Mr. Philip Kelly:

One does not have to go far overseas to see that. One only has to look around the European Union, whether it is to do with plain packaging or something else, to see there is a diversity of views. However, to refer to this deal, the agreement sets out the European Union and member states' right to regulate in the public interest and specifically talks about doing that with regard to the promotion of public health, social services, public education, safety, environment, public morals, social or consumer protection, privacy and data protection, and cultural diversity. That is in the joint interpretative declaration which, as the Senator knows, has the same status as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, under the Vienna Convention. The treaty states that the Government has a right to regulate in the public interest but there is always a debate internationally about what is the public interest. In the past, we and the Senator have fought that fight both at the World Trade Organization, WTO, and elsewhere where people tried to challenge issues like plain packaging. It is important that that is seen to be in the public interest and that there is an evidence base for those actions. As far as I am concerned, however, both in the text of the agreement and in the joint interpretation that Canada and the European Union have put as an integral part of the agreement, they restate for the avoidance of doubt the state's right to regulate in the interest of the public and, in particular, public health. I do not see scope for that issue to be unravelled as it stands in Ireland.