gay Mitchell said in a previous debate that we have the option of prohibiting smoking in all pubs overnight. We need to examine whether such a regulation could be enforced and we need to ascertain the level of public support it would receive.

I discussed this issue with a number of people from Boston and other areas at a World Health Organisation conference before Christmas. They thought this Bill was far-reaching and way ahead of many other WHO countries. The point was made that, in tandem with legislation, the public must be won over as that guarantees compliance. Legislation can be used to lead the public. My initial view on pubs is that we phase in anti-smoking measures rather than trying to eliminate smoking from them overnight. A clear timeframe must be specified within which smoking will be prohibited in pubs. The strategy will begin by declaring certain areas of pubs as smoke free, so that Deputy Mitchell can enjoy his pint without having to suffer from the smoke of another. The bar areas of pubs should be free from smoke to protect employees, who are vulnerable to the damage caused by smoke. I am interested in introducing regulations to deal with such areas.

When does the Minister expect to publish the regulations?

As soon as possible after this Bill has been passed.

Will it be within weeks?

The Deputy is really asking whether it will be before the general election

No, I did not say that, although now that the Minister has mentioned it——

They will be published within weeks of the completion of this Bill. A great deal of drafting is needed.

This is an area of acute concern, yet it was not mentioned in the primary legislation. The Minister did not deal with the matter until he was pressed and harassed by the Opposition into doing so.

I wanted to neutralise what was a spurious argument as in essence the Bill covers everything. If I decide to ban smoking in every public area and every workplace, would the farmyard be included as a workplace? All sorts of implications would arise from such a decision. It is not the proper way to do business.

Section 46(1) of the Bill states that "the Minister may, by regulations, prohibit or restrict the smoking of tobacco products" in a list of places. The Minister does not have to prohibit as he is entitled to restrict.

I accept that, but that is why I think regulations are the best way in which to proceed.

That is the reason the Minister should have mentioned pubs from the beginning, rather than waiting until the Opposition pressurised him.

The Deputy is making a song and dance over a minor matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 274:

In page 28, subsection (1)(a), line 44, after “train,” to insert “ship or other vessel,”.

This amendment has been included as a result of an incident when a man on a ferry to the Aran Islands almost choked. I would like to include the words "ship or other vessel" in light of the gentleman's experience.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 275 not moved.

I move amendment No. 276:

In page 29, subsection (1), between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(g) all or part of a licensed premises, registered club, or place of work, or”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 277 cannot be moved.

What is wrong with paragraph (h) in amendment No. 277?

It is covered by paragraph (f). The point I have been trying to make is that we could have a very long list if we wished. Perhaps we should not have listed anything in the first place.

Perhaps that would have been better than to omit pubs from the list.

We could keep adding to the list all day.

Amendment No. 277 not moved.

I move amendment No. 278:

In page 29, subsection (1), line 15, before "of" to insert "generally or".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 279:

In page 29, subsection (1), line 15, to delete "Regulations" and substitute "regulations".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 280:

In page 29, subsection (2), line 19, after "shall" to insert "notwithstanding section 8”.

Amendment agreed to.

As amendment No. 282 is an alternative to amendment No. 281, they may be taken together.

I move amendment No. 281:

In page 29, subsection (5), lines 28 and 29, to delete "took all reasonable steps to ensure that there had been" and substitute "made all reasonable efforts to ensure".

This is a standard legal provision.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 282 not moved.

I move amendment No. 283:

In page 29, subsection (6), line 36, to delete "1996" and substitute "2001".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 284:

In page 29, subsection (6), between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

" 'licensed premises' has the same meaning as it has in the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988;

'place of work' has the same meaning as it has in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989;

'registered club' has the same meaning as it has in the Registration of Clubs Acts 1904 to 2000;".

There may be some drafting changes on Report Stage arising from this amendment, which relates to the definitions of licensed premises, place of work and registered club. The changes will relate to location and sequencing.

Is this Bill something of a work in progress?

Amendment agreed to.
Section 46, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 47

Do Deputies want a five minute break now?

We will keep going.

We should continue.

As Amendments Nos. 287, 288, 290 and 291 are alternatives to amendment No. 285 and amendments Nos. 289 and 292 are cognate, amendments Nos. 285 and 287 to 292, inclusive, may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 285:

In page 29, lines 40 to 42, and in page 30, lines 1 to 4, to delete subsections (1) and (2) and substitute the following:

"(1)(a) The OTC shall enforce the provisions of this Act.

