Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

I do not believe we are very far from each other in this regard because section 3 contains a definition of consumption which already explicitly includes orally, injecting and inhaling. I am unsure how an addition elsewhere would add to what we have in place already. My advice is that the amendment is unnecessary.

I refer to the issue raised by Deputy Shatter concerning the closure order. I noted the remarks of Deputy Kenny on the Order of Business. We examined closely what the Deputy suggested with regard to the closure order. Indeed, we examined the matter before we published the Bill. However, the strong advice of the Attorney General is that we must ensure we are compliant with matters of constitutionality related to interfering with someone's right to trade. Therefore, the calibrated procedure of prohibition notice, prohibition order and, ultimately, a closure order is preferable. In the interests of proportionality, due process and fair procedure, the strong advice from the Attorney General is that were we to proceed other than as suggested in the Bill the civil procedure could be open to challenge. While I am inclined to agree with the procedure, I have been obliged to take the advice provided the Attorney General not only before the Bill was drafted but subsequently. This is a point on which there was some discussion. Obviously, we wish to have them closed down quickly. I do not suggest they would not be closed down quickly otherwise. I refer to the procedure of serving a prohibition notice, specifying a period, which could be a relatively short time, and going to court to get a prohibition order. Any subsequent breach of that order and the possibility of a closure order is a matter for the court. We believe this procedure and the way in which it is set out and calibrated in this way does not breach the constitutional rights of those involved and is as speedy as possible.

See this speech in context