Mr. Ken Murphy:

I will make a point for illustration purposes. I would not like it to be misinterpreted as something I am proposing. The most severe measure the Oireachtas could take with regard to tobacco would be to ban it completely. The reality is that this is a legal product, even if it does have terrible health consequences. Balances are struck by the Oireachtas in terms of what is possible. Of course it has to be subject to what is legally possible. Ireland has very strong property rights in the Constitution. They have not been tested in the context of a measure like that proposed in this instance. I am not seeking to predict the outcome of it when I say it is certainly a concern. I was taken by Deputy Kelleher's strong support for the maintenance of intellectual property rights. I assure the committee that I am being jocose when I say that purely from the self-interest of the legal profession, we would be encouraging the Oireachtas to enact this legislation. The amount of litigation work that would be made in courts everywhere would be enormous.

I would like to return to the Chairman's question about the invitation that was made to the society with regard to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill. As we said in our original submission, the Law Society has made approximately 20 submissions on legislation over recent years. We do this all the time across a huge range of areas. In addition, we get individual requests from Government Departments and we make submissions to them. We get letters from Ministers looking for our views. Generally speaking, our views are welcome and largely uncontroversial. It is pretty unique for views expressed by a Law Society committee to be as controversial as these views have been. They were not intended to be controversial. Last year's Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill related to an area that is notoriously controversial and very divisive. The society took the view that it could not take a public position on the matter in the absence of an internal debate within the profession, which would probably have been extremely divisive. We had no mandate to take a position one way or another on the underlying issues in that legislation, which are deeply polarising. That was unique, in my experience, because it was the first time the society declined to make a submission when invited to do so. As far as I can recall, it was the only time this happened. It is a unique issue, in many respects. One might not agree with the view we took on the matter at the time.