(b) Each health board shall enforce the provisions of this Act in the functional area of that health board and shall comply with all reasonable directions from the OTC in enforcing this Act.

(2)(a) The chief executive of the OTC shall appoint one or more persons to be an authorised officer or authorised officers for the purposes of this Act.

(b) The chief executive officer of a health board shall, in relation to the functional area of that health board, appoint one or more persons to be an authorised officer or authorised officers for the purposes of this Act.”.

This amendment requires the Office of Tobacco Control to enforce the provisions of the Act. Each health board shall enforce the provisions of the Act in the functional area of the health board and shall comply with all reasonable directions from the OTC, which seems reasonable. The amendment also means that the chief executive of the OTC shall appoint one or more persons as an authorised officer, which is a reasonable power for the chief executive to have. If accepted, the chief executive of the health board shall also make a similar appointment. This would identify persons required to carry out the functions of the OTC and the health boards.

The Health Acts set out the primary obligations of the health boards. My legal advice is that I should not accept this amendment. The Bill provides for dual enforcement by the Tobacco Control Agency and the health boards, and to provide a statutory obligation on the health boards might be interpreted as trying to enforce the exclusion of the agency. Sections 10(1)(h) and 10(1)(j) charge the agency with implementing a plan for the co-ordination nationally of its activities and those of the health boards and for the co-ordination and implementation of a programme for the inspection of all premises. It could also create legal consequences for health boards which would not be in the interests of administration. Amendments Nos. 287 and 288 deal with the issues raised in section 2(a) and 2(b) of the Deputy’s amendment. Amendment No. 287 proposes to delete “may” and substitute “shall” in page 29 and amendment No. 288 proposes to delete “may appoint” and substitute “shall appoint such” in page 29. We are dealing with these two areas.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 286 and 287 not moved.

I move amendment No. 288:

In page 29, subsection (1), line 40, to delete "may appoint" and substitute "shall appoint such".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 289:

In page 29, subsection (1), line 41, after "persons" to insert ", as he or she considers appropriate,".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 290:

In page 30, subsection (2), line 1, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 291:

In page 30, subsection (2), line 2, after "appoint" to insert "such".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 292:

In page 30, subsection (2), line 3, after "persons" to insert ", as he or she considers appropriate,".

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 293 not moved.

I move amendment No. 294:

In page 32, subsection (9), line 17, after "he" to insert "or she".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 47, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 295 to 298, inclusive, not moved.
Section 48 agreed to.
Section 49 agreed to.
SECTION 50.

I move amendment No. 299:

In page 33, subsection (1), line 36, to delete "instrument in writing" and substitute "notice in writing published in Iris Oifigiúil".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 300 not moved.

I move amendment No. 301:

In page 34, subsection (3)(a), line 7, before “the” where it secondly occurs to insert “to”.

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 302 not moved.

I move amendment No. 303:

In page 34, subsection (3)(b), line 8, after “caused” to insert “to”.

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 304:

In page 34, subsection (3)(b), line 10, after “board,” to insert “to”.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 50, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 51.

I move amendment No. 305:

In page 34, subsection (1), line 23, to delete "matter" and substitute "matters".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 306:

In page 34, subsection (2), line 27, to delete "following" and substitute "following,".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 51, as amended, agreed to.
Section 52 agreed to.
NEW SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 307:

In page 35, after line 28, to insert the following Schedule:

"SCHEDULE

Enactment amendedWords to be inserted(1)(2)Poisons Regulations 1982 (No. 188 of 1982) (as amended):

Part II of the Third Schedule second column

All nicotine replacement products for therapeutic use which are supplied in compliance with the requirements of the Medicinal Products (Prescription and Control of Supply) Regulations 1996 (No. 256 of 1996) and its Schedules

I have been advised that the addition of this Schedule would strengthen the provisions of the Bill. This is a technical amendment and I would like to hear the Minister's reaction.

I am well aware of this issue. The Poisons Regulations, 1982, can be amended to achieve the Deputy's objective without the need to include this Schedule in the Bill. I am considering such a course of action.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending and the Opposition spokespersons for their co-operation on Committee Stage.

Top
Share